Freaks...

Why didn't the author talk more about the personal live of the so called "freaks?" I feel like the author talked more about the business aspect and attracting customers and not the lives of the "freaks." Why didn't he talk about their personal lives and how they felt being on display and what type of money they made?

Freak show studies

What drew my attention the most in Bogdan's article is that scientist basically used the freaks in the show as test subjects. I think it showed the most that this was a period of increasing curiosity in the study of human anatomy and geological origins of people. It also showed the lack of values that these researchers had. They didn't view these people as humans but merely objects to observe.

To freak, or not to freak.

The importance of the presentation of these exhibits is heavily discussed and Bogdan gives interesting examples to many of these claims. From Siamese twins to extremely tall people, the range of “freak” leaves the reader wondering who is making the “freak or not” call. Once we begin to break down the social construction of “freaks,” how will society differ between people who do not fit into the “norm?”

The Age Old Question of Nature v.s. Nuture

The general theme in many of the fringe society songs (i.e. my favorite genre hardcore music) is that you should never give in. Be who you are, wear guyliner and don't be afraid of being different. Am I saying that this is a bad message to share with the youth of a nation?

No.

Is it perpetuating a feeling of Freakishness or otherness?


HELL YES!

The intro to the album We Stitch These Wounds by Black Veil Brides (as a personal note this is a HORRIBLE album... do not under any circumstances listen to this album. Please.) states the following...

"This record is for the outcasts. The following are songs about love, life, and never giving in. We are the Black Veil Brides."

Is this a return to the days of old where freaks were put on display and hype masters called for more profit to be generated? I mean, isn't this an example of a band calling all of those who feel left out and different from the crowd to buy into this cash cow of a Pretty boy wearing make up screaming his heart out for this band? (I really really really really REALLY hate this band.) And if you don't agree with the above is this a regression from the ways of old; where the "common man" was the one harping at how strange these people are, not the strange people calling for those who are the "common man" to be different? Is being a "freak" or a Hardcore music fan bad? No, not at all. On the other hand, is being a band that wants fans to band together with their differences against those considered common? Again I feel the answer is No, not at all. But in truth this as answer for you to decide...

Freak Shows to Beauty Contests

From the 1840's to the 1940's, crowds of people used to gather at the circus tents or dime museums to look at people with anomalies, disabilities, and other differences. People stared in awe of exaggerated characters such as giants or someone without arms. Over time though, the performers at these shows viewed differently. According to Rosemarie Garland Thomson in "The Beauty and the Freak", those that were once viewed as marvels of nature, were now seen as medically abnormal and needed curing. Around the end of the 19th century and into the 20th century, beauty contests were quickly gaining favor. Ironically P.T. Barnum was the first to organize these beauty contests-the same man that helped make freak shows wildly popular in the 1800's and early 1900's. The freaks gradually faded from the stages and moved to asylums where they could be studied for scientific purposes. Is it right to exploit humans with disabilities for profit? Are Beauty contest and freak shows an acceptable form of entertainment and amusement?

Freaks: Yes? No? Maybe?

After reading Bogdan's "The Social Construction of Freaks," it became clear to me just how popular freak shows, as a form of entertainment, were between 1840 and 1940. I remember going to Coney Island and seeing old-fashioned signs and venues where freak shows were held. Once, I even saw a modern-day type of freak show where the audience would pay to shoot the running "freak"... fun stuff, right? Well, do you think freak shows, as described in the article (disregarding any type of possible current laws outlawing them), would still be popular today? Why? Why not? Or have people finally woken up and realized just how dehumanizing these exhibits were? I resorted to Wikipedia and discovered that:

"Today, Michigan law forbids the 'exhibition [of] any deformed human being or human monstrosity, except as used for scientific purposes.' [1] However, in many states in the USA and in other countries abroad, one can still see freak shows at carnivals and state fairs, in bars and nightclubs, and on daytime television talk shows." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freak_show)

I also came across this: http://www.coneyisland.com/sideshow_school.shtml

HUH?!

Freak Shows: Then and Now

From the mid 19th to the mid 20th century, freak shows were an extremely popular form of entertainment. By the beginning of World War II, however, the popularity of freak shows began to fade. Over the remainder of the 20th century and into the 21st, disabilities and other human characteristics considered extraordinarily outside the mainstream gradually became to be accepted. While old style freak shows have disappeared decades ago, have they really vanished from American culture? Shows like Jerry Springer, Maury, and Judge Judy could be considered the modern form of freak shows. These TV programs, viewed by millions nationwide, often feature people who are largely outside the mainstream, and willingly appear on the show, not unlike the freak shows of decades past. The people who appear on these shows are a spectacle to the audience who are watching solely for entertainment. Have freak shows truly ended? Or have they been replaced with a more modern, subtle edifice?

Bogdan

The Freak Show was one of the most popular forms of entertainment in from 1840 to 1940. This certainly wasnt by any accident. What kind of tactics were employed to keep the publics interest in this forum of entertainment? Are those same tactics still employed, in some form, throughout contemporary entertainment?

But what now?

Bogdan's article demonstrated how freak shows of the turn of the century shaped society's perceptions of those deemed "disabled." What forms of modern media have shaped society's perceptions more recently?

