Yogurt: A Barrier to Women's Success - Raritan Valley Community ...

2CommitteesThis magazine would not exist if not for the hard work and dedication of our studentcommittees, who worked tirelessly to assemble and streamline this wonderful compendium ofessays.Front Matter CommitteeBryan PicadoJimmy PittaroIntroduction CommitteeJoey AdrianoBen KaneFormatting CommitteeJill CarmanKatie GabinelliOscar LizarzaburuCopyediting CommitteeJess AndersonAnthony DeVergilloMichael LindAlex ManahanDan MercadoRobert Santiago

3IntroductionHow do you write a memorable work? By grabbing the reader and not letting go, runningoff controversy and composing an argument that is nothing but bulletproof. We were taughtwriting skills and techniques to help create solid arguments that would be hard to refute. Welearned to transition more smoothly into our next main point. Utilizing this technique our papersbecame more smooth and coherent for readers, but that wasn’t the only improvement we made.Professor Bondhus taught us the value of stealing someone else’s thunder, the ability to takepower from the naysayer’s argument and turn it against them. Some people may say that puttingsomeone else’s argument into your paper can only leave it weak, but much like impurities iniron, it only makes our works stronger. You cannot always agree with someone else’s opinion100% of the time; everybody has their own way of looking at something. For example, you maynot agree with some of the opinions expressed in our magazine but you may see some things thatyou like.This magazine is a culmination of our hard work throughout this first, experimentalsemester of the Honors College at RVCC. It is a compendium of our best and favorite workspresented for you, the reader to enjoy. The works presented within the confines of these pagesrelate a scholarly work to current hot button topics ranging from current pop culture icons, towhite collar crimes, and all the way into biotechnologies and their applications in real lifesituations. There also are research papers that delve into the impact of certain prospects oneveryday life. Here they are for your enjoyment, a gathering of our very best works for you toread. So without further ado here’s the Honors College’s The Power of Pop Culture Magazine.Joey AdrianoBen Kane

4Table of Contents“Yogurt: A Barrier to Women’s Success” by Rosemary Saal Page 5“Everything In It’s Right Place” by Robert Santiago Page 10“Who’s Responsible: Are Humans Responsiblefor Global Warming?” by Bryan Picado Page 18“Women in the Workplace” by Katie Gabinelli Page 23“Society’s Antipathy to Unrestrained Capitalism, Demonstratedby a Pink Floyd Song and a Robert Reich Essay” by Michael Lind Page 27“Toddler Terrors” by Alexandria Manahan Page 32“No Ma’am, I’m Not Sexist” by Anthony DeVergillo Page 37“Biotechnology in the Media” by Joseph Adriano Page 43“Barriers to Women’s success at The Office” by Oscar Lizarzaburu Page 49“On Capitalism” by Daniel Mercado Page 55“Women’s Success: Is it Nature or Nurture?” By Jill Carman Page 62“The Construction of Pop Culture’s Labyrinth:Home Improvement” by Jessica Anderson Page 68‘Beta Blockers and the Need for Access to them forVictims of Violent Crimes” by Ben Kane Page 73“Minority Struggles In Education” by Jimmy Pittaro Page 79

5Yogurt: A Barrier to Women’s SuccessRosemary SaalYogurt is the food of women. Not convinced? Just watch popularYouTube video Target Women: Yogurt and comedian Sarah Haskins willbreak it down for you. Although the video does not specifically elaborate onyogurt in relation to women’s role in the corporate world, it can still berelated to the essay “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership” by Alice H.Eagley and Linda L. Carli, found in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on SocialIssues, edited by Kurt Finsterbusch. In her video, Haskins criticizes manyyogurt commercials in a satirical manner, mocking the ways in which theyappeal to women. Her analysis of yogurt commercials illustrates howseemingly insignificant advertisements perpetuate notions of women’sinequality to men and lack of professional ambition. This supports the pointsmade in Eagley and Carli’s essay that women face many social obstacleswhen trying to achieve their goals and even though women have made greatprogress in the corporate world, there is still a gap between the overallsuccess of women and men.In their essay, “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership”, Alice H.Eagley and Linda L. Carli discuss the disparity between men’s and women’ssuccess. They believe that the previously accepted view of the “glass ceiling”holding women back from success is an inaccurate analogy (153). Instead,they believe the labyrinth is a more accurate term because it implies thatthere are many obstacles, or barriers, between women and professionalsuccess along the way rather than just one that appears at a certain point(154). They describe the lack of women in higher up positions, the differentways in which women and men are viewed in terms of leadership, and otherobstacles women face.

6Once such obstacle is the way in which women are depicted indifferent advertisements. Sarah Haskins, a comedian for the online newsnetwork Current, is the star of a series of videos called Target Women. Oneof these videos, called Target Women: Yogurt, mocks how ridiculous yogurtads make women seem. Haskins’ video opens with the image of her standingwith an armful of yogurt. “Why am I holding this yogurt?” she asks,“Because I’m a woman, and yogurt is the official food of women” (Haskins).With this statement comes a complete exclusion of men. This highlights aclear divide between men and women. In yogurt commercials, men areeither absent entirely or represented as completely clueless. In the featuredclip from a Yoplait commercial, a woman stands telling a friend of the manydesserts she always keeps in the house while her husband overhears andfrantically searches the fridge to find them. Looking past the neatly alignedflavors of Yoplait right in from of him, he continues searching for what hethinks is hidden in the fridge. Not only does this husband not understand theflavors of yogurt, but this represents a much larger disparity as well.Similar to how women are clearly ahead when it comes to yogurt, menare clearly ahead in the corporate world. Although much progress has beenmade and women continue to advance professionally, they still only earn “81cents for every dollar that men” earn (Eagley & Carli 154). Men and womenalso have different expectations in the workplace. Women in general areexpected to be warm and understanding, yet these traits are not associatedwith effective leadership. However, if they display more aggressive qualities,then they face the judgment of not being compassionate enough (Eagley &Carli 156). Men, however, do not face this “double bind”. As Eagley and Carliexplain, “men can communicate in a warm or dominant manner, with nopenalty either way,” whereas women cannot (156). As a result of this unfairdifference in the way leadership skills are viewed depending on gender,“men as a group still have the benefit of higher wages and faster

7promotions” (154). If all else fails, at least women have yogurt to fall backon.While warm and caring qualities can have a negative effect for womenin the workplace, they have a wonderful effect in yogurt commercials. AsEagley and Carli explain, “women are associated with communal qualities”(156). These “communal qualities”, which include being “affectionate,helpful, friendly, kind, and sympathetic” are all displayed in yogurt ads(156). Haskins explains, “just turn on your TV. Day and night…there’s gonnabe some ladies just chillin’ out, eating yogurt, and appealing to our innerwoman to get us to do it too,” (Haskins). After this comment, the video cutsto a clip from another Yoplait commercial in which two women compare theirlove for yogurt to different activities and concepts that are meant to appealto women. The conversation between these two women consists ofcomments such as “’This is private island good’, ‘No, this is shoe shoppinggood’” and so forth (Haskins). Haskins then appears on the screen andcomments, “say more stuff I generically relate to, then go to a wedding!”(Haskins). Suddenly, the two women from before are in bridesmaidsdresses, again comparing yogurt to desires typically geared towards women.Not only do these ads reinforce the gap between women and men bycompletely excluding males, but it also makes women seem materialistic andlacking of real depth. Sure, women are more empowered when it comes toyogurt. However, this empowerment concerns an incredibly trivial matter.Haskins comments on this after the wedding clip plays by saying, “this is‘who serves yogurt at their wedding?’ good. It’s substitute for humanexperience good. It’s being first woman president good,” (Haskins). Bysaying this, Haskins is mocking the fact that yogurt ads do not put muchweight on women’s success in business or achieving substantial goals; it’s allabout shoe shopping and spa treatments.

8In addition to mocking how yogurt commercials depict women as beingoverly simplistic, Haskin’s comment also supports the data that Eagley andCarli found showing how few women are in higher up positions. Of thehighest paid executives of Fortune 500 companies, “only 6% are women”(153). Also, “only 2% of the CEOs are women and only 15% of the seats onthe boards of directors are held by women” (153). Instead of showingwomen enjoying yogurt while on the rise in their career or encouraging themto reach ambitious goals, some yogurt ads go so far as to show womendancing; just dancing. This would be the advertising genius of YoPlus, “thefunnest yogurt ever” (Haskins). Not only does this not help or encouragewomen to pursue successful careers, but it throws such ideas out thewindow. Such images make it hard for women to be taken seriously. Docommercials geared towards men ever depict them dancing at home, atwork, or even in the streets at just the thought of the product beingadvertised? I have not seen every commercial known to man, so “never”would not be a fair answer, but it’s safe to say that such ads are rare.In conclusion, yogurt commercials pose as a barrier to women’ssuccess. They present a clear divide between women and men by the factthat they are so gender specific and barely deal with men at all. Also, byshowing women as being airheaded and materialistic, these commercials addto the already existing challenges women face in the corporate world. Couldit be that these seemingly harmless ads are having a subconscious effect onwomen, keeping them from pursuing such higher up careers like being aCEO or holding a seat on the board of directors? That is most definitely apossibility. However, what is clear is that these ads are just a single turn inthe labyrinth that so many women travel to reach success.

9Works CitedCarli, Linda L. and Eagley, Alice H. “Women and the Labyrinth ofLeadership.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16 thEdition, Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 153-161.Haskins, Sarah. “Target Women” Yogurt.” Tigpoppa. YouTube, 2 June 2008.Web. 26 October 2011

10Everything In It’s Right PlaceRobert SantiagoNearly 12 short years ago, Dolly the sheep, the first mammal clonedby means of nuclear transfer, gave the world its first taste of the sheerbiotechnological power humans currently hold in their grasp. Yet, as stated,this immense event in human progression is running on 12 years past, andtoday humanity is on the horizon of a possibly even more daunting power:human engineering. The now feasible realization of this amazing andfrightening ability to actually dictate and enhance the genetic makeup ofhuman beings is causing a disquieting polarization of public opinion.Humanity hasn’t seen the dawn of such a powerful scientific implementationsince the creation of nuclear weaponry, and nothing in the course of humanhistory has merited such ethical uncertainty. The truth is the public doesn’tknow what to think about the reality of this impending capability, and aremainly resorting to gut feelings and the word of the most prominent ethicaltheorists to compose the climate of the tempestuous zeitgeist regarding thesubject.Such is the job of Michael J. Sandel, a political science professor andformer member of the President’s Council on Bioethics, who has insightfullyproclaimed his rightful fears of the usage of said technology in his article“The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering.”Looking to the possible future implications of this science, Sandel points outthe effects it could have on all aspects of our civilization, from the managingof individual placement in society down to the distortion of the very essenceof our humanity. Sharing these concerns is the British alternative rock bandRadiohead, who are outspoken political activists in their own right and havemanaged to consistently proclaim their respective beliefs through both their

11music and public commentary. In a vision of the future running parallel toone we could very likely be experiencing ourselves, the album Kid A byRadiohead depicts, in accordance with Sander’s fears, the miserableexistence of the first genetically enhanced human and the world he subsistsin. In exploring Kid A’s feeling of enslavement and isolation, his convictionthat we are “good enough”, and the transformation of society due to theadvancements in technology that made him possible, a clear admonition canbe perceived disclosing the possibility that perhaps human enhancementthrough biotechnology isn’t the means to achieving a utopian humanity it’smade out to be. In fact, in observation of Kid A’s obsession over the humanorigin he was deprived of, it might prove to be exactly the opposite.As the first genetically enhanced human, Kid A bears the weight ofsociety’s expectations and a mortally abnormal existence, resulting in hisoverbearing feelings of slavery and isolation. The opener itself, “EverythingIn It’s Right Place”, acts as a sarcastic quip at the fact that everything istechnically perfect regarding Kid A, yet he feels anything but. As the album’sintroduction, it elucidates exactly what Kid A was expected to be upon hiscreation; something impossibly perfect. Yet as the album unfolds, it becomesincreasingly evident that Kid A doesn’t want to bear the tremendous burdenplaced upon him. On several occasions he refers to himself as a slave, and in“Optimistic”, he goes as far as to depict himself as a “nervous messed upmarionette / Floating around on a prison ship”, perfectly illustrating hisgeneral disposition in life. “Morning Bell” also contains repeated mention ofhis unwanted helotry, while the issues of isolation and social confusion arerepresented in the manic chaos of “The National Anthem” and thedisorienting sense of displacement in “In Limbo”. Throughout the latter and“Idioteque”, he proclaims himself “the first in the Irish sea”, “the first of thechildren”, and claims to be “lost at sea”, all cries of help which speak forthemselves.

