Blog Post 3: Special Then, Special Now

According to the  Online Etymology Definition Website , in the early 13^th century, the word special meant, “better than ordinary,” and further developed into a definition of being
“marked off from others by some distinguishing quality.”  In the 1900’s the word special was tacked on to other words such as special interests in 1910 and special effects in 1951.  Previously, all definitions were depicted with a positive connotation, setting apart something good as something better, special. In all aspects, this word was used to make something appear as more appealing.

Recently, the definition according to the online  Merriam Webster Dictionary  as being “distinguished by some unusual quality, readily distinguishable from others of same category, being other than the usual, and designed for a particular purpose.” Although these definitions may appear positive at first glance, today society has emphasized a dislike of anything that strays away from what is considered mainstream or ideal. Underlying social constructions show that anything that is different than the usual is considered deviant, so these new age definitions show a different meaning that what they once held. The world special today is a more derogatory term used to label individuals who are developmentally disabled. 

In the article,  What is Ableist Language and Why Should You Care?, Thomas Hehir explains that, “there are many varied manifestations of ingrained ableism in contemporary society and pop culture, but I see it most often in uncritical use of language based on ableist assumption,” and the definition given by the Merriam Webster Dictionary, “ designed for a particular purpose,” reaffirms the that the word “special” has been put into place as a euphemism.  According to FWD, Feminists With Disabilities , “Euphemisms illustrate a world where good intentions and changing language norms collide, leaving some of us in an uneasy position on the sidelines,” which shows that when words such as special education, special bus, or special education were put into place as a positive reinforcement of a societal negatively viewed disability, they can often times be seen as very offensive for those it is in regards to.

With almost all words, there are both individuals who identify with the word special, and individuals who do not like it at all, but in regards to the word special, there are more so of those who do not accept it.  In the past, this word was used to make words such as “retard” or “mentally challenged” replaced with something less dehumanizing “Earlier generations of disability rights activists started using ‘special’ to talk about and frame disability from a place of kindness” ( FWD ),  but with any new term, people found ways to turn it around and use it against individuals.

 Special is often times thrown around and joked about among people who are able bodied, which shows how it is looked down upon and dehumanizing to those who are actually considered by society to be special.  Just like Kelly Osborne described wanting to retire the word "tranny" because it is “derogatory and hurtful,” the word special has the same negative connotations attached to it.   FWD  says, “It sets people with disabilities aside and stresses that they are different and alien. That using a wheelchair, for example is ‘special’ and different and weird.” People who belong to the disabled community are more affected by this word than those who do not identify as disabled and through it around as a joking insult, but either way, negative associations are tied onto it. Starting as a positive word, the meaning of special has become the complete opposite.

Word Count: 592

Murderball Film Review

In society, the individuals who are labeled, “disabled,” are often times believed to fall into two categories,  The Good Cripple , someone who’s depicted as, “quiet, patient, and never complain,” and the  The Supercrip , whose attitude is “amazing and inspiring;” both of which are very misleading stereotypes.  An education scholar,  Thomas Hehir  describes a devaluation of disabilities, “that 'results in societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to other disabled kids,”  and society believes disabled individuals are “so brave” for being able “overcome” these situations like the archetypes portray.  The 2005 documentary, Murderball, proves these stereotypes wrong, showing that they are very much able-bodied, maybe even more so than people who can walk, and are capable of the same emotions and actions as somebody who is able.

This documentary’s thesis is shown through the life stories of men who are quadriplegic, going through their everyday lives, accomplishing daily tasks, just like anybody else.  When many people think of disabled people as not being capable of being independent, this film shows quadriplegics being able to drive to the grocery store, dancing, playing cards, and also being able to engage in sex. All of which defeat the whole stereotype of a disabled individual having to rely on others, when they are actually very much capable themselves.

