In Response to Meghan's post

Meghan, I agree with the fact that conjoined twins are not "normal" but what really is normal in our society? I mean to them, we are not "normal" because they see 2 people in 1 body as normal and we don't fit that "mold" in their eyes. Also, I often question what would happen if my brother and I were conjoined, instead of fraternal twins. Our lives would be obviously different. Like I mentioned in class, Derek and I may be at his work right now flipping/making McD's food; or he could be next to me, interfering with me doing this blog post comment-thingy.
In other words, conjoined twins are not "normal" but its easy to think of how they are different from us. We should look at it from their perspective more and see how their life is not different, but how it is unique and amazing.
I wondered why they (conjoined twins) were seen as entertainment. I mean its sick to think that our ancestors went to see them at circuses because they were just different. I mean if I was alive 100 years ago, that would be a silly way to spend a day. Even in today's time, its silly and looked-down-upon to treat people as "others." To think that people did this only 100 years ago proves how our society is changing for the better and how we can treat people as friends, not as "freaks!"

~Chad S.

Chad's Conjoined Twin Presentation

Below is what I presented on for this week, conjoined twins.

My artifact is about the history of the McKoy sisters, Millie and Christine. They were born in 1851 in North Carolina to parents who were still enslaved. The girls were always viewed as being “special” per se because, they were “different” with their conjoined bodies, a site that was not always seen in the world especially in the United States. The girls were taken from their birth parents and sold to Joe P. Smith, a South Carolina planter. His family basically became their legal guardians and took them in. They were their slaves and more importantly, their income. The Smiths took the girls to exhibit to show off their “freakiness” and “otherness” for money. The girls stayed with Mrs. Smith, after Mr. Smith died in 1860. Mrs. Smith was very affectionate and loving to them- she was not a master but a mother!

            Also, my PowerPoint deals with the whole background of conjoined twins. I mentioned the definition of what a conjoined twin is and some famous twins in the world. One slide described who the term “Siamese twins” came about from two conjoined twins in Thailand/Siam. The PowerPoint also stated some interesting facts on conjoined twins and their survival rates. I also described what “freaks” are according to our reading packet. I thought it was interesting how the article described what a freak was and how one becomes “stylized.”

Critical Analysis/Personal Thoughts

            I thought this article that conceded with my PowerPoint was very interesting. Mrs. Ellen Samuels did a terrific job explaining the background of conjoined twins. She did a great job even explaining the story of the McKoy sisters. I never have heard of them in any of my history classes in school or at FRED. I now want to know more about conjoined twins and how they think. Do they have the same brain waves; cognitive processing skills; stomachs; livers; etc.?

            My questions are though- why did she not focus more on how the sisters dealt with the Smith family? I wish I would know how they were “behind the scenes” during the Barnum’s Circuses or during their lives at the plantation. I wonder how much the sisters made, too? I know this reading packet was not really a biography of-sorts but I wish Samuels would have dived deeper in some aspects.

            Lastly, I chose this topic for a few reasons. My brother and I are fraternal twins. I thought this would be interesting to discuss in a way because, even though we aren’t connected, we are connected spiritually and we have that “special bond” too. I thought as being a twin, how interesting it would be to be a conjoined twin and how my life would be different- maybe my brother would be right next to me as I type this assignment for you; or maybe we would be home fighting over who’s turn it is to spoon us dinner? That would be quite the image. However, as much as I somewhat pick on conjoined twins, my heart goes out to them. I feel sorry that so many of them are “stuck” like that in a way- “together forever” literally! They have to do everything together, no matter if the other twin does not want to. Moreover, the twins may not make it to adulthood. My PowerPoint mentioned how basically only about 20-25% survives after surgery or that one twin may die and the other may live.

Discussion Questions

1) Why were the McKoy sisters considered “freaks?”

2) Why is it extremely rare to see conjoined twins today?

3) Does medical science define conjoined twins as 1 or 2 people? Why or why not?

4) If you were a conjoined twin, would you want to be separated from yourself? Or would you want to stay intact?

~Chad S. 