12The exact anxieties and concerns expressed by Kid A have beenprecisely forecasted in Sandel’s writings, from the projected expectations tothe disruption of the ability to form human connections. Sandel relates thisextreme level of pressure that will befall the augmented humans of thefuture to eugenics and modern hyperparenting. While presenting the casethat these are forms of forcefully molding children, he is careful to explainthat does not make either acceptable, stating that “hyperparenting familiarin our time represents an anxious excess of mastery and dominion thatmisses the sense of life as a gift” (272). Such practices defy the balance ofaccepting and transforming love necessary for effective, loving parentingargues Sandel, stating that “these days, however, overly ambitious parentsare prone to get carried away with transforming love – promoting anddemanding all manner of accomplishments from their children, seekingperfection” (271). Such a penchant for perfection can only lead to anunhealthy, loveless relationship between parent and child, and geneticadjustment towards perfection falls under the field of a lack of acceptance onthe part of parents, or the loss of an “‘openness to the unbidden’” (qtd. inSandel, 269). In this same field also resides the subject of the pressure toperform which will undeniably be placed upon children who receive geneticenhancement, akin to the manner in which it bears down upon Kid A. Sandelproposes that, contrary to popular belief, there will be an explosion, noterosion, of responsibility on behalf of the augmented, as the level of what isexpected of such enhanced humans will be severely disproportionate to thatof an ordinary human. Also, in relation to this trend of skyrocketingexpectations, Sandel argues that society can expect the deterioration ofhuman solidarity, as societal distances form a wedge between what willbecome the presiding classes of the enhanced and unenhanced. The blunt ofthese predictions pervade the personal world of Kid A, debasing hisexistence to one of anxiety and solitude.

13Coinciding with Sander’s conjecture, as a result of the biotechnologythat made him possible, the world is thrust into a power-struggle forbiotechnological enhancement, with Kid A all the while echoing his belief thatwe are already “good enough”. This principle of amplification of humanability being unnecessary is a major theme of the album’s sixth song,“Optimistic”, which is the album’s least obscure and most unambiguous songthematically. The song is comprised of Kid A’s repeated assurance, beinggenetically perfected himself, that we are already fully capable in our naturalstate through his statement that “if you try the best you can / The best youcan is good enough”. More importantly, the song depicts the aforementionedstate of the world derived from Kid A’s creation. In light of the availability ofgenetic enhancement, the world becomes divided between the rich andpowerful engaged in a scramble for enhancement and those not fortunateenough to afford or deciding to abstain from said technology. These factionsare represented within the song in the form of the phrases “The big fish eatthe little ones” and “This one’s optimistic / This one went to market / Thisone just came out of the swamp”, which sardonically plays on the classicnursery rhyme “This Little Piggy”. The song ultimately envisions a gravefuture in which a struggle consisting of the enhanced versus the unenhancedenvelops and topples modern civilization, which will be a probableoccurrence should we choose to embrace genetic enhancement. In a realityformed from this vision, Kid A’s belief is rendered false, as natural humancapability is buried under a flood of biotechnical proficiency. Perhaps it is forthis reason that performed live, the lyrics “The best you can ain’t goodenough” are sung.The visualization of the world illustrated in the song “Optimistic” isanalogous to the world Sandel presages in his prophecy of a world splitbetween those who are and aren’t genetically modified. To expand upon theaforementioned case of genetic engineering becoming a partition of

14humanity, Sandel informs of a modern example where enhancement hasalready been a cause of dispute for many years, namely the use ofperformance enhancing drugs in sports. The fact that “playing naked”, orwithout the aid of performance enhancing drugs, is even an issue incontemporary sports verifies the concern that increasingly extensive andintrusive augmentation will become all but a necessity for players ofcompetitive sports in a future that implements such augmentation (274).The song’s insistence that we are “good enough” also raises the question ofwhen, in a world built off and dependant of the improvement of humanbeings via technology, will better be good enough? In such a culture that willindubitably be dictated by an obsession for mastery and perfection, theanswer, Sandel implies, is never.Despite the individual and societal concerns associated with theexploitation of biotechnology, Sandel addresses the more pervasive, allencompassingconcern of the preservation of our humanity through such adrastic change to humanity itself. Never have humans had the opportunityor concern of direct alteration of other humans, especially down to thegenetic level, and who knows what will be lost in the process. However,there is one thing Sandel states will be undoubtedly sacrificed in thetransition; every individual’s right to an undisturbed, natural origin.Germany’s most prominent political philosopher, Jurgen Habermas, firmlyagrees with this point, asserting there is “a ‘connection between thecontingency of a life’s beginning that is not at our disposal and the freedomto give one’s life an ethical shape’” and that “birth, ‘being a natural fact,meets the conceptual requirement for constituting a beginning we cannotcontrol” (qtd. in Sandel, 273). Sandel also discusses the notion of “natality”,which maintains “the fact that human beings are born not made, as acondition of their capacity to initiate action” (273). These are the exactprinciples denied to those preordained a conception similar to that of Kid A,

15leading to many of the symptoms communicated throughout the album.Ultimately, in deciding to meddle with the human condition, we err on thebrink of risking the termination of our collective notions of human giftednessand a natural origin, expenses to the human element far more costly thanwhatever price can be decided for the enhancements that may consumethem.Besides the pressure to achieve greatness and the hardships ofisolation, Kid A has a third source of torment underlying his anguish; his lackof a claim to such “natality” in a true, natural origin deserved by everyhuman being. Throughout the album, there is a recurring mention tochildren, with the most striking instance being in the title song itself. “Kid A”employs vocalization from a voice almost void of human form, speaking ofwhite lies and the guiding of children from their homes in a scene alluding tothe tale of the Pied Piper, who led the children of Hamelin out of their homesby playing hypnotic melodies on his pipe, never to return. Expressing thesense of detachment from self that comes with this loss of origin is the song“How To Disappear Completely (And Never Be Found Again)”, with Kid A’spained insistence that “That there, that’s not me” and “I’m not here”,expressing his thoughts on not being his true self. In addition, the title trackisn’t the only one to feature a distinctly inhuman sound. In fact, the entirealbum is defined by a very electronic, cold mood that could in itself signifythe lack of humanity involved in the subject matter. These instances whichcommunicate Kid A’s fixation with who he would have been express thedeeper concerns Sandel and Habermas harbor over the implementation ofhuman engineering, as once someone, parent or otherwise, goes forwardwith altering a life, there’s no way of knowing who gets lost in the fray. Thisdisconcerting notion is bluntly expressed in the disturbing lyrics found in theoriginal rendition of the final track, which utter “Beautiful angel/Pulled apartat birth/Limbless and helpless /I can't even recognize you”. As disquieting as

16these lyrics are, the subject in question is just as grave, and they stronglyarticulate a point that many proponents of genetic enhancement fail torealize; changing the genetic makeup rids the recipient of their naturalorigin, and in excessive cases in turn produces an effect similar to that ofabortion by writing over the life that would have been.In the exact manner discussed by Sandel and Habermas, Kid Aexperiences and grieves a sense of lost identity, and in the end the thoughtof his abnormal origin and related struggles with human existence prove toomuch to bear. Harps and strings sound in harmony to the album’s close,creating the first instance of any organic sounding music on the album.Several minutes after Kid A says goodbye to the world he had known, in ahidden segment at the end of the track, bright, tranquil music softly beginsto play, signifying Kid A’s advent into the afterlife. Only in his end is hegranted the sense of humanity Sandel portended the equivalent of Kid Awould yearn for, in experiencing the natural quality of death. As one of themost critically extolled albums of all time, Kid A, while allegedly not aconcept album and possessing no pervasive or overarching meaning, whendissected carefully exemplifies several major concerns with biotechnologythat sustain Sandel’s argument perfectly. It’s a dark, unsettling, andhaunting piece of art, and not one that I particularly enjoy, but that’s mostlikely because it wasn’t created to be enjoyed, and regardless it possesses amessage vital to our times: as we delve into the practice of engineeringhumans, and in turn manipulating the human spirit, we play god, and riskending up in a very dark place.

17Works CitedRadiohead. Kid A. EMI, 2000. CD.Sandel, Michael J. “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of GeneticEngineering.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16 th ed.Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 267 – 275.

18Who’s Responsible: Are Humans Responsible for Global Warming?Bryan Picado“Are we responsible for harming the environment?” In Taking Sides:Social Issues by Kurt Finsterbusch, Issue 20, “Is Humankind DangerouslyHarming the Environment?” by Lester R. Brown, the author argues thatpopulation growth, the growing consumption of grain-based and animalprotein, and, most recently, the massive use of grain to fuel cars areharming the environment. Similarly, it is shown in the documentary AnInconvenient Truth, directed by Davis Guggenheim, shows that since 1970,things have gone downhill when it comes to dealing with global warming. Ittalks about the multiple situations that are happening now due to globalwarming and who’s responsible for what in each situation. An InconvenientTruth proves Lester Brown’s point because it supports multiple aspects in hisessay. Evidence of this can be found when one considers An InconvenientTruth’s graph that shows the growing population and the prediction of whatthe population will be in 2050. Furthermore, the pop culture also reflects theessay in that it shows the growing demand for food. Finally, both agree thatthere’s an exponential growth on concentration levels of CO 2 due to pollutionand great use of fuel, especially food fuel.First, both Lester Brown and Davis Guggenheim agree that populationgrowth is harming the environment. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, theperson in charge of the slideshow, says “by 2050, there may be 9.1 billionpeople living on the planet.” This is a huge concern because more people aregoing to require more resources. The planet will not have enough resourcesto provide the growing population. Also, much of the population growth isoccurring in developing countries, which mean that these countries won’thave the capital necessary to support the population. We need to slow our

19growth because we are creating more resources by cutting down trees tocreate more farm land, by draining rivers, and by creating more waste. Aswell, Al Gore mentions that in the last 200 years population has exploded.This means that we are responsible for harming the environment.Lester Brown argues the same in his essay. For example, “Each yearthere are 79 million more people at the dinner table” (364). How’s the planetsupposed to bear with all of us? No wonder we’re damaging the environmentin order for us to survive. Just as in David Guggenheim’s documentary,Lester Brown says “the overwhelming majority of these individuals are beingadded in countries where soils are eroding, water tables are falling, andirrigation wells are being dry” (364). Both agree that population growth isoccurring where it’s harmful for the people. For example, population growthis occurring especially in countries located especially in Africa, Asia, andCentral America. These locations barely have resources to live from andthese results in hunger growth. For example, food development and wateravailability are necessary everywhere. These resources are causing humansto harm the environment to make sure no one dies because of hunger.However, Lester Brown also says “if we cannot get the brakes on populationgrowth, we may not be able to eradicate hunger” (364). Hunger is mostlyfound in the developing countries. Therefore, humans are responsible forharming the environment.Second, food and water demand is growing and growing quickly. In AnInconvenient Truth, Al Gore says “population growth and rising livingstandards drive demand for food”. In the documentary, Al Gore presents agraph in which food demand is much greater in developing countries thandeveloped countries. Along with that graph, it also predicts the food demandthat is going to be in the future. For example, in 2015, the food demand willbe at 17 trillion kcal per day, and in 2050, it will be at 25 trillion kcal perday. This harms the environment because there’s going to be more

20deforestation so that more farm land is created, and natural resources aregoing to run out fairly quickly. Moreover, water demand will be tremendous.For example, Al Gore shows a graph that compares the water demand indeveloped and developing countries. This shows that food and water aregoing to run out in developing countries much faster than in developedcountries. This is harming the environment because, in order to have morefood and water, forests need to be eliminated in order to create space andfishing will increase greatly, which will lower animal available protein.In the same way, Lester Brown agrees that food demand is growingfast especially in developing countries. For example, he says “some 3 billionpeople are trying to move up the food chain, consuming more grainintensivelivestock products” (364). This illustrates that more people areconsuming food that needs more attention and greater production in orderto fulfill the demand. This indicates that more farm land will be needed, and,as mentioned before deforestation will come into play, species will becomeextinct, artificial resources will rise significantly, and if we don’t dosomething soon, it will have huge consequences on future generations. Inaddition, Lester Brown agrees that people in the United States are greatlyresponsible for world hunger when he writes “At the top of the food chainranking are the United States and Canada, where people consume onaverage 800 kilograms of grain per year” (364). Al Gore also points out thatwe are the best provider for global warming when he says “the United Statesis the greatest contributor to global warming with one-third of the totalcontribution”. Both of them agree that people in the United States are theworst in terms of harming the environment. Thus, food demand, caused bypeople, is contributing to global warming, not to mention world hunger.Third, more people are driving, causing more fuel usage, especiallyfood fuel. In Davis Guggenheim’s film, Al Gore states “CO 2 concentrationshave increased for the last 45 years”. Since cars release CO 2 into the air,

21pollution is built up. As of today, scientists want to create fuel based on foodor natural resources. As in Davis Guggenheim film and Lester Brown’s essay,food demand is increasing not only from the growing population, but alsofrom fuel production from food. CO 2 is causing the icebergs to melt, raise thenormal temperature in the ocean, hotter summers, colder winters, stronghurricanes, and ocean levels to rise. According to Al Gore, “carbon emissionsper person and per country [in the US] are much greater than any othercountry”. This proves once more that people who live in the United Statesdon’t even care about the environment. Instead of protecting and nourishingit, we cause more damage and we may not even set it back to normal. Boththe growing population and the increase in food fuel usage make food the“weak section” of the world.Last but not least, Lester Brown agrees with Davis Guggenheim whenit comes down to fuel usage. For instance, Lester Brown himself writes “mostowners are not concerned about whether their fuel comes from an oil well ora corn field” (364). In other words, Lester Brown believes that people do notcare where fuel comes from as long as they can drive to fulfill their duties.David Guggenheim’s film also agrees with Brown when Al Gore says “waterdemand is mostly for agricultural purposes.” This proves that food is mostlybeing harvested to support the demand for fuel. This exposes us, humans,as a careless and selfish race that only cares for the present and not thefuture of our existence. Finally, in Lester Brown’s view, “annual growth inworld grain consumption has created an epic competition between cars andpeople for grain” (364). The essence of Lester Brown’s argument is that ifwe keep following this path, then we are ultimately going to run out of foodand then our future generations are going to suffer.In conclusion, “Are Humans Dangerously Harming the Environment” byLester Brown and An Inconvenient Truth by Davis Guggenheim both agreethat population growth, the growing consumption of grain-based and

22protein, and the massive use of grain to fuel cars are the primary reasonswhy our world is struggling to feed all its people, why farmers are facingseveral trying trends, and why it all contributes to global warming.Therefore, we must act in order to prevent our world from disappearingbefore our eyes.Works CitedAn Inconvenient Truth. Dir. Davis Guggenheim. Perf. Al Gore. LawrenceBender Productions, 2006. DVD.Brown, Lester R. “Are Humans Dangerously Harming the Environment”.Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16 th Edition. Ed. KurtFinsterbusch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. 362-370.