Discrimination has always been a troublesome issue in American Culture. It can be argued that freak shows promoted discrimination on disabled people by secluding them and declaring them weird and abnormal. Today, society has become more accepting of disabled and other groups as well, and discrimination has decreased. Freak shows are not socially accepted today. How has society gradually changed over the last century to become more accepting of groups such as dsiabled people who were once strongly discriminated against?

Freaks

Even though freak shows were a big form of entertainment, do you think that the "freaks" ever felt exploited? Do you think that people (for example midget) that were not in these shows ever offended when seeing these shows? Do you think that this could become very popular again?

Intrigue in Difference?

Why do you think freak shows brought so many people to their shows? Why is it that the supposedly "normal" or "average" human being is so interested by someone else's differences rather than just accepting them? And who is it that decides what is normal from who is a freak?

What were we thinking

When reading a part of Bogdans book I realized how these people were used for amusement and as a money making venture. On top of that why would they make people who weren't freaks into freaks? Also Why would people put with being humiliated for so long? Why was this socially acceptable?

Inner beauty or outer beauty?

In Margaret Cho's beauty pageant, she focused on inner beauty rather than outer beauty, do you think beauty pageants could be changed into inner beauty pageants? Focusing on actually being smart, having a good personality, and being an actual 'real' person, rather than these super skinny, super tan, super fake 'beauty queens'? If so, would these pageants be as successful as they are now, or would they be laughed at and not taken seriously?

The Freak

In the article that we read in this week, author mentioned that the freak show was declined since people see the disabled people as a patient. Freak shows within contemporary American society have not been prevalent. The viewpoint towards freaks has shifted throughout American history. Originally, people expressed curiosity in regards to freaks. However, people started to fear freak. Why people started to feel fear the freak? Why don't people feel curiosity towards freak in the scientific field? Why do public people prefer the negative performance much more than positive performance?

Socially Constructed Freaks

According to Bogdan, freaks shows were one of the first ways that individuals with disabilities were dehumanized and misrepresented. Then in the early part of the twentieth century, people with disabilities were thought to be dangerous and a threat to society, resulting in pity. Why does Bogdan compare the two images? And what steps, if any has society taken in removing the "pity" factor when it comes to the disabled?

Social Construction

We have read about how social construction can be negative by developing the issues that go along with words like "freak" and "race." However, social construction is a fundamental part of society. It teaches us gender roles, the correct ways to act in certain settings, and how to make sense of the world around us. Would the world be a better place if we didn't have social construction or stereotypes? How would people with disabilities get help if it was socially wrong for people to acknowledge their differences?

Freak shows

Why is it that Freak shows aren't as popular today as in the 1840's many people have talents and are coming up with new and more interesting ideas? Also with the rising ability to advertise and promote comparing to the early days, Why do you think the business has decrease so dramatically?

Freaks

How has the depiction of the term "freak" changed from 1920 to current day? What type of people were considered freaks in the 1920s and how do we use it to describe individuals in todays world?

Rise of Beauty, Fall of Freak

Why do you believe in the 1920's the beauty pagent began to become more popular while the freak show began to become less popular?

In both freak shows and beauty pagents, the people are given stage names. What is the purpose of these names? Do they have a positive or negative connotation?

Complexity in the modes of presentation

The Bogdan article talked about the complexity in the image of the many exhibits, including humor. Why did humor never catch on as another mode for these exhibits to be framed in?

Circus of Freaks

One of the questions that came to my mind stemmed from the conclusion of Robert Bogdan's "The Social Construction of Freaks". He argues that "the concept of 'freak' no longer sustains careers", but aren't there people who still make careers based on the notion of that they are freaks?

Emotion and Mode

Bogdan states that pity as a mode of representation was nearly absent, but couldn't both the aggrandized mode and exotic mode of presentation invoke feelings of empathy or sympathy to some degree? Why or why not?

Disability Vs Race

While race and disability share similarities, they aren't the same thing. Firstly, I'd like to point out that the distinction between what is considered a disability is fundamentally different from race in that, for example, ADD can or cannot be considered a disability depending on which doctor you talk to, however being Japanese goes no further than that. I think this distinction is important because where there are times in which circumstances need to be altered to make a situation far for a disabled person, that can't really be said about a race difference. Follow this in context: If on an exam, a blind person was to be read all the questions in a seperate room from the rest of the subjects taking the test. However, this could never done for someone of a particular race (and rightfully so I believe). Therefore, the distinction between race and disability is that disability often requires a change in circumstance which I don't think can be validated by race.

Disability vs. Race

In my opinion the topic of disability is very similar to the topic of race. People tend to think less of a person with a disability regardless of what the disability might be. In "The Social Construction of Disability" the author tells a story of a guy calling a disabled lady a burden. To me, that is the equivalence of someone making a racial comment. People usually tend to get offended when they are called something racist. Picture yourself or a loved one being disabled, you wouldn't like it it one bit if someone made an ignorant comment about it.

Wendell

Wendell's piece was extremely interesting in that it pointed out a significant point that I have never realized befor. The fact that the environment that society cultivates has such a profound effect on who becomes "disabled", and wether or not the environment is the reason for the disability. In essence, if by war, pollution, or neglegence, an individual can become disabled due to these factors, and in return we create a socially constucted atmosphere that limits these individuals from reaching their potential.