Chad S- Joice Heth Response

I wanted to respond to the reading in regards to the Joice Heth reading for this week.
I found the reading to be very interesting, how Barnum exploited this elderly woman as the caregiver to the greatest president ever, George Washington. Barnum knew that she was not the 161 nurse of the nation's founder/leader as he claimed she was; she was actually an 8o-ish aged woman. Barnum exploited her age in order to draw a crowd for money, something he cared more about (in my opinion) than the performers of his circuses.
She fits what we have been talking about--freaks--because of her age and how she was claimed to be the caregiver of Washington. Also, Barnum claimed that he "chose" her to in his performances because of her "cleanliness and religiosity, rather than her freakishness [age]." I truly disagree with that statement! I also found it interesting how the scientists knew Ms. Heth was not that old and it seems like Barnum didn't care what they thought; he just wanted to make a quick buck. He even allowed her autopsy to be opened to the public--at a fee, of course. He just cared about money his entire life.

Chad S.

Who Has the Final Voice?

Based on the class discussion concerning conjoined twins it has left a few questions up in the air.  Conjoined twins are certainly one of the most fascinating of modern genetic mutations.  The problems and scrutiny they face in society tied back to their uncommon appearance may not be justified.  Some people have mutations that are not as severe.  Some people grow extra fingers or toes, while others  have rare and unique eye colors.  Who is to say that these mutations aren't conducive of the "freak-like" classification bestowed upon conjoined twins?  This leads me to my questions.  Firstly, do you feel like the parents of these conjoined twins should have the ability to judge the future for their would-be children?  Secondly, if the circumstances would endanger the child's life, is it justifiable to terminate the pregnancy? Lastly,  do you feel like society has been to harsh on these people?  I think the answer lies in empathy.  Put yourself in the shoes of a conjoined twin.  Imagine all the hardships you'd have to endure.  The ability to drive, go to the bathroom, or even have a relationship with a person is completely altered.  Perhaps we should think twice before immediately judging these people.  After all, they're human too.

Vagina Monologues Review

As you all know, the Vagina Monologues were preformed this weekend. If you weren't in class Thursday, we went on a field trip to University Commons to witness the Vagina Monologues flash mob advertising for the show.  For those who are unfamiliar with the show, the author is Eve Ensler. She ventured the world talking to women from different countries, races, and occupation. She interviewed these women on the topic of their relationships with their vaginas. From the interviews, she wrote the monologues that are annually performed around the world in February. The profits from the show go toward the V-Day Campaign and the Agnes Women's Shelfter in Jamestown. The V-Day money is sent to an area of the world that women need help as featured in the Spotlight monologues at the end of the show.

I was in the show last year and it was a great experience. Every year the atmosphere around the show is different. The skits that killed it on Friday night were "Angry Vagina," The Woman That Liked to Make Women Happy" and "I was in the Room" which was about birth. There were a couple skits in the first act that I thought were a little more sexual than they needed to be. When people hear the word "vagina" they most times will automatically think it's sexual. The show should be helping people understand that women can connect to one another and that the gender of a person shouldn't make them any lesser than another.  The play is already a very shocking, controversial show that is always under fire for "celebrating lesbianism" and her one skit involving a minor. Some people wonder if the show is outdated or useless, what do you guys think? The host of the show tells us how 1 in 3 women will be sexually assaulted or beaten in their lifetime. With that kind of statistic, would it harm women if the show was banned?
Overall the show was amazing as always and very empowering to anyone who was in attendance.
If anyone has any questions about the show, I'll gladly answer anything.

In Response to Ryan Chilelli

I think Ryan made a good point with the comparison that in earlier times the unusual sexual features were “freakish” because they had never been seen before, but today women focus on there sex appeal and enlarging there sexual features. It is not at all uncommon today for women to have plastic surgery or breast implants to enlarge their breasts and buttocks, especially famous women. I think this connects to the idea that women feel as if they’re always under surveillance, especially by men. As the women of the media are most known for these types of surgeries it makes a point that they may do this because they are always behind cameras and need to look the part. This also shows that society pays enough attention to these features that it plays a significant role. But in another view the women we see on the runways don’t necessarily feature the big bust and large buttocks, they are tiny, there’s not much too them. Why is it that its like this? Another point Ryan makes is that having surgeries is the easy way out and compared to models this may be proven completely true. Models have to put in a tremendous amount of work to get the results, which doesn’t just consist of working out but a strict diet as well. Where as the figures in the media just under go surgeries to enhance themselves, but in defense also under go significant amounts of conditioning but nothing in comparison to a model.  In comparison models in a way disfigure themselves to get the figure of accomplishment. In a slight stereotypical light the women of the media present the perfect bodies with the big boobs and large butts because that’s what most men like, and the models achieve the impossibly thin bodies. What significance does this have, why are they different in each scenario? Either way both body types are almost seen as unachievable to the working class society, its just seen as uncommon, and yet many years a go these features were seen as freakish and now society gawks over them.