23Women in the WorkplaceKatie GabinelliHave you ever noticed that most high-level job positions are given tomen? The truth is that most women will never reach the point of becomingCEOs, state governors, or even managers of small companies. Womeninvariably face obstacles when trying to reach the highest point in theircareers. In “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership,” Alice H. Eagly andLinda L. Carli argue that women constantly face barriers at every stage oftheir careers. Both Eagly and Carli believe that men and women are nottreated equally in the work field. Evidence of these barriers among women inthe work industry can be found in the television series Modern Family. Thisshow depicts the lives of three families, including Jay Pritchett and hischildren, Claire Dunphy and Mitchell Pritchett. Claire, wife of Phil Dunphy, isa stay-at-home mother to her three children. Many women can relate to thesituations that the characters in this show have to go through on a dailybasis. In the episode “Hit and Run,” Claire considers running for citycouncilman. She struggles, however, when she faces barriers that willreduce her chances of becoming city councilman. Eagly and Carli’s essay canbe connected to Modern Family in the sense that both highlight the fact thathousehold responsibilities prevent women from succeeding in careers.Furthermore, the television show also reflects the essay in that people donot think that women can perform as well as men. Finally, there is alsosimilarity between them in that male workers are treated differently thanfemales.In the episode “Hit and Run”, Claire decides to run for city councilman.Claire, who has three children, struggles when she realizes that she hasmany responsibilities at home. Claire says, “But how would this work. Who

24would be here for the kids after school” (Modern Family). She findsdifficulties balancing her priorities both at home and at work, and herresponsibilities as a mother are holding her back from reaching her goal tobecome city councilman. Her husband, Phil, volunteers to watch the childrenafter school. Claire hopes that having fewer responsibilities in the householdwill allow her to focus more on her campaign. Her plan backfires, however,when she comes home to find her son with a black eye and her daughterpassed out on the couch. This scene makes it apparent that mothers areimportant in a household. It also shows the stereotype that fathers areincompetent when they try to perform the roles of mothers. This commonstereotype depicts that women should stay at home with their kids ratherthan work five days a week. Common household responsibilities make itdifficult for women to reach high points in their careers.Family responsibilities are also highlighted in “Women and theLabyrinth of Leadership”. According to Eagly and Carli, “For many women,the most fateful turns in the labyrinth are the ones taken under pressure offamily responsibilities…As a result, they have fewer years of job experienceand fewer hours of employment per year, which slows their career progressand reduces their earnings” (158). Both authors support this argument bystating that family responsibilities among women cause a slow in their careerprogress. In Modern Family, Claire can relate to this concept because shestruggles to maintain a job while she performs her duties as a mother.Many people assume that women cannot perform as well as men in aparticular career field. In Modern Family, Claire encounters people who donot think that she will succeed. When Claire announces that she is runningfor city councilman, many people have mixed responses. Claire’s familysupports her decision, but many individuals believe that she is wasting hertime and that she does not have a chance of winning the campaign. Dwayne,the current city councilman, tells Claire, “Don’t quit your lack of a day job.”

25Dwayne then laughs at Claire and is very confident that he will win thecampaign. This scene depicts many stereotypes that men place on women.Dwayne thinks that Claire is worthless and that she is not a hard workingperson. Many people think that women are not qualified to perform the sameduties as men.In “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership”, Alice H. Eagly and LindaL. Carli believe that men and women should be treated equally. According toEagly and Carli, “Promotions come more slowly for women than for men withequivalent qualifications.” (155) This essay covers the idea thatdiscrimination is present in the workforce. In Modern Family, Dwayne isprejudiced towards women in the sense that he believes women cannotperform the same duties as men. He does not believe that Claire cansucceed as city councilman. Many individuals have the same mindset asDwayne in that “people associate women and men with different traits andlink men with more of the traits that connote leadership” (Eagly and Carly156).In Modern Family, Dwayne is perceived as very cocky and insincere. Inthe beginning of the episode “Hit and Run”, Claire approaches Dwayneduring his campaign. She tells him that he never fixed the stop sign at theend of the road, and he does not seem to care. Later that day, Claire says toher husband, “I can’t believe ridiculous people like him end up in office.”When Claire sees him again at the office, he is very rude and refuses to openthe elevator door for her. If Dwayne were a woman, he probably would havebeen removed from office due to his attitude towards citizens. This supportsthe idea that if women leaders are overly agentic, they “may be criticized forlacking communion” (Eagly and Carli 156). However, if the situation werereversed, women would probably be criticized for being too communal. Men,on the other hand, are praised for being dominant and “get away with it

26more often than women do” (Eagly and Carli 156). This proves that womenand men are treated differently in the work industry.Finally, both Modern Family and “Women and the Labyrinth ofLeadership” raise interesting views towards women in the workforce. WhenClaire enters the office to begin her campaign, many viewers will notice themale to female ratio. It is not just a coincidence that a majority of thepeople in the office building is male. Carly and Eagly state, “Consider themost highly paid executives of Fortune 500 companies-those with titles suchas chairman, president, chief executive officer, and chief operating officer.Of this group, only 6% are women” (153). Both support the fact that womenare treated differently and have disadvantages in the work field. Carly andEagly highlight the point that “discrimination affects promotions” (155). Thisproves to be true in Modern Family when Dwayne confidently states thatClaire does not have potential to become city councilman. Evidence fromboth Modern Family and “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership” provesthat women face obstacles in every career path. Most women will not reachthe highest level in their careers because discrimination exists withinemployment. Barriers, such as family responsibilities, prevent women fromreaching the ultimate stage in their careers.Works CitedEagly, Alice and Linda Carli. “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.”Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16th ed. Ed. KurtFinster Busch. New York: McGraw- Hill, 2011. 153-161. Print.“Hit and Run.” Modern Family. ABC. ABCnetwork. 12 October 2011.Television.

27Capitalism and Counterculture with Pink Floyd’s ‘Dogs’Michael LindIt is generally accepted that the frenzied pursuit of wealth is bad. Loveof money is said to be the root of all evil. However, over the past century ortwo, we have fallen more and more in love with our capacity to generateprofits—and prosperity, some would argue—but not without significant socialcosts, such as economic stratification, the alienation of the working class,and the mistreatment of the environment. Among the backlash resultingfrom this phenomenon are enormous libraries of media that haveaccumulated over generations, denouncing the evils of greed and capitalism,or at least criticizing it in its current form.Here we find Robert Reich’s essay “How Capitalism is KillingDemocracy?” and Pink Floyd’s song “Dogs.” Reich’s essay is about howcapitalism has evolved to such a great extent that the many democraticgovernments of the world are unable—or perhaps unwilling—to handle thesocial consequences of big business. One of the key points in his essay isthat corporations are utterly and completely focused on profits—often at theexpense of society. They live and die by the bottom line, and, in today’shighly competitive capitalistic world, they simply cannot spare any of theirapparently overabundant power and influence for social concerns unlessthere is money to be made. Pink Floyd’s “Dogs” is a 17-minute long songfrom their 1977 album, Animals, and it reflects the sort of attitude one mightsay society has come to adopt—that the love of money, ambition, andruthless competition are among our highest virtues, whereas values such asfriendship, personal health, and such come second. The song supportsRobert Reich’s argument in “How Capitalism is Killing Democracy?” thatcorporations completely ignore social issues in the dogged pursuit of profit.

28Among the areas of support is the song’s emphasis on image over genuinebenevolence, which supports Reich’s assessment of the relationship betweencorporate charity and public relations. Also, the picture of the cynicalbusiness executive’s mind corroborates Reich’s analysis of the waves oflayoffs in recent years as a sign of growing economic stratification.Furthermore, the overall message about the consequences of competitionand excessive greed confirms that capitalism has overpowered democracy,as Reich has said.As both Pink Floyd and Reich demonstrate, looking good is veryimportant in the world of capitalism, whereas being good is not essential.Reich writes, “Under today’s intensively competitive form of capitalism,companies donate money to good causes only to the extent that thedonation has public relations value,” meaning that the altruistic behaviors ofcompanies can be chalked up to the desire to be seen as altruistic—after all,businesses know that, as a society, we tend to appreciate kindness andgenerosity (196). Being perceived well is important for getting people to giveyou their money, as David Gilmour notes when he sings, “After a while, youcan work on points for style, like the club tie and the firm handshake, acertain look in the eye and an easy smile” (Pink Floyd). However, in theworld of capitalism, any pretty façade really only hides the desire for money.Some people don’t get it; Reich explains, that “these conspicuous displays ofcorporate beneficence hoodwink the public into believing corporations havecharitable impulses that can be relied on in a pinch” (196). Pink Floyd knowthat “you have to be trusted by the people that you lie to, so that when theyturn their backs on you, you’ll get the chance to put the knife in,” meaningthat these entrepreneurial organizations will do anything for money—theycertainly are not in a rush to give it away.Our highly competitive form of capitalism generates a sort of cynicalattitude in us toward our fellow man in general, as both the essay and the

29song show. Workers are being laid off everywhere, including from positionsin companies that are doing well. In one example Reich provides, heexplains, “in 2005, Deutsche Bank simultaneously announced an 87 percentincrease in net profits and a plan to cut 6,400 jobs” (194-195). In anotherexample, he writes, “Just months after Howard Stringer was named Sony’sfirst non-Japanese CEO, he announced that the company would trim 10,000employees, about 7 percent of its workforce” (195). It seems thatcompanies are becoming less personal and more accustomed to dismissingthousands of laborers at once. “Gotta admit that I’m a little confused,sometimes it seems to me as if I’m just being used,” Pink Floyd sings,probably echoing the sentiments of thousands of laid off workers. “Deaf,dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending that everyone’s expendable,and no one has a real friend.”Pink Floyd and Robert Reich have both proven that capitalism hastaken precedence over our other values, such as fairness, equality,community, and democracy. Reich writes that Japan was once considered an“all middle-class society,” but that “between 1999 and 2005, the share ofJapanese households without savings doubled, from 12 percent to 24percent” and that, although the Japanese are aware of the growing economicdisparities, they are powerless to do anything about them becausedemocracy is too weak to mitigate the effects of global capitalism (195).Reich gives us another picture of the consequences of unfettered capitalismwhen he writes, “China’s new business elites live in McMansions inside gatedcommunities and send their children to study overseas. At the same time,China’s cities are bursting with peasants from the countryside who havesunk into urban poverty and unemployment” (195). These observations ofthe effects of capitalism on Japan and China show that capitalism has a sortof isolating effect, undermining democracy by separating members of societythrough extreme differences in economic status. One excerpt from “Dogs”

30that seems to reflect this idea that capitalism is a divisive force is the one inwhich the band sings, “In the end you’ll pack up and fly down south, hideyour head in the sand, just another sad old man, all alone and dying ofcancer” (Pink Floyd). One way to interpret this is, in chasing money overeverything else, we will all eventually become “lonely old men dying ofcancer,” meaning that we will lose sight of things that are important, likefamily, friends, and personal health (because money can’t buy a cure forcancer yet). That seems to be the direction society is taking, according toReich. “We know the roots of the great economic deals we’re getting. Theycome from workers forced to settle for lower wages and benefits. They comefrom companies that shed their loyalties to communities and morph intoglobal supply chains…” (194).The presence of all this evidence provided by Robert Reich and PinkFloyd in their cases against big business is evidence itself of the overlaps intheir ideas, which are that maintaining a deceptive image of good will is acore component in any institution that revolves around making money, thatpeople are expendable, and that capitalism has usurped democracy andother important values of modern civilization. It’s interesting that theseideas are so widespread that they can be found in academic writing andprogressive rock band song lyrics. Largely because of pop culture, a lot ofthese ideas are already familiar to Westerners. It makes one wonder, howlong will it be before the various democratic societies of the world are forcedto confront the issues caused by our global capitalist economy more directly?How do we fix all this? Reich ultimately insists that it’s up to all of those ofus who live in nations with democratic forms of government (as mostwealthy nations are) to become better, more active citizens, as theparticipation of an informed public in the political process is what we need toreinvigorate democracy (197).