Unpopular View

After reading the blog responses from the class, I found the amount of dislike for the phrase “crip drag” to be extremely interesting. I personally did not feel that the phrase was meant to be disrespectful to anyone, but rather to evoke an emotion. And evoke an emotion it did! The phrase brings out the discomfort associated with disability in society, while emphasizing this “no big deal” discourse. Since actors have portrayed disabled peoples in the past, what should stop them today, right? The underlying messages, which are delivered through media outlets, are not only shaping our generation, but also shaping the societies of the world. I think that the American public tends to make most opinions based on personal experience, which is very natural. But shouldn’t some opinions have consideration for “the other”? For argument sake, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a disabled child. How many disabled heroes or heroines are in the American public for us to idealize? Disabled celebrities that able bodied people are aware of? A change in American media, for the sake of respect and understanding is long overdue, but why not start with a popular show like Glee?

I found that most of the class chose to comment on the arguments that they did not agree with, but I’m interested to know if anyone agreed with any of the points the authors were making in the readings. One of the topics brought up in The Social Construction of Disability reading, is the theme of expectation. How do expectations differ between groups of people in a society? I mean, it is perfectly acceptable (or expected) for a student to be offended by a harsh critique of a seemingly harmless show, but is it not allowable (or expected) for a person with a disability to be offended by how disability is portrayed?

I am enjoying this area of critique, but I feel that I need to do more research before I can form a personal opinion on what a disability entails and who would fall into this category.

Whos staring at who?

i found that the article staring back presented the reader with a very interesting juxtaposition of beauty and art with the idea of disability. the venus de milo has come to represent beauty and perfection in the world of art, yet, ironically enough, the figure lacks complete arms. such an oversight is acceptable in an art piece, but when the same image is presented in the flesh it ellicits a much different response. such is the case in a much broader sense. when the disability is merely spoken of or thought of, its true gravity is not realized. when someone actually spends time with a person with a disability, it is much more relateable. there is an identity beyond merely the disablity. it may be difficult at first for one to adjust their mindset, but such exposure is the best way for one to accept the disabled in society.

Staring Back

Rosemarie Garland Thomson's article was very interesting since I have never heard of this form of artistic expression before. Thomson's reference to Mary Duffy's performance really stuck with me and I am not sure how I would react to seeing this performance. I am also very impressed with Duffy's response when she is asked, "What happened to you?" Duffy says, "I felt, even in the face of such opposition, that my body was the way it was supposed to be. It was right for me, as well as being whole, complete, and functional." I think that Duffy is a very brave woman for doing this performance and I'm sure she has inspired many other disabled people to do the same.

I think that there can be a connection between the articles "Staring Back" and "The Social Construction of Disability." The Staring Back article emphasizes that disability is not something to be looked down upon, but just a different form of beauty. People may look at people with disabilities, say "what happened?," and feel bad for that person. Disabled people look different, but that doesn't make them any less of a person. This is similar to what the Social Construction article emphasizes, which is that disabled people aren't any worse on than others, they just do things differently. The world is structured on the physical abilities of man, and that is why people think disability is a problem, when really it a just a different form of living. Just like the body was a different form of art.

Disability

One quote that really stood out to me in "The Social Construction of Disability" was, "the more society regards disability as a private matter, and people with disabilities as belonging to the private sphere, the more disability it creates..." I like Wendell's point here because by making it be "awkward" to put disabilities on public television or talk about it openly only makes it more of a mystery to people. Such a wide range of disabilities exist that it shouldn't even be an option to have one category of "disabled" people. Working at the Special Olympics showed me that mentally disabled people are often the strongest inside because of what they have to deal with on a day to day basis. They are often more willing to talk about their disabilities and explain them to an average person than one would think.

Art/Human

I really like the reading "Staring Back" because it put so many visual in your head. It made you think outside the box. How she is like we always naturally say when we see a disabled what happened to them. Its like we view that person as someone different than one of us. I also like how she makes the human body out to a piece of art and makes it into a performance. It was a nice way to read a piece like this. It really made you think about everything she was saying.

Staring back

The article by Rosemarie Thomson is an account of an artist named Mary Duffy. What Duffy does is incredibly brave but I don't think the article does a good job of diving into what the performance means. She goes into full detail describing what is seen on stage, but what is the whole point of the performance? By presenting her "disabled" body nude in front of a live audience it isn't to invoke staring, but instead she allows it. She does the exact opposite of hiding her disability, and her bravery gives the audience the ability to accept her disability as fact. It strips the disability of it's power by allowing the audience to see past it. We stop focusing on what isn't there and start paying attention to what is, a beautiful human being. This is the true beauty of Mary Duffy's performance as described by the writer of the article. Not that she challenges the "stare-and-tell ritual" but instead openly invites people to look at her naked form, and show that a disability has no power over her.

Staring Eyes and Gaping Mouths

I really enjoyed Rosemarie Garland Thomson’s article, “Staring Back.” As I read it I pictured the performance in my mind… it was pretty mind blowing! I had never heard of this type of art. I think it’s great how self-representative it is! Like the article says, it’s pretty autobiographical, as it is one’s self visually represented through narrative. I can also see how Thomson describes such performances as a “confusing combination.” Thomson continues to describe the performances as compelling and illicit, as the audience is confronted with the artist’s “freakishly different body” as a beautiful form. Although I would be a little astounded, I really wish I could see one of these performances…

As dumb as it sounds, I tried looking for one on YouTube… I failed miserably. I then googled Mary Duffy and found her website. Apparently she’s now more of a painter. On her website, in her About Me, there’s a section that says “My former work as a performance artist… In it, it said… “I would like to be able to show on this website, my last performance, but I can't. Not only are the sound appalling, and the picture less than perfect, but also a record of the performance misses out the essential ingredient, which makes this performance work. The essential ingredient of course is being there.” There goes that… Well I’m sure if I continue to look harder I can find another disabled performance artist.