 

    

“Most women want ideal body like Kim Kardashian. Actually, healthy face and ideal body of celebrities are often the inspiration to change the appearance of most women. They even do anything to imitate the celebrity, ranging from cosmetic surgery to other expensive beauty treatments.”                                       Mercedes - Benz Fashion Week Model. 

Formulating thoughts

In the past couple of weeks we have been discussing not only members of our society which fall outside of our socio-pysiological norm but also how the emergence of "Medicine" has shaped our perception of those individuals. What strikes me as interesting is not only how we have historically (in Medicine) observed and experimented on these individuals, but also how we dissect and preserve these individuals after they pass. I cannot help but wonder why it is that we do this?

In keeping with the theme of this class, that of "body," I can't help but think that cutting up and medically tracing a map of a person's body after their death is an act of invasion and domination which serves only to reinforce their separation from society. Even in death, the cases we have studied in class do not receive a rightful place of rest. Instead their organs are harvested and seperated, at often time being capsulized as some form of scientific/academic prop. It seems, that medicine looked to methodically cut apart these people and diagnose all the ways that these individuals seemed to be inhuman, or better yet worse than human, sub-human.

I thought about what we said about Baartman, how despite her not having any real deformity in  physiology from the average human being, medicine/scientific analysis looked to exaggerate and perpetuate not only a racist, sexist, and imperialist agenda but also looked to commodity this woman for the sake of capital gain. I thought it spoke a lot about how authority has historically not only been informed but it has also been endorsed by medicine in order to perpetuate exploitative practices-hegemonic oppression.

-Jayson Castillo-

Another post about conjoined twins

I know we have had a couple posts now about conjoined twins, but reading them has caused to me to ask some further questions. Some people debated about getting the surgery, but I would be interested to know in what percentage continue to live as two, and from that how their lives function "normally." Also I would interested to know in the life span of conjoined twins. While some seem as if they live quality lives, I'm sure they're pairs that are riddled with medical conditions. As I commented on an earlier post, it seems like a medical miracle for two hearts, two brains, four lungs to all be functioning properly. Especially if organs are shared. More than anything the physiology of the conjoined twin seems to be the most interesting to me. Please do not view this in a negative light, because the physiology of the human is intricate itself. It would just seem that when organs are doubled, this becomes  more complex.

Conjoined Twins

In class we have talked a lot about conjoined twins. Most if not all of us agreed that if we gave birth to a set of conjoined twins we would request the surgery to separate them. This would allow our children to have live their own life and be their own individuals. One of the only things that would link then to being conjoined twins would be a small scar that they would have from the surgery. But what if you had conjoined twins like Abby and Brittany Hensel who are the only living dicephalic parapagus twins. They each have their own spines and spinal cords and have they each have separate organs like a heart and stomach   These twins that have two heads but share a single body. So i wanted to ask how would you as a parent handle that? There is no surgery to allow these two to become separate individuals. People look at twins that are joined at the liver torso or head as an oddity. But how would they look at twins like Brittany and Abby?

Below is a link to a Youtube video of Abby and Brittany. I may be mistaken but it appears that this video is before the twins had their television  show on TLC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K57IcN9DWXo

The video is courtesy of youtube.com

-Chris Murray

Changing Social Perspectives

Last week, my blog was about the changing social reception of tattoos.  This week, I'd like to apply the same concept to images of sexuality and the female body, particularly the buttocks.  Like I said last week, the things that society views as "freakish" often change as time progresses.  Sarah Baartman was labeled as a freak for her unusually large buttock and genitalia.  It's interesting that her sexual image was disregarded as the social norm during her time.  Nowadays, women seek to enhance their sex appeal through the enlargement of their breasts and butt.  It's safe to say that these features are actually preferred by men today unlike the past.  We discussed Nicki Minaj's butt enhancement surgery in class, which I personally think is a hysterical story.  There are various ways that one can change their physique, but it's a shame that we often choose the most practical way which often requires less work and dedication.  It just goes to show that generally humans will look to take the easy way out.

-Ryan Chilelli

Women on display: Sarah Baartman in the 21st century

After reading the passage and the article discussing Sarah Baartman and listening to the artifact presentation, I came across this disturbing picture on a social networking site.