31Works CitedPink Floyd. “Dogs.” Animals. Columbia, 1977. CD.Reich, Robert. “How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy?” Taking Sides:Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16 th ed. Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. NewYork: McGraw Hill, 2012. 193-197. Print.

32Toddler TerrorsAlexandria ManahanHer hair is curled, her manicure is done, her skin is tanned, and herfake eyelashes are applied. Oh, the pampered life of a pretty woman! Orperhaps it’s a pampered toddler, in this case. The TLC reality televisionshow, Toddlers & Tiaras follows young girls and their families as theycompete in various beauty pageants, and the controversy that spawns fromthem. Likewise, in Michael J. Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection”, heargues that it is unethical to be able to genetically enhancesomeone/something that has been borne out of natural conditions. This ideaof socially engineering children can be paralleled to the problems dealt within a particular Toddlers &Tiaras episode. In the controversial episode,“Precious Moments Pageants”, a toddler was displayed donning a costumeresembling Julia Robert’s character in the movie “Pretty Woman”.Predictably, a toddler dressed as a prostitute didn’t settle well with many ofToddlers & Tiaras viewers. In “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Ageof Genetic Engineering”, Michael J. Sandel, makes an interesting point aboutthe ethics of being able to genetically enhance a child. Essentially, hebelieves that children should be considered as gifts, and that parents shouldaccept their flaws and assets. This point is borne out by the well-knownshow Toddlers &Tiaras, in the sense that the show actually displays theterrors and atrocities that results from enhancement of children. Evidence ofthis connection can be found through the show’s representation of pageantmoms and how they demonstrate the fears Sandel discussed in hisargument. Furthermore, the show also reflects the essay in that the showalso focuses on the relationships between the child and mother, and how therelationship is disfigured. Finally, there is also similarity between them in

33that they both are concerned with the way American society affects parent’sdecisions, and the “added pressures and increasing demands placed onchildren”(Sandel 271).Pageant mothers are an interesting group of people. They spendthousands of dollars buying their daughters intricate dresses, props forcompetition stages, shoes, hair, makeup and more. In this episode, as wellas many other episodes, these mothers are represented as prize hungry,controlling tyrants who will not stop until they win. They can choose toenhance their child’s appearance however they want, even without theirconsent. Take for example the mother that dressed her child up as aprostitute. That was completely her doing, and it was her money that sheput into her daughter’s costume. Pageant parents seem like they would loveto be able to choose their children, but as Sandel asserted, “…we do notchoose our children”(269). Sandel really emphasizes that children shouldcome into this world as gifts, and should not be hand-picked. Some pageantmoms admit that they know that all of their decisions and actions arescrutinized by the public, but for some moms, none of that matters. Theirviews oppose Sandel’s in that being able to enhance their child benefitsthem greatly, in terms of climbing the social ladder and increasing theireconomic status. In the same episode, one mom enhanced her child bygiving her fake breasts and butt pads--- talk about crazy. It mattered morethat they, or rather, she won because the money was important. Oneshould question the ethics of these beauty pageants. The fears that Sandelvoiced in his argument were clearly demonstrated by these beauty pageantmoms.Social enhancement of a child “disfigures the relation between parentand child, and deprives the parent of the humility and enlarged humansympathies that an openness to the unbidden can cultivate” (Sandel 269).What Sandel is saying here is that trying to control things that shouldn’t be

34controlled takes away natural human responses, like being able to nurture ahuman being. If one should forcibly alter their child in any way, they shouldat least establish a good relationship with their child first. The moms thatappeared in this episode of Toddlers in Tiaras seemed to lack a strong bondwith their child. It seemed as if that bond had dissipated in the process ofgetting ready for pageant time. The moms seemed to have no sympathy forhow their children were feeling. In the “Precious Moments Pageant” episode,one mom even resorted to threatening her child by saying, “you won’t win,the other girls are better than you” (Precious Moments Pageant). It wasapparent that her child was tired, annoyed, and antsy. What was importantwas that her child got up on stage and performed what they have beenpreparing for, not if they were sad and had stage fright. The same momeven said, “All of our money is on you now. Don’t screw this up”(PreciousMoments Pageant). This is not to say that pageant moms are terrible peoplebecause they have a determination to win, but rather that pageant momshave lost sight of what is more important, the mental and physical health oftheir child.It is no doubt that beauty pageants would take a toll on any individualor family. Toddlers & Tiaras is a good representation of how “Americansociety has a strong effect on parent’s decisions” (Sandel 271), as describedin Sandel’s argument. Our society over time has undoubtedly oversteppedthe boundaries of modesty because of a common desire for money. Forexample in this episode, one mother chose to dress her daughter in aprostitute costume, which she thought was “cute” and would win over thejudges and the audience. Of course there were “ooh’s” and “aww’s” in theaudience upon seeing the little girl, but there was a lot of negative feedbackfrom the public. But the mother protests that, “the whole idea was forpeople to see the comedy behind it”(Precious Moments Pageant).Well,dressing your daughter as a prostitute isn’t primarily perceived as

35“comedic”. Pageant mothers are already put under so much pressure, andone pageant mom even said, “'Us pageant moms already take a huge rap forwhat we’re doing to our little girls and it’s outfits like that that give us a badrap”(Precious Moments Pageant). These pageant moms aren’t the only onesunder so much pressure. What about the little contestants themselves?Money is unarguably the biggest influence on our current society. After all,these toddlers aren’t entered in pageants for fun. Pageantry is almost like aprofession for these girls, whether they know it or not. Pageant parentsspend thousands of dollars on prepping their toddlers in the hopes ofobtaining more money than they put in.Between Michael J. Sandel’s “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics inthe Age of Genetic Engineering” and Toddlers & Tiaras, it is possible tocompare the two sources seeing that they are both concerned with the ideaof being able to enhance children. There are key points in Sandel’s essaythat can be demonstrated through Toddlers & Tiaras. The majority ofpageant mothers have views contradictory to Sandel’s argument in terms ofhow enhancing/genetic engineering is unethical. These mothers also haveweak relationships with their daughters, also stated through Sandel’sargument. Lastly, it represents how American society really can affect aparent’s decision, and how these decisions can impose a lot of pressure on achild. But the overall issue here is that social enhancing/social engineering isan idea that shouldn’t be easily accepted into society. With just one look at asingle Toddlers & Tiaras episode, one could easily perceive the evils thatresult from social engineering. It really makes one question the ethics set byour current society.

36Works Cited"Precious Moments Pageant." Toddlers & Tiaras. TLC: 09/07/11. Radio. Oct29 2011..Sandel, Michael J. "The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of GeneticEngineering." The Atlantic Monthly (2004): 50-62.

37No Ma’am, I’m Not SexistAnthony DeVergilloFake laughter should not be the only thing you are annoyed by ontelevision sitcoms. In “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership,” Alice Eaglyand Linda Carli describe the barriers that hold women back in the workforceand gives ways that they can be overcome. Agreeing with the barriers theyfound, in a more generalized form, is the television show called“Married…With Children.” Sexism permeates throughout the entire TVseries, but it is blown out of proportion in one episode, rightly named “NoMa’am.” In this episode, the main character Al Bundy starts an almostreligious cult for celebrating masculinity and putting down femininity seen ineveryday life. This one episode would make some feminists cringe andothers take up a stand, and that is why it is important to discuss. With all ofthe barriers placed against women stated in Eagly and Carli’s article anddemonstrated in the “No Ma’am” episode, “Married…With Children” can bedeclared radically sexist. This comedic TV show is able to bring out thisextreme sexism by bringing up behavior, activities, and responsibilities thatare expected of women. In my opinion, these three topics are importantsince they are the reasons why barriers to women’s success exist in the firstplace.Women are trapped in a situation that can be very difficult to get outof safely. They want to be accepted and treated as equals to men. Theywant to be able to be themselves and not be judged by everyone else.Eagly and Carli describe this situation in great detail when they state,“women leaders find themselves in a double bind…highly communal…notbeing agentic enough…highly agentic…lacking communion,” and shows howhard it can be for women to feel accepted (156). No matter what women try

38to do in order to get ahead, they must always be careful how they behave.This aspect of their lives is extremely exaggerated in “Married…WithChildren” when Al and the rest of his No Ma’am clan state their demands forwomen. No Ma’am has taken over a show called “The Masculine Feminist,”starring Jerry Springer, and tied up the host in a chair with rope. Theystand around him with black masks to protect their identities and wear ashirt with “Ma’am” crossed out in red. Their look can be compared to thelook of the racist Ku Klux Klan, but they are sexist instead. Al starts off bysaying, “Every day for the past 30 years you high-heeled pitbulls blamed usfor everything,” and the sexism begins (“No Ma’am”). Going back to whatEagly and Carli stated in their article, women are trying to take some controlof their life and their husband, but they are only attacked for doing so. Thisis sexism since Al has taken control of his household and his wife, Peg, formany years, but he is never treated or described like a wild animal. Alstates that women have “nagged” about many topics, “from not being ableto go to Harvard to not being able to get into stretch pants,” and that he issick of it. In this situation, women are only taking a small amount of controlin order to help their husband live his life to the fullest, from gaining aneducation to keeping a healthy weight. For that reason, Al’s comment onceagain is extreme sexism since he takes much more control than Peg doeswithout being attacked.On the opposite side of the spectrum, which Eagly and Carli statedbefore as being “communal,” women still have the same problem (156).They try to be kind and show their feelings to their husbands, but areattacked again for doing so. Women are first asked to stop taking so muchcontrol, so they are forced to take less control and act only based on theirfeelings. That is what Eagly and Carli meant by the “double bind;” theymeant that no matter how women behave, either being communal or takingcontrol, they will be ridiculed (156). In one of Al’s demands for women in

39order to avoid the punishment on Jerry Springer, he brings up a complaintagainst women showing their feelings. He demands that women not askmen, “to say ‘I love you’ over the phone…it’s hard…[when] we’re paying aminute to talk,” and attacks them yet again. Men keep women in a situationwhere no matter what they try to do they will fail. This same concept canalso be carried into the activities that women are allowed to do.Watching football, drinking beer, and wrestling are activities only formen, while doing the laundry, cooking dinner, and cleaning the house areactivities only for women. How many times have you heard that said inpopular culture, and especially in “Married…With Children”? Activities areusually split into two categories, one group of activities for men and onegroup for women. If women ever attempt to do an activity that is not“meant for them” they will be put down and laughed at, and sexism will bebrought into light. Eagly and Carli describe this problem in more detail whenthey state, “women can find it difficult to engage in and benefit frominformal networking if they are a small minority” and show the hugedifficulty that is faced (158). When one or two women work in an office fullof men, it may be hard for them to engage socially, in part due to thesexism that has spread from popular culture. In the mind of popular culture,women are only allowed to do activities that men deem fit, which usually areactivities that involve housework or beauty. Both of these types of activitiesmake the lives of men much easier and make their wives look better in theireyes. In “Married…With Children” Al treats his wife almost at the same levelas a slave and as just a pretty face. In a radically sexist remark, Al declaresto Jerry over the phone that, ”bowling is a man’s sport…if God had wantedwomen to bowl, he would have put their breasts on their backs,” thusmaking women into sex toys. Al would only allow women to bowl if he hadsomething to look at and if he gets something out of it. Following this sameconcept, Al says to one his friends, “those women really hit us where it

40hurts…turning the Nudie Bar into a coffee house,” and differentiates betweenmasculine and feminine activities. Al’s statement is sexist since he thinkswomen are nonsensical beings that only enjoy talking all day long.Jefferson, Al’s neighbor and friend, finishes off this sexism by stating, “ifthese demands go unheeded, not only will we force Jerry to watch hours ofPro Wrestling…but we’ll force him to watch them in these,” and he pulls outa stinky yellow undershirt and boxers with ‘It’s All Me’ written on them. Hiscomment shows that women are not only not allowed to watch wrestling, aman’s sport, but also that women find it tormenting to watch. The dirty shirtand boxers add to the fact that men believe that women are only allowed tobe dressed up and clean. Although this time Al adds some sexism againstmen with the shirt and boxers, he still categorizes what women are allowedto do and allowed to enjoy. Women are herded into doing activities thatmen want them to, but they are also herded into taking care of thehousehold for men.Along with the fun activities that men and women enjoy there is alsothe housework to take care of. More often than not women do a great dealof that housework on their own. This problem also has an affect on theactivities and social lives of women by giving them less time to enjoy themthan men. Eagly and Carli show this same situation in the voice of presentdaywomen working in the workforce when they state, “while menincreasingly share housework and child rearing, the bulk of domestic workstill falls on women’s shoulders” (158). In their article, they consider thisproblem to be a barrier against women succeeding in the workforce, but itcan also be considered a barrier against women moving on up in life.Nowadays, many women are not staying at home and instead go to work formost of the day. Peg goes against this present-day norm by being a stayat-homemom, but she still goes out for most of the day to keep herselfbusy. Attacking both working and stay-at-home mothers, Al declares, “that