Another stereotype this film tears apart is the thought that disabled individuals are fragile, and have very inspiring emotions because they have overcome such tragedy.  This film shows a variation of emotions coming from the men that disprove that certain stereotype.  The main character, Mark Zupan is a good example of this incorrect stereotype.  He wasn’t afraid to let people know that he had a very strong and opinionated attitude.  He often times made crude remarks to his opponents, would joke around with his friends, but his passion was shown with anything that he did, whether it be taunting the other team, or being enthusiastic about playing quad rugby. He exhibited the same sort of emotions that he would have if he wasn’t in a wheelchair.

Although I didn’t find anything in this film to be unconvincing, there was only one part of the film that was difficult for me to watch, and that was the relationship between Joe, the Canada coach, and his son.  His son was more into academics than he was sports, and Joe expressed multiple times that he wished his son was more involved in sports.  He had a very “tough love” outlook on his parenting style, but to me, it almost seemed as if he was too focused on sports, and since his son was capable of playing sports, that he should naturally be interested in them too, but he wasn’t. Towards the end, it showed him opening up more to what his son enjoyed doing, but his negative disposition was still visible.

One part of the film that really struck me as interesting was when it explained how the players were each rated on a scale of ability level.  I thought it was interesting that even with the label of being “disabled” there was a range in which you were considered so. I would like to see how this scale would do on all types of people, if society was held to a scale to determine who is ideal and who isn’t, would their still be negative connotations on those who we believe to be “disabled?” I think society would realize that each individual is different, and although they aren’t the same as you or me, that they are strongly capable in their own ways.

Word Count:627

Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She

This documentary expresses both gender and sexual identities as being something biologically and naturally defined, opposed to something that is chosen.  Variation among identifications were portrayed as something positive, and demonstrated that all types of people deserved to be respected equally, no matter what their differences are, even when society hasn’t followed that construction.  One line in the movie that really tied this thought together was, “ Biology loves variation, but society hates it.” This quote really depicted how biology is construed of variety of things, but society has been the one to put negative connotations onto something that is naturally defined.

An argument that I found to strongly support this was the story of Noah, an eight-year-old boy who physically is a male, but takes on feminine tendencies such as dancing, dressing up, wearing girl clothes.  At a young age, Noah is confident in being who he is, and although his parents have tried to discourage his behaviors, they also did nothing to rear him in a feminine manner, making his identification quite natural. During this documentary, Noah is questioned about how the way kids treat him at school, and he says they ask a lot of questions and sometimes he gets tired of people asking him the same questions, such as, “Are you a girl or boy?”  This reminded me of the clip, “Reteaching Gender and Sexuality,” in which young individuals express how they are “so over” getting asked these reoccurring question.

  Noah’s story also reminded me of the article,  Cisgender Privilege Checklist, that defines all of the privileges somebody who identifies as cisgender receives, such as, “ 2. I can be confident that people will not call me by a different name or use improper pronouns.” People just like Noah won’t always have the same privileges as cisgender individuals, which is something Noah never chose for himself, that’s something that was naturally taken away from him, but he is happy with the way he is nonetheless

Another example of natural intersexuality is the story of Max, who was born as a female named Judy with indistinct genitalia, which led to identification confusion throughout life, and made Judy feel like an outcast.  After being in a strong relationship with another woman, Judy finally decided that the label of “female” did not necessarily pertain to him, resulting in him changing into Max, where he became much more comfortable and happy with his identification.  His story shows that an individual does not always fall in the distinct black and white categories of male and female, and there is quite a variation of possibilities as shown in Anne Fausto- Sterling’s article about the five sexes. The title alone, The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough, shows that two categories are not specific enough to define a persons’ gender identity. Both the movie and this article show that there are biologically multiple variations to the XY(men) and XX(woman) gender categories, and that there shouldn’t be limitations to having just two genders.

The only argument I didn’t find convincing in this documentary was when it was describing animals and their sexual habits.  I feel like animals are always brought into human biology, even when our behaviors and characteristics are different.  It was focuses a lot on pleasure and I didn’t think the natural sexual tendencies of animals helped explain the natural biological tendencies of how an individual identifies as.