This image shows how society’s view of enfreakment has been rationalized and instilled as second nature in our modern ideology. Our innate physique is now given a label that has either a negative or positive connotation. Instead of literally displaying 'out of the ordinary' body types and having people pay money to gaze at such oddity, we now accomplish exploiting women through images such as this one across the Internet. Of course the first image that your eyes go to in this picture are the biggest butts (that kind of resemble the buttocks of Sarah), ascribed with undesirable and comical labels. When you think of ‘wide load’ you think a truck that is taking up too much space on the road causing you irritation as a driver. While learning about Sarah and how her body was used as a source of entertainment, you probably were astonished and repulsed, thinking "How could people be so malicious and ignorant?". Well this image proves that we are doing the same thing that we did to poor Sarah of the Khoisan tribe; who was accustomed to her life in South Africa where her body was just like any other woman’s. The ‘freak’ element of women’s bodies (i.e. large and distorted buttocks) has been assimilated into our culture. Do you think women can relate to Sarah in a sense? Has this idea of exploiting women because of their ‘unnatural’ body types has gotten worse with the rise of technology? As terrible as it sounds, we are no better when it comes to reacting to and treating those who have 'defective', unfamiliar, and odd body types.

In Response to Courtney O'Donnell

  Although as a modern society we make claims that we are open to differences and accepting of people's differences, it is now just as ever that we form a social hierarchy within our heads.  This hierarchy does not apply to everyone the same way.  I will judge someone different than the next person will.  Even though we understand that conjoined twins are just people we still have a fascination with them because medically we do not understand how they function.  While we treat them like normal people, in our heads we are all thinking they are freaks on some level.  It doesn't even have to be as extreme as conjoined twins, it could just be someone that dresses differently.  When people are different we rank them, make judgements, and based on these judgments we decide on how to treat them.  The people that are different than us are not born freaks, they are made freaks by people, 'normal' people judging them.  I have never seen conjoined twins in person but when I see them on television, I can't look away just because I don't understand how they work.  I know that they just wanted to be treated like normal people, and I feel bad staring at them.  I think naturally when we see something different we want to figure it out no matter what it is.  While we do this some may make harsh judgments and treat these people like freaks while others simply just want to learn about them.  Either way it is difficult to discuss because we don't always know the true motivations underneath the reason why humans do things.

Conjoined Twins: Why are we so perplexed?

After class on Thursday my mind was still caught up in our conversation about conjoined twins and why they challenge out conceptualization of what is normal. From the presentation we saw, it is obvious that these twins are very rare and therefore the norm is to observe a person as one entity and not physically connected to anyone else. The idea of two people actually being connected to one another confronts our fears of what is not normal. Considering twins that are conjoined, it is hard to think of them as separate beings and therefore so many questions come to mind when we think about the possibility of living as a conjoined twin. In class, the question was asked regarding what makes these individuals abnormal in our minds? I think the concept of abnormal is very complex and there are different degrees of  abnormality, so it is hard to think about the abnormality of conjoined twins and not feel an overwhelming amount of confusion.
In reading the article about the McKoy sisters, I found it interesting that they these twins did not mind allowing themselves to be exhibited. However, they did request that no more invasive medical examinations would be performed on them by doctors and medical men. I feel that this is somewhat similar to today's society, in that people will go on TV shows and be represented in the media for "freakish" type behavior. But, you do not see them being brought into hospitals for medical poking and prodding at their freak-like characteristics. Rather, people would just like to see them as a form of entertainment. So between then and now there still hasn't been much change to the entertainment aspect of freaks, but there have been changes to a person's rights over their body. However, I'm not saying that authority is not still imposed over individual's bodies, just that there has been progress in the degree to which authority can be presumed.

-Meghan Ras

Response to Jessica McClean's "Conjoined Twins"

I found it interesting that you mentioned that conjoined twins are being portrayed in the media because as I was doing the reading the other day, I realized that I have never actually seen conjoined twins in person.  Rather, I have only seen them portrayed in the media, be it through reality TV shows, as a subject in a TV show or movie with  a circus or freak show display, or in the news.  I have never actually seen conjoined twins outside of this context.  Now this is probably due to that fact that, as we have described, conjoined twins are rare, so it's not very likely that everywhere I happen to go that I will run the chance of bumping into them.  I just think it's interesting that in many interviews, conjoined twins stress the point that they try to live their lives as normal as possible, but it almost seems as the media still manages to make them a freak show, even if they are being recorded and put on display for medical purposes.  The media doesn't allow for much leeway and it seems that whenever there is a new rare case discovered, it is not long before complete strangers become aware of these twins.