41was a great year…women were in the kitchen…guys like you were in thecloset,” when talking about the year 1952 during a phone call with JerrySpringer. This statement is a double whammy of sexism since Al thinkswomen should stay in the kitchen and no one should stand up for their rightsat all. Al looks past the lives of Peg and working women and only worriesabout being fed home cooked meals. Even though women do not want to betreated as slave cooks and usually do not have time to cook all day long, Alstill believes they should be treated as such. Continuing this householdsexism, Al states, “you gals want a ladies night, try having it in the kitchencooking for a man,” while making his first demand for women. He does notcare at all about the social lives and freedoms of women and does not wantthem to have fun. With all of these remarks about the rightful role ofwomen, usually considered to be cooking in the kitchen, Al almost holds agun to the heads of women worldwide. If his “hostages” do not do what hetells them to, he will be forced to “pull the trigger” and make their livesmiserable. If that is not sexism, then I do not know what is. And if thatsexism is found in popular culture, that is a truly scary thought for me.Women are always under the watchful eyes of men and if they try todo anything they are likely to be punished harshly. In “Women and theLabyrinth of Leadership,” written by Alice Eagly and Linda Carli, this is madevery apparent in the working world for women. The television show“Married…With Children,” starring Al Bundy and his family, generalizes thissexism against women for all parts of their life, especially in the episodenamed “No Ma’am.” Based on the comments made this one episode on thebehavior, activities, and responsibilities of women, it can truly be considereda radically sexist show. In a much broader view, this show brought thesexism in the United States to a whole new level. It makes the sexismsound funny when it truly is not something to laugh about. Accepting of thesexism makes it only spread further and deeper into daily life, and that is

43Biotechnology in the MediaJoseph Adriano“When the patient woke up, his skeleton was missing, and the doctorwas never heard from again!” And thus the Medic from the popular TeamFortress 2 video game is introduced and we are pulled into his world of madscience. Biotechnology is a very touchy subject, and many people wonderhow far is too far? Although the Medic seems like a comical joke of a madscientist, he does represent the worst of what could come from thediscarding of our ethics to focus on engineering better people for the world.That being said, some advancements aren’t all that bad and perhaps thepoint of the video is to show that all good things come at a price. You can’treally expect to have cons without pros and vice-versa. For this analysis Iam prominently examining a video that explains the background of theMedic character from the Team Fortress 2 video game. The main aspect thathelps to reinforce the fear felt towards going down the wrong path on theroad of biotechnology is seen in the Medic’s mad actions, which is exactlywhy Sandel writes his argument opposing the rapid progress ofbiotechnology in his paper, The Case against Perfection. By displaying theMedic as a mad doctor rather than a visionary the video helps to instillhesitance towards pursuing biotechnology by creating fear of having aperson like the Medic ever exist. The second aspect of the video that

44reinforces the negative image of the Medic is the God-like connotations thatare added to him in some of the scenes. While these slight references maynot be outright relations to the Medic claiming the role of God, there isarguably an element of symbolism most often used to show God-like affinity.The third aspect, however, shows the benefits of meddling in biotechnologyfor the advancement of medical science and helping to heal people fasterand more efficiently.The Medic’s quotes and outbursts from the video regularly make himseem a bit off, to put it nicely. He regularly seems unsure of what he isdoing but he continues on anyway. “’Doctor, are you sure this will work?’‘(Laughs) I have no idea!’” (Meet the Medic). The Medic seems to be workingwith mostly guess work and luck, so he seems to be a bit crazy in the video,which supports the negative view on the types of people that are willing toparticipate in biotechnological research. “Spiess and Marlow presented Faustas a scoundrel who deserved damnation” (256). This quote displays theopinion that people could only be taking the wrong power into their handswhen tampering with biotechnology in other humans. So can we relate theMedic’s odd way of carrying himself, as a new-age Faust makingmetaphorical deals with the devil, or can we view the Medic as a visionaryrather than demonizing him? But is the Medic a reliable doctor? Furthershown to viewers in other comments are how qualified (or unqualified) theMedic is to be conducting his work. “Anyway that’s how I lost my medical

45license, heh.”(Meet the Medic) Although very over-the-top and silly, thevideo does address the fear of people that tamper with nature beingunethical, albeit in a very humorous manner. A main thought that isexpressed by Sandel in his article is that bioengineers are a very unethicalbunch of people because of what they are willing to do in their research andhow far they are willing to go. Now if the Medic can be seen as a new-ageincarnation of Faust, people need to make the decision, “Is the knowledgeseeking Faust a scoundrel or a saint? Will his knowledge be used for selfishor altruistic purposes? Is mankind better with or without it?” (256) Is theMedic a perfect example of how actual people will begin to act once theyhave the ability to do whatever they want? How can people be sure the rightthing is being done by the researchers and experimenters aiding in thedevelopment of these new technologies? Will they keep us in the dark aboutwhat goes on behind their laboratory doors? Will it be like in the Meet theMedic video where we aren’t given any indication of what is going on behindthe scenes in biotechnology? “‘What was noise? ‘The sound of progress myfriend.’” (Meet the Medic)This idea ties in with the concern of people beginning to think ofthemselves as God-like and more powerful than they actually are. This canbe seen in the video less often than the Medic’s madness but is quite clearwhen interpreted. “‘Kill me.’ ‘Later.’” The shortest conversation in the wholevideo has a huge amount of significance when analyzed in depth. The ability

46to control whether someone lives or dies should be considered a God-likeability and shouldn’t be normally attributed to humans in general. “Tobelieve that our talents and powers are wholly our own doing is tomisunderstand our place in creation, to confuse our role with God’s.” (273)First off having a living, decapitated head is a stretch but keeping it alive isnothing short of torturous. And by denying it death is taking the order ofnature and throwing it out the window. Another part of the video is whensymbolism really comes into play in the form of the Medic stepping out frombehind two doors with angelic music playing and a flock of doves appearsbehind him. In Christian traditions doves are seen as a symbol of divinityand are used sometimes to represent Christ. By using doves in the video theMedic is either portrayed as God or as a savior of all mankind, or perhapsboth. Whichever it is, the Medic is being portrayed as something that nobodyshould assume they are, divine. “If the genetic revolution erodes ourappreciation for the gifted character of human powers and achievements, itwill transform three key features of our moral landscape—humility,responsibility, and solidarity.” (274) If we allow certain areas ofbiotechnology to advance than our morals will change to compensate for thischange and we will view ourselves with a much higher status then weactually have in the world. The Medic seems to hold himself as a superiorbeing than the rest of the characters in the video, both through his actions

47and through his conversations. He seems to think of the other characters aspeople he can experiment on because they are lower than he is.Are there any pluses to the advancement of biotechnology? Of coursethere are, and although the video over simplifies these for point of hilarity,and amusement, these benefits are also reinforced in the same less-thanseriousmanner that the other two were. After leaving his operating room to,“go practice medicine” the Medic proceeds to heal two wounded men to thepoint of perfect health and stamina, an incredible feat that is consideredimpossible by today’s standards. If mankind had the ability to heal peoplethat quickly and efficiently who knows what doors that could open up for usas a race. “Medicine, like sports, is a practice with a purpose, a telos, thatorients and constrains it” (270). The purpose of medicine is to keep peoplehappy and healthy and to protect them from illnesses and if needed to curethem from these illnesses and there are rules that doctors should abide by.If we could figure out how to do so instantaneously there would be manymore happy people around and the world could be a better place but at whatpoint should we stop? There are also other possibilities to consider from thevideo, such as invincibility. “‘I am bulletproof!’”(Meet the Medic). While theconcept is a tad far-fetched there still remains the ability to make peoplestronger and more durable with the advancement of biotechnologies, but dowe really need it? “This way of thinking about health rejects the differencebetween healing and enhancing” (270).Does improvement differ from

48healing? Is it wrong to make something better so that what hurt it in thefirst place won’t be able to repeat?In reality do we have the right to tamper with what we were given bynature of some divine being? The adage does go that when life gives youlemons you make lemonade. Althoughnot the same idea, biotechnology is somewhat of a similar train of thought intheory, you take what you were given and modify it to be something thatyou really want. At a certain point though people begin to take theenhancements for granted and go too far with what they do in their creationof the ultimate person. It becomes an insult to always have the good andnot take the bad in an equal measure; it would be like throwing theproverbial lemons back in life’s face and demanding to see life’s manager.Tampering with the laws of nature can only go so far and if people were togo too far then where would our humanity have gone?Works CitedSandel, Michael. “The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of GeneticEngineering.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16 th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 267-275. PrintMeet the Medic-YouTube. YouTube-Broadcast Yourself. Valve GameSoftware, June-July 2011. Web. 18 Oct. 2011..

49Barriers to Women’s success at The OfficeOscar LizarzaburuImagine yourself as an employed woman seeking success. Actually, Iwouldn’t wish that upon my worst enemy. The idea of women being inferioris carried on in many parts of our society which is detrimental to women’ssuccess in the work place. Many job positions are filled up with men overwomen because of the gender bias in the work industry. When women havethe job, men most of the time get promoted over women, just for beingmen. This observation is elaborated upon in the essay “Women and theLabyrinth of Leadership” by Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli. Authors Eaglyand Carli examine how women encounter barriers in the work place moreoften than men do because of their gender. Our society knows that genderpreference exists but it’s not a serious issue due to the fact that the mediadisplays it as a laughable matter. The television show The Office,demonstrates a perfect example of the media considering gender preferenceas comical in the episode “The Inner Circle”. The television show is set inScranton, Pennsylvania, where D’Angelo, the new boss, leads his workerswho are mostly men. Dwight, Kevin, and Ryan among others, displaynegativity towards the female workers throughout the episode which resultsin amusement for the audience. In my opinion, the show The Officeexemplifies the point that authors Eagly and Carli illustrate in their essay inthe sense that in the episode female workers Kelly, Pam, and Angela are

50ignored, portrayed as weak, and excluded from the networking circle in theoffice because of their gender. In The Office, characters like D’Angelo showtheir preference for the men in the office, therefore ignoring and belittlingKelly and Pam as well as the other women in the office. Kelly and Pam alsoshow how women can be considered weak by letting the men in the officecontrol them.In our society, women’s plight for success is caused by the dominanceof the men in the work place. In The Office, the character of Kelly is thesupervisor of the office, however, the boss, D’Angelo, assumes that Ryan,another office worker, is the supervisor because he is a man. In the sameway authors Eagly and Carli remark that “people associate women and menwith different traits and link men with more of the traits that connoteleadership” (156). The Office shows a clear connection to Eagly and Carli’sremark by showing how D’Angelo, the boss, has the mindset that men areleaders and there is no way that Kelly could have possibly been thesupervisor of their department. D’Angelo continues to show his sexist beliefsthroughout the episode and women office workers begin to notice. Angelasays “How bout I’m the head of the accounting department but [D’Angelo]only ever talks to Kevin. What about Pam and Kelly? Also department heads.But has he ever met with you or ever asked you to do anything?”(The Inner Circle). The women in the office start to notice that they are notbeing accounted for by the boss. This goes along with the declaration in

51“Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership” which states that “findings showthat men can communicate [with each other] in a warm or a dominantmanner” (156). It is perceived that men have an easier time talking to eachother because they are clearer and don’t have much emotion behindanything they do; therefore, they’re not inclined to start arguments. Womenon the other hand are seen to have more emotion and possibly startarguments with men. These beliefs show why it is more difficult for womento succeed in the work place.Television shows like The Office portray women characters as weakbeings to give the audience comical enjoyment. It’s comical when Kellyallows Ryan to control her because she is a woman that has a lot ofemotions towards this man and will do anything for him. When the boss isaround, Ryan bosses Kelly around and says “Kelly Kapour, if I don’t havethose call logs on my desk we’re going to have to evaluate your future atthis company” (The Inner Circle). This portrayal of women helps show whywomen aren’t succeeding. Authors Eagly and Carli state that women areknown to be less in control than men therefore “men ascend to supervisoryand administrative positions more quickly than women” (155). In theepisode, Kelly is easily persuaded into letting Ryan be the supervisor whilethe boss is around because she lets her feelings for this man interfere withher career, showing her weakness. Kelly gives up all control over thesituation which in the end does not end well for her. Kelly tries to stand up

52to the boss and tell him that she is indeed the supervisor but D’Angelo is notpleased with her assertiveness. In this way, Eagly and Carli’s essay showsthat “there is a penalty for women that behave [assertively] like a man. Mendon’t like her.” (157). Ultimately, Ryan is given the job of Supervisor overKelly at the end. This chain of events shows how women are consideredfeeble, in turn, making them not get noticed or given a high position at theirjobs.Additionally, most women lack the ability to be able to network withothers. Many women have families that they need to tend to, therefore,leaving them no time to socialize outside of the work place. Along with that,many women are not given the opportunity to network since many networksare run by men. In the episode of The Office, D’Angelo has an inner circlecomprised of the workers he believes are the best, which is most of the menat the office. Eagly and Carli note that networking is proven to lead togreater success, however, “influential networks are composed entirely oralmost entirely of men” (158). This shows how women in the work place canbe segregated, leaving them with little to no possibility of progressing intheir careers. Accordingly, the networks or inner circles that men create intheir work places show a clear division of gender through the activities theylead. In the episode, D’Angelo and his inner circle hang out and playbasketball in his office. Correspondingly, the essay “Women and theLabyrinth of Leadership” explains how “[women] breaking into those male

53networks can be hard, especially when men center their networks onmasculine activities” (159). The episode of The Office clearly supports theevidence that the essay portrays of barriers for women arising everywhere.Conclusively, women face many obstacles in the work industrybecause of their gender. The Office is a good representation of the difficultythey encounter. Authors Alice H. Eagly and Linda L. Carli attempt to explainthe boundaries that women have to overcome in order to see success. Theiressay “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership” depicts interesting points ofwomen’s everyday struggles and gives suggestions to women to help themacross the labyrinth of leadership which will lead them to have a successfulcareer. Eagly and Carli’s points are embodied in “The Inner Circle” episode ofThe Office through the boss’ continuous disregard for the women, womenshowing their weakness, and their exclusion of the inner circle at the office.This episode is an important example of how the media portrays the societywe live in today. It’s supposed to be funny, but we have to realize that it iswrong, and that this happens to many women. Ultimately, the media has thepower of influence so they should use their power to send the message thatworkers should be treated equally, no matter what gender they are.