It’s great we’re covering this in class because it really is something I don’t think I would’ve come across otherwise. I really do look forward to maybe one day actually being at one of these performances.

Like Duffy says... I would be one in the audience with "staring eyes and gaping mouths," but I wouldn't want to make her feel ashamed, but rather accomplished as a true artist.

Disabilities Opinion

There are few topics that are as heated as disability. Disabilities inhibit people from doing certain tasks that would be easier for a non-disabled person to do. The author of "The Social Construction of Disability believes that society has neglected the needs of disabled people at the most basic levels. The opinions and assumptions that society makes are detrimental to the understanding and acceptance of disabled people throughout society. I agree with the authors opinion that society is geared toward the benefit of those that are not disabled while the disabled are accommodated minimally or not at all. I was surprised to find that one of the main reason society does not adequately accommodate disabled people is because there are debates to who should be responsible for the care of disabled people and would a different system for the care of disabled people be more or less costly for society? The topic of disabilities is a continuous debate that will take time before an effective solution is found.

Disability Views

In the article, "The Social Construction of Disability," the author made some valid points. I think that in society it is definitely hard for people to step out of the box and relate to others in different conditions. When I lived in NYC, there would always be a few grumbles when someone in a wheelchair was getting on the bus. It would take them an extra ten minutes to get loaded on, and if they got off before you, another ten minutes to get off. It seems selfish and inconsiderate to have such a reaction, however many people feel that way everyday. The person in the wheelchair can see the annoyance on everyone's face and it makes them feel like a burden. The article pointed out that disabled people experience such feelings in various aspects of society. A burden because they always need help, useless because they can't work at an adequate job..etc. It is important that society makes better steps to ensure that the disabled has adequate resources so that many of these negative feelings can be alleviated on both sides.

Disability in my life

Disability is a topic that I've been associated with lately because of having a deaf roomate. He works as a chef at red lobster and has to deal with many different hardships.Such as communicating through notes and how he is able to drive to work each day. I'm just beginning to realize what he goes through many people in the apartment complex know him and he gets a lot of good attention. His other senses are heightened and he has many talents. The "otherness" as stated in the article still will always be associated with him, but he is always treated as an equal.

Yet Another Cliche

The episode of Glee that aired last year, Wheels, was yet another attempt by Hollywood to portray a physical disability as a "a condition that is to be pitied, doubted, and overcome at a very heat wrenching moment at the show's conclusion". It was a another token attempt by the producers to actively include minority characters in the show, joining a laundry list of half-baked attempts by Glee to include Gays, Asians, and Blacks. What made this episode in particular stand out however, was the fact that it touched upon all the stereotypical depictions of a physical disability by Hollywood almost on cue. Artie's entire character development on the show was essentially driven by disability stereotypes, the biggest example of which was his crush on Tina. Essentially, Artie fell for her due to the fact that he thought she had a stuttering issue, but the truth was that Tina had faked the whole thing in an attempt to be "unique". Naturally, Artie is terribly hurt by this lie, but more importantly, it is a demonstration by the show's producers that people with disabilities are very "different" and drive people away by their very nature. The episode then tops it all off with a feel good concert at the end. But in the end, the producers look at it as entertainment, and to them, that is all that matters.

Disability

The article "Social Construction of Disability" presented a viable argument that society dictates disability. I agree that social and culture are the two main factors to construct disability mentioned by Susan Wendell. In the article, there are many social factors to affect the disabled, such as the lack of resources and the pace of life. The article also mentions that public world determines their own standard to indicate a person whether is disability or not. It is senseless that determine person is disable just because they cannot reach the standard like cannot walk as fast as the standard. Culture is the second major factor to construct disability. There is an example about a woman, Francine Arsenault who has damaged leg, and indicates that culture always abbreviates and stereotype the people with disability. There is a contradictory argument that providing some welfare to the disabled. I agree that it is unfair to non-disabled have this handicap. Simultaneously, I want to ask a question that if the special treatment is considered as a stigma and stereotyping to the disabled. In fact, I totally disagree that disability is a group of hopeless people without ability. There were many examples of the successful disabled people in the history ,such as Beethoven, Recently, I found out an amazing armless piano player in China. Therefore, I believe that disabled people should not be stereotyped and ignored in our world.

Glee

I have honestly never watched the show Glee before but I feel the article that was written about it was taken too far. From the brief showing we saw in class I saw nothing wrong with the episode. The use of crip drag is not uncommon. Dustin Hoffman played Rain Main which he played a man with disabilities. Just because the epidode is about disability, it doesn't mean that Artie has to be constantly showed. It seems to me that the author thinks that if there is an episode on disabilty then the person playing that role has to have that disability. I feel that is wrong. In my opinion if I was handicapped and was bound to a wheel chair, I would not want to play a role that emphasized my disability. Also the author gets out of hand where they discuss the stunt doubles to do the scene at the end. The other says that it was not acknowledged and that it is an actual competetive sport. If someone had said that it was not a competetive sport then they would have an argument. I think that Glee is just a show that just adds certain things to spice it up. I do not think that its going for a shocker each week. I feel that the author of this article had nothing else to do. They honestly picked out things that they could twist to their advantage. If you do not like the show then do not watch it. It is as simple as that.