This documentary relates to our course in various different ways.  The individuals in this documentary show anybody who identifies outside of a male and female label are considered deviant.  The different stories from all around the world also show that each place holds different societal values, where it can be considered deviant in one setting, it can be valued as beautiful in another.

            Something that stood out to me was the traditions of the Katoi and how socially they were accepted. I would like to study the social constructions around why the Katoi are so well accepted, and why other cultures believe differently. I would like to gather information from individuals about their views and values of intersex from both outside sources, to people who are involved in viewing or taking part in being a Katoi, and see how the social constructions differ from each perspective.

Word Count: 715

Works Cited:

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993): 20-25. Print.

Blog Post 2: Why I Am Deviant

According to society, I have been thrown into the category of being deviant, ranging from the way I have acted to the way I look ever since I was little. Growing up, males were the more dominant sex that was present in my life.  I was always around my dad, brothers, uncles, and male cousins, so naturally, when I learned what was an “appropriate” way to act as a child, it was far more different than what most other girls were taught, because they didn’t have such a strong male influence in their upbringing. I was taught to be tough and not to be afraid of getting dirty, when societies directions on behaving were the quite opposite. Being dainty, pretty, sweet, and clean were more valued for girls, and the expectations in which girls were supposed to act were different than how I acted.  When society was telling me to play with Barbies, be a cheerleader and have tea parties, I was doing what my brothers did, playing football, riding quads and playing in the dirt, even when I was encouraged that those behaviors/actions were not “appropriate” for my gender.  According to Sutherland and Cresseys Differential Association Theory, an individual commits a crime by learning or being influenced by someone around them.  Although it wasn’t a crime to act more like a boy than a girl, it was still considered a deviant action due to the influences around me.  Just like Professor Williams’ example of breaking into the Bookie because of the influence of Janae Teal, I was taught to act a certain way, because of the influence of those surrounding me, and according to society, the way I was acting was not the “cookie cutter” girl way that I was supposed to be acting.

As I’ve grown older, I have found more ways to define myself, other than the ways I was taught as a child, and some of these definitions of character have gone against societal norms as well.  I am very interested in body modification, whether it is tattoos or piercings, and growing up with a Christian background, this has been considered extremely deviant in the setting and culture of the church.  As learned in class, Beckers’ Labeling Theory shows that deviance is defined by those to stray from the culture norms, especially when involving influenced behaviors or actions, and these deviances are heavily stereotyped among society. On the first day of class when doing an exercise of getting to know the person sitting next to us without communicating, my partner was surprised to find out I was heavily involved with church because of my outward appearance.  For me, this reassured the negative stereotype that goes hand in hand with these “deviant” body declarations, that they’re associated negatively with the person that posses them.  What surprises me the most is that even within the stereotypes, there are ranges of acceptance.  What I mean by this is, because some of my tattoos have religious or personal affiliation, they are more accepted than someone who get’s something considered random or spur of the moment, tattooed on them. Even within stereotypes, society holds views of what can be justified, while others still remain more deviant.

For my deviant act, I chose to dress differently than what I’m used to. I usually dress pretty modestly, so I stepped out of my comfort zone and decided to show a little more skin.  I went to three different public places; a grocery store, the mall, and Walmart.  In all three locations, I received the same negative connotations, including derogatory labels as well as dirty looks from woman, but positive acknowledgement from men.  Society holds an image of being beautiful and showing off assets, but I found out when the line switched from attractive appearance to trashy appearance, and it was interesting to see how much it differed from men to woman.  This experience reminded me a lot of discussion during class, when we talked about how it can be perceived as positive for one gender but not for another sometimes, and how the standards chance from person to person, and this really reaffirmed that conversation for me.

 

WORD COUNT: 694
 References:

-Class notes, discussion

-Picture 1&2 : http://news.change.org/stories/childrens-books-fcking-with-gender-roles-since-1970

-Picture 3: http://sansddprojects.blogspot.com/2010/01/art-artistry-artisan-johnny-two-thumbs.html