54Works CitedEagly, H. Alice and Linda L. Carli. “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.”Taking Sides:Social Issues 16 th Edition. Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. NewYork: McGraw Hill, 2012. 153-161.“The Inner Circle.” The Office. Perf. Rainn Wilson and Jenna Fischer. NBC. 18August 2011. Television.

55On CapitalismDaniel MercadoCapitalism! Your guide to being prosperous and achieving all yourdreams. If you are a citizen in a capitalist nation who has ever dreamedabout being financially stable, having a decent sized comfortable home andjob with a secure pension and excellent benefits then dream on. In the filmCapitalism: A Love Story director Michael Moore argues that capitalism is anightmare that has undermined the democratic government system andmore failures are yet to come if people don’t take a stand. Similarly,Professor Robert B. Reich, author of “How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy”argues that capitalism has gone too far and the private sector is now takingcontrol of social issues. Moore and Reich agree that in order to restore thepower of a democratic government people need to unite to limit theinfluence corporations have on government because corporations haveoverextended their power and engaged in numerous unfair practices that arenot beneficial to society as a whole. Moore and Reich also feel thatcorporations should have no influence over how government responds tosocial issues because the ultimate goal of corporations is to maximizeprofits. Although Moore and Reich agree that people need to stand up tobring about reforms, they disagree on how people should tackle this issue.Moore believes in an unforgiving approach in which Americans force their

56representatives to listen as they are supposed to and limit the power ofcorporations. Moore feels this way because people have already given andsuffered enough so, now it’s time for the corporations to serve the people.On the other hand, Reich supports a more passive approach where thepeople meet the corporate leaders half way to negotiate fairer terms.Throughout the current financial crisis we are currently experiencing,corporate executives and Politicians alike often state that on average 99% ofAmericans would be rewarded for accepting “setbacks” and putting in morework to help restore our system. So what exactly was this reward that wasfrequently promised? In “Capitalism: A Love Story” we can see how theworkers at Republic Windows and Doors were rewarded for going the extramile. After the company filed for bankruptcy they fired their entireworkforce, only giving the workers a three day notice. Republic Windows andDoors also did not pay the workers their pensions and other benefits theywere entitled to receive for their service to the company. The employeeswere hard workers who accepted the fact that they had to be let go from thecompany but, they were upset that after all their contribution and hardwork, the company left them with nothing. Moore spoke to one of theworkers who went on to say, “All of the workers here, we go above andbeyond the call of duty for Republic and at the end Republic cares nothingfor us” (Capitalism: A Love Story). The statement made by the workersshows how upset people are about the fact that they are putting so much

57dedication into their employers and receiving no commendation for it. Mooreexpresses this is a scene that is seen all across the nation, companies aremanipulating the system and leaving people with nothing. People haveaccepted enough setbacks only to have companies take away their homes,jobs, wealth and then take advantage of their misfortunes. Situations likethese are why Moore feels citizens should not be willing to meet corporationshalf way and should instead, stand up to battle the inequalities thatcapitalism has bestowed upon us and regain control of our democraticsystem.On the other hand, Reich agrees that capitalism has brought about muchunfairness but he believes the people need to be willing to accept somesetbacks to make our capitalistic system more balanced. Reich states in“How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy” that “a small transfer tax on sales ofstock, to slow the movement of capital ever so slightly, might givecommunities a bit more time to adapt to changing circumstances. The returnon my retirement fund might go down by a small fraction, but the citizen inme thinks it worth the price” (196). Moore would consider this option to beunacceptable because people have already gladly accepted small changeslike the one Reich suggests and companies went on to take away theirsavings entirely. Some would argue that the taxes go to the government, sohow could this be considered unacceptable? My belief is in a system wherecompanies strongly influence political candidates there is sure to be some

58taxpayer money that goes to a company’s benefit if that person becomeselected. So why add more taxes to go on unknown expenditures or as somesay “a ten-thousand dollar toilet”. Also, if we put a small transfer tax onsales of stock then this develops a stronger correlation between big businessand government and that is essentially what Moore wants to avoid.Both Moore and Reich tackled the issue of how costly it is to allowcorporate executives to constantly bend the rules of the game. Reich took aclear stance on the issue when he stated “The purpose of democracy is toaccomplish ends we cannot achieve as individuals. But democracy cannotfulfill this role when companies use politics to advance or maintain theircompetitive standing or when they appear to take on social responsibilitiesthat they have no real capacity or authority to fulfill” (196). This statementimplies that democracy cannot possibly be working for a common goodbecause democratic governments are allowing companies to take on “socialresponsibilities” and their only goal is to stay on top of their competition andmaximize their profits. Therefore, capitalism has spiraled so far out ofcontrol that it is now basically allowing companies to put regulations in placethat favor their needs and discard those that do not. Moore shows evidenceof how allowing companies to take on social responsibilities can bedangerous. There is a scene in “Capitalism: A Love Story” that shows amajor mortgage lender company called “Countrywide” giving loans to peoplewho would typically be ineligible for a loan. Countrywide makes the people

59feel as though they will take care of them by presenting them with upliftingadvertisements and promises. People then seek Countrywide, receive a loanand later find out the interest rates are off the charts and they can no longerafford it. At this point, Countrywide then goes on to seize the person’sproperty and leaves them with nothing. This supports Reich’s statementbecause we are allowing companies like Countrywide to act like they careabout providing homes to everyone when in reality they just want you to fallinto their trap so that they can make as much profit as possible from you. Itis a very unfair and undemocratic process, that Moore and Reich wouldagree needs to be reformed.Both Professor Robert B. Reich and Director Michael Moore would agree thatto reform this system Americans would need to stand up and remindcorporate leaders and their political representatives, that in our democraticform of government the people are in charge and the people make theultimate decisions on what policies and regulations are implemented. Reichshows his support for this idea when he says:Citizens living in democratic nations aren’t similarly constrained [asnon-democratic nations]. They have the ability to alter the rules of thegame so that the cost of society need not be so great. And yet, we’veincreasingly left those responsibilities to the private sector- to thecompanies themselves and their squadrons of lobbyists and publicrelations experts- pretending as if some inherent morality or corporate

60good citizenship will compel them to look out for the greater good(195).This statement expresses that the average citizen has the power to uniteand bring about reform and if they do so then they will bring about control ofsocial issues back to the government and re-stabilize the nation. Mooreexpresses in “Capitalism: A Love Story” that this is the biggest fear largecorporations have because every citizen still has their one vote and nothingcan change that. Moore asserts that this means the majority lies in theaverage citizen and not the small portion of corporate leaders. “Capitalism:A Love Story” also adds support to Reich’s idea of standing up to achieve agreater good by showing what the workers of Republic Windows and Doorsgained by demanding to receive what they earned. Moore stated thatRepublic Windows and Doors employees decided to fight for what’s theirs bynot leaving the Republic Windows and Doors building until “they were paidwhat they’re owed.” One was able to see people exercising their democraticright to take a stand and eventually the workers won the fight and were ableto receive every dollar and benefit they were entitled to for their service.One could see “Capitalism has become remarkably responsive to whatpeople want as individual consumers, democracies have struggled toperform their own basic functions; to articulate and act up on the commongood, and to help societies achieve both growth and equity” (Reich 194). InAmerica we have the fortune of living in a Democracy which means the

61people rule society, so we can change that. Even though Moore and Reichmight disagree on the sacrifices citizens should be willing to accept to fix ourcurrent destructive system, they both have expressed that people just needto realize the power they truly have and come together in numbers to bringchange. So I would say it’s now time to give the large corporations the samerewards they have given us by forcing them to give back to citizens bymaking them pay back the money that was given to them during the bailoutto the people who lost their homes after being given a bank loan that thebank knew they could not afford. Regulations can be put in place to preventbanks from distributing loans that people obviously can’t afford and othercorporations can help combat a real social issue that is, capitalismundermining democracy by siding with the average people, establishing afair workplace and being role models to other corporations with similarstatus.Works CitedCapitalism: A Love Story. Dir. Michael Moore. Perf. Michael Moore. OvertureFilms, 2009. Film.Reich, Robert B. “How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy?”.Taking Sides.Clashing views on Social Issues. 16th ed. Ed. Kurt Finsterbusch. NewYork: Mcgraw Hill. 2011. 193-198. Print.

62Women’s Success: Is it Nature or Nurture?Jill CarmanIs it true that all women just want to raise children, cook, clean, andstay at home? Not likely since more women choose to work or have theirown interests apart from their husband and families. In “Biology at Work:Rethinking Sexual Equality” Kingsley Brown points out that labor is dividedby gender due to biological differences. According to him, women arenaturally inclined to accept or want certain jobs, such as cooking or takingcare of the house. In an episode of the television show Modern Family titled“Hit and Run” the main plot line follows Claire, a stay-at-home mom withthree children who decides to run for city council. By depicting a womangoing into ‘man’s work’ it contradicts, while at some points agreeing, withthe essay from the book.The series Modern Family follows the families of Jay Pritchett, hisdaughter Claire, and his son Mitchell. Claire is married to Phil Dunphy andthey have three children who range in age from 17 to 13. Phil is a realestateagent while Claire is a stay-at-home mother and takes care of thekids. Jay has been divorced and re-married to Gloria, a much youngerwoman from Columbia. She has a pre-teen son named Manny who lives withthem and Gloria stays home while Jay works. The last family is Mitchell’s. Heis married to his partner Cameron Tucker, who stays at home to care fortheir adopted baby girl while Mitch goes to work at his law firm. This specificepisode, “Hit and Run”, also follows Gloria’s struggle to convince herhusband and her son that she can help them with work or school andcomplains that no one ever listens to her ideas. In some ways, the claimmade by Browne is supported by Modern Family’s episode “Hit and Run” inthat the mother character, Claire, is torn between wanting to run for citycouncil and her maternal instincts to want to continue being the stay-at-

63home mom. However, this episode of Modern Family also seems tocontradict Browne’s point in two different ways, first by Claire ultimatelydeciding to run for the position in city council, and secondly the two mainfemale characters, Claire and Gloria, were able to come up with the solutionsto the episode’s conflicts. The connections between the essay by Browne andthe episode from the popular television series shows how stereotypes can beproven in popular culture, while at the same time others are falsified throughexamples relating to real life. Stereotypes about women and their potentialsuccessfulness can be found in everyday life, and some people believe themwithout knowing the facts about women in careers or knowing a woman whocan take over the ‘man’s work’.The character Claire challenges the idea of women’s work and men’swork by running for a political office in town. Although she is a stay-athome-momand her husband makes the main source of income throughbeing a real estate agent, Claire decides to run for city council. Just bywatching the episode, it was clear the municipal office of their Californiatown served mainly male employees. The only other woman to be seen inthe scene, besides Claire, was the secretary. Her body language andmannerisms showed that she didn’t really ‘belong’ there, but she wasdetermined to run for the position. She even sees her future opponent, thecurrent councilman Duane Bailey, in the lobby. The two characters had anunfriendly past and when he asks why she is there, she replies that shewants to run against him in the race for city council. Duane’s attitudetowards Claire is negative and as he’s leaving he says, “I’m not afraid of abored housewife.” Even though his comments make her doubt her chancesof running at first, Claire decides at the end of the episode that she will runagainst Duane for the position of councilman.The story line in this Modern Family episode opposes the argument ofBrowne’s essay that biological differences make men and women better