Disability

I was not happy while reading The Social Construction of Disability because it combined feminist ideas to the argument of the social construction of the disabled. I assumed that this article would be (strictly?) about the disabled and how they are marginalized in the world because they are different from 'normal' men and women...

Why is she relating women as disabled individuals? Because I don't see that.

"Feminists talk about how the world has been designed for the bodies and activities of men." Really? Are there NO female architects in the world? Because the majority of architects are able-bodied individuals , who assume that the people who will be using/living/working in the buildings are also able-bodied, of course there will be stairs and doors. That supermarket argument is just absolutely ludicrous. "Where can you rest for a few minutes in a supermarket if you needed to?" There are electric carts offered to people who can't walk. There are seats by the play pens for children (Wegman's), there are seat at the entrance of Tops, there are seats by the food courts at both Wegman's and Tops. Last time I checked, people go to supermarkets to shop, not to sit down.

I was offended when she wrote "poor architectural planning". Is she a certified architect herself? How can she tell if a building is ill-equipped? She makes it sound as if disabled people, as a whole, are offended at the constructed buildings. If she's asking a complete overhaul of how architects design buildings, I ask that they put in moving sidewalks along with the ramps and elevators. I'm going to ask for a golf cart to take me to the next class while I'm at it.

I'm wondering where her argument for obese men and women are. Aren't they disabled too (based on her definition of the physically disabled)?

When she wrote (basically) that sickness is given paid leave, but for pregnancies, women aren't, I recalled an article written by a female Polish political scientist who compared the capitalist and communist laws of maternity leave. She wrote, during communism, women were granted paid maternity leave for up to 6 months, and now, in Poland, as an industrialized, capitalist society, women are forced to leave when they become pregnant. Women are now hired last and the first to get fired in present day Poland, but before the Solidarity movement and the collapse of the Soviet Union, women had more rights, more liberties at the working place than now.

There are more women than men at universities in Poland right now - I don't think that's a disability. If anything, I can argue that men are intellectually disabled in Poland now.

I think that the author needs to recognize that it's not society that creates this notion of a disability. It's the market. There is no profit if companies create products dedicated to the minority population (the disabled) when they can exploit the majority (who are generally "able-bodied). The market creates the society. The perpetuation of the market only embellishes the marginalization of the disabled. That's what I just thought of without thinking too much about it.

Honestly? That's what you're gonna call it?

Okay, if I seem angry or upset, it might be because I am. Let's take a look at the phenomenon of non disabled people playing roles of disabled people. I don't have a huge issue with this, however I am extremely upset at the term being used for the role.

Crip Drag.

Really? I mean honestly, okay fine don't use a disabled actor to play the part that's fine whatever but you're seriously going to call it Crip Drag? As far as I'm concerned that term should be saved for a Blood going into enemy territory, not for the topic at hand. I'm not personally disabled but a member of my family is. If I walked up to her and called her a crip, or even a cripple I'm pretty sure she would not only disown me but also whack me upside the head and make me leave her house. To me that term is SO demoralizing and unsuited. Just because a person has a handicap or is disabled doesn't mean they're a cripple. As far as I'm concerned the term crippled should be saved for NASCAR when a car is knocked out of the race. I know I seem stuck on this one topic but it's something that bothers me all the time. all of these hateful words thrown around at all walks of life, and I'm sure you know these words and probably have used some of them. But please, don't make it part of modern lexicon. Please don't make the official term used for anything be hateful. As far as I'm concerned, crip is just as degrading as calling a black person the N- word or calling a Mentally handicapped person the R- word. Can we please, as a nation, hell even as a class, gain the fortitude to stop with the simple stereotyping and hate? Please?

Disability

When I first started reading about this whole people without disabilities playing roles of people with disabilities, at first I thought it was wrong to be portraying something that they aren't. Then I started to really think about it and that's what Hollywood is, everyone portrays someone that they're not, so why should it be wrong to portray someone with a disability? I also thought about who I would consider disabled, and I think I might be a little extreme but I feel that almost everyone with a physical, mental, or emotional problem is disabled. I feel that most people would just categorize disabilities as something like learning problems, or down-syndrome, things like that but I feel as though disability can be anything, and people shouldn't be judged by their disability whether it be how they look, communicate, or get around. So I guess what I'm getting at is that I consider anything that isn't completely normal to be a disability, but I'm not judging or pretending that I'm perfect because I feel that I have a disability as well. Disabilities shouldn't make you different, and it definitely shouldn't change the way people view you, unfortunately it does.

The cultural construction of disability, is a big part of why we talk about it I think. The reason why its not as addressed as topics like race, ethnicity, or gender is because we can't relate. A person who is walking could never understand just what a person has to go thru on a daily basis or what i mentally challenged person is thinking. For example on t.v. its not addressed because people watch shows in which they can relate and will not watching something they don't know or understand, this causes people to ignore and be ignorant to the situation.

