Blog Post 4: Story of an Illness

Making mental health diagnoses have been proven much more difficult to determine than other biological diseases that have been provided with more common research and testing.  To be acknowledged a disease/illness, mental disorders have to fight for their label and become a political testing ground as to whether or not they can be defined as a disease in order to get available treatment. Many forms of Autism fall under this category of constantly having to prove that this illness is important, and if it is overlooked, there are many obstacles that one with this illness may have to face.

Growing up with a cousin who was diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of Autism, I have grown from seeing him as a little “off,” to actually being able to understand more about why he acts the way he does. He shares many of the same characteristics as Emanual Frowner from  the audio clip  we listened to in class. My cousin is incredibly smart, but very shy and slow to make friends. He also has a speech impairment that makes it difficult for him to communicate with others.

 Before Autism was added to the DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders, according to the article Did the DSM Create an Epidemic of Asperger's? , “A study was done to figure out how common Asperger’s was, and the results were clear: It was vanishingly rare.” Once the DSM added this diagnosis, there has been a sort of epidemic, where 1 in 110 children were diagnosed, many given this “trendy diagnosis” for just being shy or socially awkward.  Asperger’s was associated with some who had very mild cases, to people who could actually really benefit from treatment for this diagnosis.

 Before treatment, just like Emanuel, he just had to make do with life, and work around his “disabilities” in the best way his family thought would work for him. He is now offered assistance that fit his needs so that he can be successful in school, which according to the article, Report: New Autism Definition Could End 'Epidemic" , this assistance can possible be taken away from him.  There are changes being made to the DSM to redefine the importance Autism, and he could lose his label. “The proposed criteria will lead to more accurate diagnosis and will help physicians and therapists design better treatment interventions for children who suffer from autism spectrum disorder,” said James Scully, medical director of the American Psychiatric Association, but there are also many losses that and individual might experience if they are stripped of this label like the “access to support and services” ( RNADCEE ).

As we’ve discussed in class, once somebody is labeled, their label becomes their master status that sticks with them everywhere they go, and is then spread throughout society.  The article,  The Autism Information Epidemic , shares that information about Autism is practically “contagious.” Studies show that a child is more likely to be taken in to seek a diagnosis of Autism if a child around them has been diagnosed. “This study shows that the social aspects of our environment may play the biggest part in determining rates of conditions like autism” ( TAIE ) . The more social connections one has, the more they are likely to be exposed to someone with this illness, and want to self-diagnose or seek diagnosis for their own child.

Social institutions also have a huge influence on the creation and maintenance of this label.  Favorably, most parents want their children to have friends, to be involved in school, not to be shy, and when they stray from what is considered “normal,” thoughts easily focus on an individual being different or “sick.” In family, school, and most societal institutions, it is highly stressed as to what being normal is, and if a child is shy, has social problems, or is not the ideal child, they become deviant and quickly labeled.

With most labels, there is usually both positive and negative associations contributed to the label that hold consequence to the individual. With the label of being Autistic, their master status already portrays them as being different, and the way people view those who learn, speak, act differently than everyone else have negative connotations. In regards to positive consequences, once labeled, many are able to get the help and attention they need that better fits with the way they understand and learn.  This usually takes them out of that negative associated societal environment, giving them the treatment they need to accomplish things in different ways.

As discussed in the article,  Minorities Show More Severe Signs Of Autism, children of minority are more like to suffer from more severe symptoms than white children,” likely because their symptoms go unnoticed longer.” This article discusses the reasoning linking to many different things such as, how child development is perceived in different cultures, socioeconomic differences, and even stigmas to the label of being disabled. Underlying social constructions dealing with class, race, and age are all contributed to this illness. Society believes that the younger a person is, the less credibility they have, especially when labeled as something deviant. As for class and race, society believes that he more in minority you are, the poorer you are, giving you less opportunity to help your children be treated in a timely and effective manner.

A label can be easily viewed as both being positive or negative depending on the individual carrying the status. Those who benefit by being labeled, receive proper treatment for their diagnosis where others may feel like they are tied down by their label and forced to change themselves to better fit societies’ standards. I don’t believe society takes responsibility for the care of those labeled, because they are considered deviant and society feels like they must “fix” themselves on their own because it’s their own problem, even though something like Autism is ascribed, not achieved. I think there are some programs that are they to help, but society as a whole does not put enough focus or importance onto helping those who have this illness.

WORD COUNT: 1,017

Tough Guise Film Review

In the 1999 film, “Tough Guise,” Jackson Katz shows masculinity being portrayed through media and how societal perceptions of masculinity and violence are linked to these media interpretations. This film shows that masculinity is put in place to mask any sense of vulnerability and to reiterate the importance of being tough, dominant, and powerful.

Violent roles were primarily taken on by males, and Katz provides statistics showing that 85% of murders were committed by men, and  physical assaults, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual abuse, and rape were all 95% or more committed by men.  Most cases involving woman were committed in defense, where as men’s motives were just men being men, holding strong to their tough persona.

In media, male and female violence is portrayed differently, depicting different expectations for each gender.  When a male commits a violent crime, such as some of the recent school shootings, the media talks about “kids killing kids,” whereas when a woman mutilated her husband, the media made sure to state her gender clearly. Male violence is generally expected, which is why there is so much more emphasis on female violence in the media, because it is look at as being unfeminine and going outside of the social constructions about how a female is supposed to behave.

There were two sections of this film that showed male dominance by the degrading of woman, that strongly argued the point of this film. One example was the increase in size of male figures, them becoming more muscular and having bigger guns, as the size in females, such as a once valued Marilyn Monroe, became devalued and skinnier women were more ideal. The decrease in size of females allowed men to take up more space on the screen, showing that they were the more dominant figures and more important than women. The second example that also reinforces the importance of male dominance is the acceptance of degrading jokes from people involved in media such as Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh.  Their joke making approach reinforced the negative connotations of woman and increase the importance of masculinity and power to their audience.

I couldn’t find any areas of this film that I found to be unconvincing to me. I think Jackson Katz gave a lot of strong arguments on how masculinity is portrayed through media.  This film strongly relates to our class because it identifies all of the underlying social constructions of what an ideal male is supposed to act like.  The film shows that wearing a mask to cover up any form of vulnerability and putting on a tough guy act is the ideal route for men.  This strongly relates to our discussions of how we perceive a male to act, and what ideal characteristics and standards we value men to have. 

Something that stood out to me in this film was that violence isn’t necessarily a natural instinct, but a learned behavior. I would base a study around this by randomly selecting different males that were exposed to different things while growing up (access to media, no access to media) and see how their perceptions of masculinity differ.

Word Count: 522