64suited for different jobs since Claire chooses to pursue something she’snever tried before even though it’s considered a man’s job. Browne saysabout the brains and mental processes of men and women that “humanminds are more likely to settle on some social practices than others” (162).The 30 minute long television show proved that the statement from Browneis not always true. Claire was a stay-at-home mom for nineteen years, butdecided to try running for city council against Duane because she felt he wasdoing an injustice for the town. People don’t always just settle on what’sexpected of them or what they are used to, as Browne tries to argue.Nevertheless, Browne argues that women’s work is biologically assigned, hedoes mention that it “would be a mistake to interpret averagetemperamental or cognitive sex differences as limitations on the potential ofindividual girls and women” (165). This agrees with the point that womencan strive for whatever job position or career they want without biologicaldeficiencies compared to men.Despite being able to have almost any career they want, womensometimes fall into the stereotype of stay-at-home mom while their husbandgoes to work and serves as the family’s provider. In Modern Family, all threeof the families have a mother figure that stays at home while the spousegoes to work. Claire cares for the three kids while Phil works and Gloriadoesn’t work because her husband, and Jay makes more than enough ofmoney so they don’t need a second income. Even Mitchell and Cameron’sfamily of three demonstrates the stereotypical mom-figure by Cam being theone to stay at home with their adopted daughter while Mitch goes to the lawfirm. Sometimes a spouse can become the main provider just bycircumstance, not only because the woman doesn’t want to work, butbecause they don’t have to. In Claire’s case, she was so used to her husbandworking and her staying at home for the last nineteen years, that the shethen doubted her chances of being able to run for city council. Not only did

65she not have total confidence in herself, but she didn’t trust her husband tobe the one to take care of the kids, especially after the little mishaps thathappen in the episode like giving one daughter drowsy allergy medicine.Claire couldn’t picture herself outside of the mom position in the family, buther husband Phil wanted her to do what would make her happy. Claire evensays to Gloria, “I’m afraid of not winning,” (Modern Family) when Gloria asksfor the reasons why she won’t run for councilman. Meanwhile, the othermain female character, Gloria, was upset that her husband and son wouldn’tlisten to her ideas. Even when Jay couldn’t sell his blueprint idea to his new,younger boss, he wouldn’t take Gloria’s advice and tried to solve theproblem on his own. This shows that even though he respects his wife, Jaydidn’t think she would have an idea that would work for his company sinceit’s “men’s work”.In agreement with the female stereotype proving aspects of ModernFamily of showing a homemaker in the marriages, Browne’s whole essay isbased on how men and women have preferences for different jobs becauseof their biological differences. Based on biology, Browne argues that menand women wouldn’t normally have an inclination towards the same jobbecause they naturally favor some jobs over others due to differences in“temperament, cognitive ability, values, and interests” (166). He even saysthat “it would be astonishing if [men and women’s] occupational preferencesand behaviors were identical” (166). Browne makes the argument that thereis really no way to keep men and women from wanting the jobs that comenaturally to them as shown in history. The idea of ‘men’s work’ and‘women’s work’ is shown in Modern Family through having multiplecharacters filling the stay-at-home mom role in their relationships. Theepisode even shows Claire’s maternal instinct kick in when she contemplatesif she should run for councilman when she doubts that her husband, Phil,can care for the children like she does.

66Although some stereotypes were proven in this television program, bythe end of this episode the female characters turned out to have the rightadvice and answers to the conflicts within the plot line. Claire was able todecide on her own to participate in the race for city council, especially afterher talk with Gloria. Gloria was complaining at first that no one would taketime to listen to her for help with their problems. But she ended up helpingClaire regain confidence and helped her husband sell his idea to his boss.Talking with Claire about running for city council, and to her son Mannyabout school, helped Gloria to help them. If they just told her the problemsoriginally she could have helped earlier. Her husband brought Gloria into theoffice to present his proposal to the boss, who then approved the originalblueprints without knowing it. Although using Gloria as a pretty side-kick isproving a stereotype in a way, she was still able to help her husband withwork once he listened to her.Meanwhile, Browne questions the decision making and judgmentability of women in his essay. He mentions that if the biological genderdifferences were published and exposed to the public people, mostly women,“can become self-fulfilling prophecies” (166). I don’t know how far that istrue, especially since this episode of Modern Family shows at least onecharacter that completely changes a career from homemaker to councilman.Browne says women can be “active agents in their own lives, makingrational decisions based upon their preferences” (167), which shows he isnot completely sexist, but his essay is mainly focused on the idea that‘men’s work’ and ‘women’s work’ exists. If women were conscious ofdecision to stay more domestic and not go after high level ‘man’s work’ jobs,they might become more motivated just to prove a stereotype wrong. Clairewas able to be, as Browne said on 167, an “active agent” in her life, whileGloria had opinions that lead to rational decisions and positive choices forother characters.

67Even when portrayed in a funny television show, the points made byBrowne in his essay came to light within this one episode. The family andcareer roles that women are presented in Modern Family both agree andcontradict Kingsley Browne’s claim that women and men are biologicallywired to be drawn to certain life styles or careers. Although Claire has a hardtime separating with being a stay-at-home mom, she ultimately decides torun against the male candidate for councilman. And Gloria showed that somewomen can have different yet useful options about business, like what Jay’scompany deals with. People who watch Modern Family but don’t realize theconnections to issues like the one’s discussed in Browne’s essay, could learnmore about the topics concerning women’s success in the workforce or insociety. Even readers who don’t watch Modern Family would benefit fromknowing about these connections. Although some of the assumptions basedon biology are proven to a degree by this show, it demonstrates in the endhow women can break from that biological mold that Browne argues for.Works CitedBrowne, Kingsley R. “Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality.” TakingSides: Clashing Views on Social Issues. 16 th Edition. Ed. KurtFinsterbusch. New York; McGraw-Hill, 2011. 162-167. Print.“Hit and Run.” Modern Family. Perf. Sofia Vergara and Julie Bowen. ABC. 12October 2011. Television.

68The Construction of Pop Culture’s Labyrinth: Home ImprovementJessica Anderson“Behind every great man, there’s a great woman,” or so the sayinggoes. One can observe many aspects of popular culture and find that thisfeminist slogan is not always clearly demonstrated. In “Women and theLabyrinth of Leadership,” Linda Carli and Alice Eagly bring up an interestingpoint about the struggle women experience in society today. Basically, theybelieve that the social struggle that women experience is caused in largepart by a symbolic labyrinth, or various obstacles that make that goal harderto reach. This point can be demonstrated by the television series HomeImprovement in the sense that Jill, despite her role as backbone to thefamily as a mother, keeper of the house, and assistant as a financialprovider, is never presented to be as successful as her ne’er do well husbandTim, the personality of a local TV show. Evidence can be found in this when,in an effort to go back to school and obtain a Master’s Degree in Psychology,Jill is discouraged by the attitudes and comments from her husband, Tim.Additionally, throughout its syndication, handyman Tim would make manymistakes, some that could even be considered catastrophic, but with eachsegment, it would be so easily fixed and all was well. However, one mistakeon Jill’s behalf, as an indirect result of her furthering her education, calledfor an elaborate apology because without it there would have been a direoutcome. Finally, one can observe the audience’s perception of Jill comparedto Tim, because overall despite her working, deciding to go back to school,and caring for her family, she can never seem to match the success of herhusband. Throughout the series, Jill’s struggles demonstrate the role of thelabyrinth that Carli and Eagly described in their previous writing.

69To begin, in the episode, “Back in the Saddle Shoes Again” Jill is laidoff from her job and makes the decision that she will go back to school andpursue her Master’s Degree in Psychology, something that she had alwayswanted to do, but never gave much thought to. When she tells her husband,Tim, this news he is taken back and asks, “How much is this gonna cost?” towhich Jill responds, “How much did that Hot Rod cost?” With a stunned lookon his face Tim answers, “Cost is not the issue here.” Initially, one can seethat he is shocked that his wife would want to do something so drastic andtries to haggle the issue by bringing up the cost of school, which Jill clearlycan defend. It becomes clear that the price of her education is not the issuewhen Tim suggests her going to a trade school because it “makes sense” tohim. Instead of following the road of academia, which is what Jill trulywants, Tim is trying to persuade her otherwise, in a direction that he wishesfor her. It is not until the very end of the episode, that Tim reveals to Jillthat he fears her going back to school. Tim fears that she will go ontoschool, mix with intellects and not have an interest in him anymore. He, inessence, fears her growth as a person and is holding her back from reachingher goals and fulfilling her potential, which exemplifies one of the manylabyrinths a woman could face in her journey through life. According to Carliand Eagly, “Self-promotion is…risky for women. Although it can conveystatus and competence, it is not at all communal” (156). This is thequintessential issue Jill faced in the aforementioned scenario. She attemptedto propel herself and her career to new heights, and it was obviously notwell received by her husband, who tried to talk her down from her originalplans, and into something he felt less threatened by. Her attempt at “selfpromotion”did not receive a positive communal response from her husbandas Carli and Eagly mentioned.Furthermore, one must call attention to the many mistakes that Tim,the star of the show, has made throughout its syndication. In the majority of

70the episodes of Home Improvement, Tim finds a way to damage or harmhimself, or property. Within the half hour episode, he could make a mistake,joke about it and move on without much emotional turmoil left behind,whereas Jill, the more sensible character of the two made an obviousmistake and paid for it much more so than anything Tim ever had to do. Inthe episode “Advise and Repent,” for example, Jill received an A on apsychology test from school. As a result, she feels confident to dispenseadvice to a new friend of Tim’s, Burt, who also happens to be the father ofher son’s new girlfriend. Taking her advice as that of a licensed psychologist,Burt addresses the issue with his wife, which results in the couple havingproblems within their marriage. Although it began with good intentions, herone mistake caused tension within another family; an issue that is veryserious. Jill eventually apologized to the couple, with the hopes that theywould see past her faulty, student advice and get professional help.However, the core of the labyrinth appeared after things calmed down, whenJill contemplated whether or not she could actually become a therapist. Shedoubted herself after this one instance, wondering if she would ever be ableto give good advice and help anyone after she almost destroyed a marriage.“For women who aspire to top leadership, routes exist but are full of twistsand turns both unexpected and expected” (Carli and Eagly 154). Jill’snegative feelings after her mistake are closely connected to the labyrinthdiscussed in the essay because it was a barrier that almost deterred Jill fromher aspiration. This example is one of the many instances that depictunexpected “twists and turns” that Carli and Eagly wrote about. Themagnitude of Jill’s mistake, in comparison to that of her husband’s numerouserrors, demonstrates how she must overcome larger obstacles than a manwould ever have to on the show.Finally, one must observe the general behavior of the two characters,the way they carry themselves, and their corresponding success. Tim, the

71likable but dense husband, is not exactly portrayed as the intellectual.Evidence of this is shown when in nearly every episode he goes next door tohis neighbor, Wilson for advice. Whenever Wilson would bestow a wiselesson for him to take from, Tim would never quite seem to grasp themessage and misconstrue it. Take for example, the episode previouslymentioned, “Back in the Saddle Shoes Again”. After Wilson confirms that Timis worried about Jill “re-entering the world of academia”, he counsels Tim,telling him that Jill won’t grow apart from him just because she’s back inschool. After this boost of confidence, Tim returns to Jill and tells her that hewould support her returning to school adding, “if your dream is to work withnuts, you should go back into the world of macadamia.” With this, it is clearthat Tim is not the sharpest tack, but nevertheless, his success far surpasseshis wife’s throughout the entire series. Success, in this sense, is that of Tim’scareer as the star of a local television show and his recognition as somewhatof an expert in his field of work. He is well-known in the community, andearns enough money to not only support the essentials that his householdneeds, but also for the luxuries of purchasing each individual piece of a HotRod that he planned to assemble himself. As for Jill, on the other hand,returns to graduate school, she continues to maintain herself, her home andher grades. While she challenged herself, and worked her way through manyof these labyrinths, Jill never attained the recognition for her work anddedication that Tim received at his job. She was never noted as an expert inher field, nor did she ever reach a level of any sort of notoriety either locallyor on a broader spectrum. Carli and Eagly wrote, “Promotions come moreslowly for women than for men with equivalent qualifications,” or in thiscase, it seems, even less qualifications (155). The labyrinth does notnecessarily hold Jill back or deter her from attempting to achieve her goals,but it certainly slows down her progress. Had the show remained on the airlonger, perhaps the audience would have witnessed Jill move up in the ranks

72at a job after she finished school, but as the show stood, she hardly madeany progress in a positive direction nearing her husband’s success.In conclusion, the labyrinth of women in society is one that isshadowed and ignored by our culture. Popular culture will depict women asbright and diligent individuals, yet for some reason they cannot seem toreach their goals, or even attain a similar level of success compared to theirhusbands’. The concept of the labyrinth that Carli and Eagly wrote aboutcorresponds with the show Home Improvement because Jill’s struggles forsuccess are encased among many obstacles that she must overcome.Despite her intelligence, Jill seems to lag behind her husband Tim’s successand even has trouble gaining his support for her decisions that would engagethe growth of her potential to a new level. Social obstacles get in the way ofwomen’s success, as Carli and Eagly remarked in their essay, and HomeImprovement demonstrates this concept adequately.Works Cited“Advise and Repent.” Home Improvement. Perf. Tim Allen and PatriciaRichardson. ABC. October 24, 1995. Television.“Back in the Saddle Shoes Again.” Home Improvement. Perf. Tim Allen andPatricia Richardson. ABC. September 20, 1994. Television.Carli, Linda L., Eagly, Alice H. “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.”Taking Sides: Clashing Sides on Social Issues. 16 th edition. Ed. KurtFinsterbusch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 153-161.