"The Social Construction of Disability" addresses the physical "imperfection" in relation to disability. As mentioned in the article, some people would consider facial scarring as a disability simply because that person does not fit what society would describe as a "normal" appearance. I think that this idea in also evident in the increase of cosmetic surgeries recently. Also, there are many different types of prosthetic limbs and some of them can be covered with a foam encasing sculpted in the form of a "normal" limb. Is this cover beneficial to the person or to an outsider? Is it simply to stop some of the stares or questions? I really liked the article about Mary Duffy because she showcased her physical differences in the form of iconic female beauty, Venus.

Disabilities and Glee

Smith was extremely harsh in his review of the "Wheels" episode on Glee. I understand that Glee was trying to bring disability into an episode to bring light on the topic, however, I don't think that Glee was trying to have some sort of life changing episode that would change the world forever. I know someone with a disability is nothing to take lightly, but I almost feel as if Smith sees this episode as if EVERYONE in the world was watching and HAD to watch it because it would effect out lives. Where as the truth is (as seen by how no one in class watches Glee) not everyone in the world saw this episode. I think Glee was just trying to provide entertainment to its audience just like any other show and was trying to gain viewers. I think the moral of the episode was more about all of them coming together to help out their classmate rather than dealing with someone who had a disability.

Glee

I believe that Smith's gave Glee a little too much thought in his article. Glee is a show like any other in that its goal is to retain viewers and provide entertainment. The difference that Glee holds is that it deals with sensitive subjects. Any time a sensitive subject is brought up, someone is going to find the negative aspects to it. However, I think that this episode of Glee portrayed disabilities in a positive lights. I do not watch Glee and that was the first time I caught even the slightest glimpse of what the show is about. From what I saw, it's a form of entertainment that brings controversial issues to a different light. It seems that while it provides entertainment, it also attempts to loosen tension about subjects and see positive aspects of these subjects. As for the term crip drag, I think a more respectable term could be used but in the end it's a term that describes the role. I see no problem with actors or actresses without a disability playing the role of someone with one. It takes a very talented person to pull certain disability roles off. As long as the person plays that role with respect and sensitivity. It's television and the best actor or actress for any part should be selected regardless of if they have a disability or not.

Cliches

Smith and I share a similar sentiment. And I think many disabled people out there also share it. There's a reason English professors tell their students to avoid using cliches: they are trite, dull, vague, and one-dimensional, much like the representation of Archie as a disabled person, according to Smith. I don't have a problem with crip drag (but the term sounds icky, so I guess you could say that I have a problem with the wording). What I have a problem with is the representation. A cliche is a cliche and a stereotype is a stereotype, crip drag or not. If an able-bodied actor is convincing and truly strikes a chord or emotion within an individual while accurately portraying a disabled person, and if the character has substance and is multi-dimensional, than the representation deserves praise. Actors are paid to act, and if they do the role justice, why not use them? I don't think the film industry should go in search of disabled people and try to turn them into actors, but if there are disabled actors out there in search of the film industry, then why not use these people (And I don't just mean for "special" token episodes of shows or for roles where demonstration of disability is the focal point of the film or show). Make more recurring roles for these people, as Smith says. And if the industry does this, they have to do it right, or not at all. One "special" episode a season won't cut it. These types of episodes make disabilities seem rare, when they really aren't. The character doesn't have to be the disability itself, but a multi-faceted individual who happens to have a disability.

Glee and Disability

The article written about Glee that we discussed in class seems to raise a few controversial points. Firstly, I'd like to address the actual critique of the episode. On this level, I think people just need to mind there own buisness and not take T.V. too seriously. If you don't like Glee, don't watch it. It's not like a political issue where if the bill in question is passed, you and other-like minded individuals will have to abide by the new law. However, I think there is something to be discussed about crip drag. I think it's perfectly fine. I don't see any reason why an actor can persue a million facets of life, but then disability is across that imaginary line. But furthermore, personally, I think that everyone and everything should be able to be put on T.V. in any light. There seems to be this double standard in television. It's ok to make fun of just the really stupid kid, but once he is actually mentally disabled - oops nevermind that's too far. What kind of bullcrap is that? If you want to be treated equally, and I'm all for that, EVERY social construct needs to be able to be made fun of, just like every other one like race, sex, ethnicity, etc. No one cares if family guy makes a black joke but wait a minute, they just made a mentally disabled joke - HOLD THE PHONES EVERYONE. Like I said, I think this standard in television goes both ways. Either it's ok to talk, discuss and poke fun at everyone, or no one. I don't run shouting to the T.V. network when they make short, irish, italian, male or video game nerd jokes. In the same light, I think it's ridiculous that this person becomes outraged at an even lesser extent to that. No one in that Glee episode is even making fun of the disabled person and are in fact portraying them in a hugely positive light. As such, my conclusion to this incessant post of multiple digressions and ramblings is this: Actors play people. As such, they should be allowed to play ALL kinds of people. In the same respect, ALL kinds of people should be fair game for shows to discuss, apply sympthay, or even poke fun at. It's just television.

Working class today

During the time of Marxism, Karl Marx wanted the working class to one day rise against the ruling class. Today we don't have necessarily have a ruling class but the working class still remains. I wouldn't consider a doctor or a lawyer working class but there are many immigrants in this country who work just to put food on the table and they barely make enough money to do that. People get payed off the books and make under minimum wage and work in bad conditions and in unsafe places. Therefore, do people still agree with Marxist theories now? Is there even the slightest chance that this working class will one day rise up against their authorities?