73Beta Blockers and the Need for Access to them for Victims of ViolentCrimesBen KaneAlmost one third of rape victims develop post-traumatic stress disorderdue to the event. Past that, over eleven percent of those patients keep thePTSD for the rest of their lives. These people develop many terriblesymptoms that will haunt them for a very long time. Fortunately for thesevictims, new studies are showing that drugs currently used for bloodpressure can possibly be used to suppress painful memories such as rape orother violent crimes. Beta-blockers like propanolol have been used for awhile against high blood pressure but these studies suggest that they alsoblock the impact that adrenaline has on the formation of memories. In“Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of Happiness”, ThePresident's council Makes the point that memory blockers like these shouldbe used when Violence has drastically altered well-being for those affectedor the witnesses in ethical reasoning. I was intrigued, and after someresearch, I believe that not only should these be used for victims of violentcrimes, and not just for ethical reasons, but scientific reasons. I also believethat they should not be used for military situations as soldiers areperpetrators of their own traumatic events, and need to come to an

74understanding of their actions. Without the emotional value of theirmemories, they would not be able to learn and move on from it.Normally when a traumatic event occurs, hormones such as adrenalinecause the formation to make the person to retain the memory much moreclearly and vividly. With a beta-blockers like propanolol, the person wouldonly remember the act, not the pain or emotions associated with it. Whilecases where perpetrators commit acts that cause them to develop PTSDshould understand the weight of their actions and should not be given thesedrugs, victims of violence do not need to keep such painful memories andshould be offered medical relief as quickly as possible. This is imperative forthree reasons. First, the symptoms can hinder both their livelihood andlifestyles. Second, they won't simply forget the event; Victims will simply notacquire the emotional values and pain associated with most traumatic eventsthat cause PTSD. Lastly, achieving a “state of grace” (Hurley 221), as ElisaHurley describes it, is not important to the victims of violent crimes. Herdescription of this abstract state is hard to understand at first, but then itmakes sense. She initially defines is as “a state of quiet acceptance of theirinvolvement in bringing about terrible outcomes” (Hurley 222). In this stateof grace the perpetrator, a soldier in Hurley's argument, will finally realizeand accept that he/she caused a traumatic or horrible event. From there, theperson will proceed to heal emotional injuries and through that, have less

75Some of the long term symptoms of PTSD can include “Reexperiencingthe trauma...Social withdrawal...Avoidancebehaviors...increased physiological arousal characteristics” (National Centerfor Victims of Crime 1). These symptoms can hold a person back for theirwhole life. Symptoms of PTSD can get them fired from jobs, keep them frombeing hired again, and hold back their social life to allow for an emotionallyfulfilling life. Also, lack of sleep and hostility/rage can hinder overall healthand cause them to look for other ways out like alcoholism or drug abuse.The National Center for Victims of crime says “rape victims are 13.4 timesmore likely to have two or more major alcohol problems; and twenty-sixtimes more likely to have two or more major serious drug abuse problems.”(The National Center for Victims of Crime 1). if a simple drug taken at thehospital after the event can prevent all these things from occurring, whywouldn't and shouldn’t they be legalized for use in these situations? TakingBeta-blockers would get the victims back on their feet, working productivelyagain, and successfully moving forward in their personal livesNext, it is important to remember that such drugs will not cause sheerand complete amnesia, but just loss of the pain associated with the memory.In an article on WebMD named “Blood Pressure Drug May Erase FearfulMemories“, author Kelli Stacy explained, “Students aged 18 to 28 viewedfear – related images on a computer and learned to link [those pictures]with a mild shock to the hand … The students who received the beta-blocker

76propanolol showed no return of fear.” (Stacy 1) this quote shows that theentire memory is not blocked. Just the pain and emotion associated with thememory is not formed fully. The propanolol blocks the memory's dramaticformation with adrenaline, and only lets it form without the pain andemotion. With this, the victim will only be able to remember the event andnot deal with all the other negative emotions with it. Theoretically, theabsence of these will make it so the victim does not develop PTSD. On thesubject of soldiers, Elisa Hurley clarified that after taking beta-blockers, theywould “likely be able to recall that act with more emotional equanimity thanhe otherwise would have.” (Hurley 228) While Hurley opposes the use ofthese drugs for that group, she does accept that it could possibly keep themfrom PTSD or painful experiences like it. This supports my argument becauseif the beta-blockers would let soldiers recall acts with more emotionalequanimity then why would this not apply to violent crime victims?Lastly, some researchers oppose Beta-blockers because of what theydo. One of these is Elisa Hurley, who wrote “Combat Trauma and the MoralRisks of Memory Manipulating Drugs.” The hole I see in her argument is thatshe, along with or critics of this method and approach to emotional scarring,focus on military uses when it is obvious that there are other purposes andapplications for it, namely violent crimes. Most of Hurley's argument againstbeta-blockers is based on soldiers' need for reaching a “state of grace”(Hurley 221). In this state, they understand that their perpetration of the act

77in which they developed memories and PTSD from, and they realize thatthey were just and right to do it. In these cases, the soldier developed PTSDnot because of a traumatic event that happened to them, but because theydid something that caused these horrible memories. Other researchers like KSmythe has said in his blog that “If the military were to administer suchdrugs inappropriately could they simply create desensitize soldiers and indoing so create hardened, and experienced killers rather than treat thosewho by some misfortune experienced a traumatic event” (Smythe 1).Another way of saying that blocking memories will not help soldiers, Smythebrings up the These points are irrelevant to violent crime victims though,since they did not do anything, or deserve to be hurt. However, in thesoldiers’ case, forgetting the emotions will not let them achieve that state.So for them, remembering everything can be advantageous. Conversely, fora victim of violence, it is not important to remember those events with theassociated emotions. Because of this, there is no case for them to rememberthe situation and the emotions unless they will help victims become strongerpeople.There are many scenarios where forgetting the emotional qualities of atraumatic event can be helpful to the person. Military encounters causingemotional problems are just one example of that. There are other instancestoo that shouldn't need the use of beta blockers to assist the person. Onetime that is definitely warranting the drugs is this though. I can not imagine

78the pain a rape victim for example, goes through. So why somebody woulddeny them an opportunity to forget the pain having to due with that isabsolutely ridiculous. Between the symptoms of PTSD hurting a victim'slifestyle, the loss of pain in memories, and the lack of a need for a state ofgrace, there is no excuse for denying such victims beta-blockers for memorymanipulating purposes.Works CitedHurley, Elisa A. “Combat Trauma and the Moral Risks of MemoryManipulating Drugs.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 27.3 (2010): 221-245. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2011Smythe, K. "Beta Blockers and Traumatic Memory: A Dulling Experience."Web log post..Stacy, Kelli. "Beta-Blocker May Erase Fearful Memories." WebMD - BetterInformation. Better Health. WebMD, 2009. Web. 20 Nov. 2011..United States. The National Center for Victims of Crime. Rape-RelatedPosttraumatic Stress Disorder. The National Center for Victims ofCrime, 2009. Web. 27 Oct. 2011..

79Minority Struggles in EducationJimmy PittaroWhat can we do to fix education? What problems should we address?One group in our society affected negatively by public education is AfricanAmerican students. In the 1960’s the civil rights movement led us to createaffirmative action accepting more minorities into college. The problem is thatmost of these student’s don’t have the chance to get into colleges. ClintBolick’s essay provides us with the information that most inner-city minoritystudents don’t graduate public high school. Clint Bolick writes about thisproblem and offers the method for fixing it. If we give the parents of thesestudents’ vouchers to private schools the children will be able to attendthere, where studies show they have better success rates. Something elsethat covers the topic of minorities and schooling is the cartoon DrawnTogether. This show is a comedy that makes fun of various topics. The basisof the show is knock offs of real cartoons living in one house on a reality TVshow. The cartoon Drawn Together supports Clint Bolick’s point thatminorities don’t do well in inner-city public schools unlike, inner-city privateand suburban schools, by making fun of their stereotypical black charactercalled Foxxy Love in season two, episode two Foxxy vs. The Board ofEducation. First the show makes fun of Foxxy for not having a college degreein mystery solving supporting Bolick’s point that many minorities don’t

80graduate inner-city public high schools. Next it makes fun of our society forkeeping down minorities, which supports Bolick’s point that we need avoucher system so as not to do this. Finally, I’d like to point out the fact thatFoxxy solves two different mysteries throughout this episode proving Bolick’spoint she has the potential to succeed like these students do in inner-cityprivate and suburban schools.First I’d like to address the problem of inner-city public schools. ClintBolick writes, “Nearly fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, vastnumbers of black and Hispanic children do not graduate High School” (242).If these children don’t pass high school what can they possibly do without ahigh school diploma? Today it is hard to find a job with a college degree. Inaddition Drawn Together only strengthens Bolick’s topic throughout theepisode. Foxxy solves a mystery and then the officer replies with, “So, I’lljust need a copy of your mystery solving license so I can take this guydowntown.” Foxxy: “Mystery solving what?” Officer: “You don’t have amystery solving license?” Foxxy: “Chil’ I didn’t even go to college.” Officer:“Well then we’re gonna have to let this guy go.” Foxxy: “But he’s a childmolester.” Officer: “A licensed child molester. People like you make me sick”(Drawn Together). This displays that without Foxxy’s degree she can’t put achild molester away no matter how much evidence she builds up. Later on inthe episode Foxxy is trying to solve a simple math problem to solve theBoard of Education case. This is the dialogue between her and her friend

81Ling-Ling, Foxxy: “Oh I can’t do this.” Ling-Ling: “You can do it Foxxy.”Foxxy: “Maybe you’re right Ling-Ling. Maybe I can do this. Hm let’s see I’ma get thirty eight miles, carry the two, take away the minus, add the semicolon, put that dot on the left side, ughh.” Ling-Ling: “The answer is D.”Foxxy: “Right D. I knew I could do it” (Drawn Together). This supports ClintBolick’s statement that black students don’t graduate from high schoolbecause it shows that Foxxy can’t even solve a simple math problem. Shehas to ask her Asian friend Ling-Ling for help.Next we need to solve the problem of inner-city black students notgraduating high school, by supplying them with a voucher system. ClintBolick says, “Children who most need the compensations of a qualityeducation are instead regulated to dysfunctional schools” (242). By doingthis we are showing that we still aren’t past the days of segregation. We putthese students in schools that fail them, which keep them from moving up insociety to live in wealthier communities. Similarly in Drawn Together theyuse two different hyperboles about this topic. One is from the Board ofEducation, “So you see why we can’t let blacks pass the SATs. No educatedperson would spend money on gold rims, purple leather seats and flip downLCD screens for $3,000 Geos” (Drawn Together). This example makes fun ofseveral different stereotypes of blacks mainly focusing on stupidity and whyblacks shouldn’t get into college. This overstates the stupidity as well as ourreason for not letting them move up in society. It makes you feel negative

82for this as you laugh. The other hyperbole supporting Bolick’s statement isFoxxy taking the SAT. When she looks at the paper she immediately says,“This whole test is racially biased. Question number one what SPF lotionwould you use if you was gonna spend the day at the polo grounds fellowKlan member” (Drawn Together). This is a complete overstatement of thetest being racially biased. It doesn’t represent the test though. I interpret itas representing the American society who refuses to help these children ininner-city public schools. If we allow Bolick’s voucher system these studentswouldn’t be trapped in schools where they can’t achieve their full potential.Above all I would like to settle the stereotype that blacks are dumb.Most people know this is not true and the minorities that aren’t graduatingisn’t their fault necessarily. Clint Bolick writes about two researchers on thistopic. “Chubb and Moe set out to discover why suburban public schools andinner-city private schools generally produced good academic outcomes,while inner-city public schools were disasters” (241). This shows it’s not alower capacity for learning, but a flaw in the inner-city public school system.Furthermore supporting the fact that the fault is in the schooling areexamples from the cartoon show Drawn Together. At the beginning of theepisode there is a dialogue between Foxxy and a law enforcement officerafter she solved a case, Foxxy: “This ain’t no monster god. It’s Hans the sixarmed circus freak.” Officer: “Well Foxxy you cracked yet another case”(Drawn Together). This shows that she has the potential to do well like the

83students in the private and suburban schools. By the end of the episode shecracks yet another case. This is what the officer says to Foxxy, “Wow Foxxy,you caught the board of education. We’ve been trying to nail him formonths” (Drawn Together). The officer acts surprised as if she didn’t crack acase earlier, but now even he truly sees her potential even though she’s nota graduate. This supports Bolick’s evidence because it proves the point thatblack people have the potential and can achieve higher like they do in innercityprivate schools and suburban public schools.So as you can see minority students aren’t receiving thecompensations they need. Is this because of the color of their skin? Are wejust choosing the wrong answers for solving our problems? Well the answeris very simple and is now visible to all. These students need vouchers toattend private schools as shown by points made from Clint Bolick and thecartoon show Drawn Together. These students who need compensationsand don’t graduate high school do have the potential to in private inner-cityschools as shown by results. It is only our fault if we don’t supply them withthe quality education that everyone deserves.Works CitedBolick, Clint. “The Key To Closing The Minority Schooling Gap: SchoolChoice.” Taking Sides Social Issues. Sixteenth Edition. Gd, Kurt f.New York: McGraw-Hill. 2012. 239-243.“Foxxy Vs. The Board of Education.” Drawn Together. Comedy Central.October 26 th , 2005. Television.