Social Darwinism

The main problem with Marxism is that it halts social and economic progress. It basically requires that products and culture to stay the same in order to maintain stability. With Capitalism you have a economic structure that is driven by new and improved products since companies are competition with each other. Therefore Capitalism is necessary for a society that wishes to progress beyond traditional norms.

Marx

Marx' s analysis of the relationship between between the working class and the capitalist is pretty convincing, but capitalism as well as every other system has flaws. I think that the transition to socialism/communism would not "further the productive potential inherited from capitalism." Can socialism exist in a country that is socially vast with several cultures, religions etc? How would the new society be motivated to be "successful" and innovative if production would be directed to serving social needs? Why didn't Marx see the fair exchange of labor/pay as a an positive way to earn an living?

Whose class?

In the discussion on the origins of Marxism, I found it extremely interesting that, the onset of an Industrial revolution “produced as much poverty as it did wealth.” And this idea was one of the “main ingredients” aided in the formation of Marxism. This formation tactic does not sound like the beginnings of a classless society. Is a Marxist society the only true option in the creation of a classless society? And is money the only indicator of a persons class?

Marxism Today

In the article it explains how Marxism has always been under attack and even today he is often criticized. However, the article also mentions how Karl Marx is accused non stop for things he apparently never did or for claims he never made. Why do you think this is? Capitalism has changed severely over the past hundred years so why all of a sudden start falsely accusing Marx now?

Hegel and Marx

Marxs took a lot of his ideas from Hegel. But Why when Hegel was examines peoples thoughts with out them why was Marxs putting them back into there heads? What was he trying to get at was it the development of social behaviors?

Inequality or communism?

Marx states that if the working class overtakes the proletariat through a social revolution, material classes will be abolished and inequality would eventually fade out. Would this just lead to be a form of communism all over the world?

Marxism is a theory deeply rooted in the working class, but today, many marxists are of the upper middle or upper, wealthier classes. Why?

Class Structure

The article describes several fundamental theories of Marxism, in particular the history of worker oppression, which, during the feudal era, initially occurred through physical means. During this time, a lord would oppress his peasants through threat of force unless the worker surrendered part of his crop in exchange for protection from invading forces. The lord gained his power through divine right, inheritance, military force, and other such factors. Marx considers capitalism to be the next evolution of feudalism, where the ruling class, now capitalists instead of lords, derives its power through ownership of the means of production, or the resources needed to make goods. Since the working class is mostly denied access to these means of production, they must sell the only thing they have left, their labor, to the capitalists. Capitalists then profit from the labor for the sole reason that they own the means of production, not through the sweat of the brow. This is similar to the lords who took ownership of the peasants' crops, not because they tended to them, but because they owned the land and possessed a title of nobility. Is this the way society should be functioning? Do owners of businesses have the right to profit from workers simply because they acquired ownership of resources, not because they produce what they sell, particularly if the owner inherited their business? Is communism a more "evolved" structure of human society, or is it simply a utopia dream that will never function correctly in the real world?

Marxism

Karl Marx's idea that "each class is defined chiefly by its relation to the productive process and has objective interests rooted in that relation," is outdated because in today's society, the "working class" would not be controlled by the capitalists. How is the worker and boss relationship different today? Is their a greater struggle between classes or have things evened out more?

Helping the Economy

In today's economy people are creating new ways of becoming very successful. How are some ways we can level the playing field between the upper class and the middle class? Average people with ordinary jobs provide big time company's and keep the economy healthy, How can the government help change poverty in the United states? Marxism has some flaws but I believe some of his ideas could work, Is there any other ways you can think of to help the people of America?

Would a Marxist style economy work for you? If you could choose aspects from Marxism to include in today's economy, what do you think would be most effective? I ask this because despite the negativity that surrounds Marxism, it is almost impossible to not include at least parts of Marxist beliefs into a capitalist society. So if you could choose a belief from Marxism to integrate into today's economic system, what would it be?

Marxism today

The article states , "the wealth and income gaps between the two classes is as great or greater then ever". What can be done as a society to change this and alter that gap so the capitalists and laborers are on even ground?

Marxism

Karl Marx was a philosopher that studied the working class and the exploitations they faced. Often the working class was the class that was exploit the most and worked harder than anyone else. If the idea of Marxism was created to help the working class, then why does the idea of Marxism not used in our world today? Would this cause more problems for the working class or make their jobs easier?

A vs. B

MARXISM.

It’s something history teaches have tried (and succeeded in) drilling into our heads. Learning about the classic struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeois never gets old. In Marxism, everything in life is determined by capital (show off awesome paying-attention-in-class-skills now: economic determinism!). According to the Ollman article, “wealth and income gaps between the two classes is as greater than ever.” (7). I personally believe this is true, but how significant is this? (VERY!?) Does this mean the struggle between our modern-day proletariat and bourgeois has gotten worse? Does this mean we’re doing something wrong? Right? I guess it depends what team you’re playing on…

Alienation and Solutions

Marx discussed the alienation of the working class in society. He felt that the capitalist system stripped the proletariat of an identity and limited their creative potential. How do you think a Marxist system would restore the creativity and community of the working class?

Utopia

Marx believed that in a utopia there would be no struggle for power through class. What's your idea on a utopia society? Does it involve a world where everyone gets along? Of course it does, but how does that happen? Does it involve an equal pay grade everywhere for every job? Or is it like my utopian society where EVERYTHING is free, EVERYTHING! In that case there is no need to struggle for money and power. Everything is presented on an equal ground. Is this a good idea? Why or Why won't it work?

Marx

Marxism has always been a hot button issue, especially for Americans. However, I dont think many people really understand where Marx was coming from, or even what his actual ideology was all about. In what ways has Marxism/Communism been modified by foreign states that has lead to such misinterpretation?

The article suggests that today there are increasingly strong ties between the capitalist class and the agencies of the state. Do you think this is true? If so, why would these ties exist? Do these connections also happen is other countries? Because of this, would it be possible to form a society based on Marxism or would it be discouraged?

Alienation of Employees

Marx's third theory of alienation states that coworkers are alienated from each other by competition and mutual indifference. Do you think that this applies to most jobs or only just a select few? What are these jobs and why do you think people are alienated from each other while performing these jobs?

Being Communist

Try to picture our society as a communist society, how would this affect the attitudes of people? Do you think we would be able to live as a communist society? If so, would it actually end poverty and class systems bringing about total equality? Think about all the changes that would take place in the media for example, what would these changes mean to Hollywood?

Marxism

Since it was conceived, Marxism has forever changed the global economy. In what ways has Marxism influenced Communism or Socialism and they countries that implement these policies? How has Marxism influenced the way we think of capitalism? What changes, if any, has it brought to capitalism in America?

Marxism

I think, when people talk about Marxism, they are talking about the aftereffects of his theory - Stalinism, Communism, Maoism, Socialism, to even Libertarian. I do, however, believe that this capitalocracy (if you will), has become a corporate nation run by financiers of Wall Street and would be better off becoming more socialist (democratic-socialist). I recently had a conversation with my brother, who is a Poli-sci major, concentrating on the theoretical aspects of politics, and he told me that two things happen in a capitalist nation:
1. It creates a realm of necessity (which we are presently in).
2. Creates a realm of freedom.
This creation of a perception of necessities leads us, the capitalists that we are, into violating our basic laws of self preservation. Our basic needs, our basic rights are infringed upon by the rich and powerful.

Agree/disagree?

Marxism

Being an econ major and a huge supporter of personal fiscal responsibility, Karl Marx's theory isn't very compelling. But that doesn't matter, what do you think? Do you think universal equality is worth the huge economic efficiency dive that will happen if this type of system were to be implemented? Formally put, what are your personal reasons for or against marxism. To start the conversation, I'll address some of my anti-marxist points. Firstly, I'll quote my micro proffessor "If they economic pie is bigger, everyone can have a bigger slice." This is one of the most compelling arguments for capitalism. Since capitalism is SO outstandingly more efficient than marxism, even the lower-middle class has a relatively high standard of living compared to other countries. Secondly, on a purely personal level, I don't want a single even class across the board. Quite frankly, that's insulting. Not to me, or anyone I know, but it's insulting to the geniuses of our time. They make 6+ figures a year because they're worth it. Otherwise no one would pay them so much; basic econ tells us that. Ex: a brain surgeon. Your average brain surgeon makes roughly half a million dollars per year. Yet, they put in 20+ years of work before they are even legally aloud to poke around in someone's head. Honestly, I have no problem with them making that much. The obvious counter-argument is "what about people just making money off money." My answers is: firstly, that's an incredibly small percentage of the population and secondly, it's the same idea as making money off of anything else. You are doing something that someone else wants, and that's investing capital beforehand. So what do you guys think? Are you pro-marx, pro-capitalist, or somewhere in between? And why?

Marxism

Marxism has been debated and analyzed for many generations since the 1800s. How accurate is Marxism in today's economy and society? How has the interpretation and application of Marxism changed Karl Marx first interpreted capitalism?

Marxism Theory

Marxism is derived from the study of capitalism and the problems it presents. This socioeconomic system shows a struggle between the workers and the capitalists. The capitalists are those who control resources and the means to manufacture goods with their resources. The workers are those that work for the capitalists to earn wages and survive in a capitalist society. The gap between these to classes has continued to widen allowing the capitalists to become stronger while the working class becomes weaker. Marxism was an idea on how to create a socialist society where the factors of production would be used to help social needs instead of focusing on generating increased profits. Marx's goal was to redistribute the wealth among the working class for the benefit of the many instead of the few.

Marxism

Marxism is a socioeconomic theory that is primarily based on the critique of capitalism. Developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism disputes that capitalism is exploitative because it exploits labor from the working class. Marx's theory of alienation argues that workers in a capitalist system have little autonomy, which shifts the majority of control to the wealthy bureaucrats. Marx believed that exchange value is contradictory because exchange value is not consistent in the capital society. What kind of factors contributed to class struggle? Is education considering as one of the factor? Nowadays, the condition of worker class is improved. Workers usually earned more money than they did in the past. Therefore, the income gap between capitalist and worker should be diminished. However, the fact is the gap of income between capitalist and worker becomes greater. Why does this distinction become greater in the present day?

The evolution of Hip-hop

I just saw this and I fell the incredible urge to re-post this for our class to see. I hope you all enjoy this as much as I did!

http://www.justintimberlake.com/news/video_of_day_justin_jimmy_fallon_and_the_roots_homage_to_hip_hop