A note on our potential

In this class, we have talked a lot about sexism. We know how it came to be. When we as humans moved away from hunter and gatherers and into civilization, there has to be roles. Unfortunately, when women were pregnant for nine months of a year it would have been hard to include women in society building when they were stuck at home with kids. Thus, man ran the government. Men made the laws, and etc. We know the rest.

Where I am going with this, is the comment about brain size. Women being told they had smaller brains, therefore thay were not as capable as men. So as we advanced as a society, but with the constant negativity towards women inhibited our potential development.

Think about it. Think of our potential. Think of the potential our society could have if there were centuries and decades of positive motivation for women. Would we have advanced more? Could we have discovered things sooner? I know it is any "if" but it is something to think about. I realize the rampant sexism that has existed, but if there was any shred of positive motivation who knows what we as a society are capable of. As we move towards equality in all aspects, maybe as a society we can realize our true potential.

Blue Eyes

While in class on Thursday, I discussed Jane Elliot's "Blue Eyes" Experiment. Below is a link to that experiment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeK759FF84s

The Blue Eyes Experiment challenged the perceptions of a white majority, forcing students of the privileged class to see the discrimination and prejudice from the other side. Students with blue eyes were made "privileged" and told that they were better than brown eyed people. Blue eyed students got five minutes extra of recess, while brown eyed students were not allowed to go outside of the class during recess, and also could not use the drinking fountain or play with blue eyed children. By doing this, Jane Elliot was able to make her class realize the full extent of discriminatory behavior. As the students moved through the day, Jane noticed that the blue eyed students performed at or above their average potential, while the brown eyed students under performed and did poorly.

In the current climate where women are told they are lesser, and that they are not "built" for math and science, they often under perform. When standards are lowered, it is more often than not the norm for students to under perform due to their own lessening expectations of themselves. Only by promoting a climate in which all students of any gender can feel like they are equal can students succeed.

Neurological/Congenital disorders

I remember talking about Neurological disorders in class on Tuesday. We specifically talked about autism and a need for tolerance and inclusivity when it comes to the existence of "neurological variations."

I went to a panel discussion for "earth week" with the focus being on social justice. During one of the talks (one about pesticides as utilized in our agricultural process) a man mentioned the harmful effects pesticides had on the agricultural workforce. He mentioned one such case where a pregnant woman had been exposed to pesticides during her pregnancy and it resulted in her child being born without arms or legs. And I thought about our class and the discussion we had. And I realized that although it is true that we need to be open  and accommodating to those of us who are born "different," we have to question how "different" occurs and under what circumstances are people with disabilities born.

Now of course I'm not talking about a genetic abnormalities of "chance" or cases where non-normative behavior is determined as a disorder. I am simply questioning whether we are allowed to openly question causation factors of birth defects without being deemed intolerant of the people who live with these disorders.

In the example of autism, I'm not saying we should be less accepting or accommodating towards these individuals. But what I am arguing is that if the increase in rates of autism is not simply "natural" but caused by issues of chemical exposure to woman during pregnancy, or of young children being exposed to toxic pollution or a synthetic endocrine disruptor, then we shouldn't simply see those suffering from these disorders as examples of the positive plurality of life but rather as members of our society who suffers unjustly.

I think ultimately my question is, do we in accommodating and being more tolerant of individuals with mental disorders run the risk of dismissing how it is that these individuals are coming to be born or developing these disorders? Are we equally responsible in advocating for "accommodation" as we are in advocating for "prevention."

-Jayson Castillo

Well-Rounded

On Thursday we talked about the idea of social sciences and other disciplines joining together to make a more well rounded unit. I agree with most of the class that it's a good idea for it to happen. People get very much involved within there discipline, forgetting about others around them. I feel that everything in this world is connected in one way or another and when we choose to ignore something then we just hinder ourselves in the end. It's like when an artist creates art on there own for 30 years. They might never create that once piece that could make them famous. But when they involve someone else, say a musician, and then that piece gets the recognized and gets famous. the artist would have never produced that piece without the musician. On the other hand I do see why this could have its down side. If you begin to stretch yourself too thin then you wont have the depth into any field. If you attempted to release anything no one would take you seriously because you don't have the time invested into it. Also sometimes the more you invest into something, the more you understand it and can problem solve a lot easier.

In Response to Size Doesn't Matter

As many people mentioned in Thursdays class, they weren’t aware that females’ brains were physically smaller than males’ brains; I was also unaware of this. I understand in later day’s people would question the intelligence of the brain compared to size, but today if someone were to question it many people would automatically think it’s false. I think this is the case because women have proven to be just as equally intelligent if not more intelligent in many different aspects compared to men. In the past it was a way of thinking that men were superior to women in many ways, one of the most popular was intelligence. Today though, I think that the fact that it has been proven that the size of women’s brains being smaller has no significance of a greater or lesser intelligence earns women more respect. It also starts to defy the superiority of men. 

Interdisciplinary Studies during the 1920s

I really enjoyed how our discussion transitioned into the idea of interdisciplinary studies.  There are many benefits but also corresponding disadvantages to interdisciplinary studies.  It never hurts to evaluate a situation from all angles and to be fully aware in all assets of the mind, but as mentioned in class, doing so can spread the mind too thin.

I think it's noteworthy to point out that I encountered a similar discussion in my honors seminar on German Expressionism during the early-twentieth century.  Expressionism was a form of art that began to become prevalent throughout World War I and into the reign of the Nazis.  It's perhaps best describes as "any form of art that expresses one's inner emotions without a censor."  Essentially, nothing is off-limits or too dark or gruesome.  Many of these artists lived during the time period of Sigmund Freud and he took it upon himself to apply his discipline of psychoanalysis to these artists' works.  He believed that their art was not something of a spiritual sense, but rather their unconscious mind projected onto a canvas through their conscious mind.  As you can imagine, many of these artists took offense to this.  They thought it to be inconceivable that someone could apply a concrete discipline such as science to an abstract concept such as graphic and visual art.  The conflict between Expressionists and psychoanalysts of the time is a highlight of the study of Expressionism.

I also think that Freud's beliefs of Expressionist art exemplifies another example where science is believed to be superior to other disciplines.  Interdisciplinary study, especially in this example, make science to appear flawed and incorrect if more than one discipline's view on a matter are deemed accurate.

Museum Visit

The visit to the museum today was very interesting because we got have a different experience than in class.  We got to see first hand the history of disabilities and handicaps, both physical and mental.  The different kinds of inclusive dolls and education sources they had really stuck out to me were very impressive, especially when we saw a Barbie doll in a wheelchair, as well as a Barbie doll doing sign language, and then other dolls with a seeing-eye dog or a hearing implant.  The car that they had for amputee and paralyzed veterans was extremely interesting as well and seemed to be the first-born of cars for individuals who cannot drive a manual car because of physical impairments.  What I liked the most at the exhibit were the individuals the guide spoke about who tried to help the mentally and physically impaired individuals, rather than putting them into categories or treating them as "idiots" or "poor", and tried to help them and figure out therapy and rehab.  These individuals were helping to make change and not neglecting these individuals.  They recognized there was something they could do to help rather than push them aside.

Size doesn't matter

In thursdays class the question was asked does size matter? After all was said and done I would say no. I had heard in the past that female brains were actually smaller than a males when I was younger. I never really looked into it though, I always thought it was just young boys making fun of girls. Much like having cooties. However when it was explained why there was a size difference it made sense to me. Even if it wasn't explained as to why there is a difference in size and I was only told that there was a difference I still would have said no. Because I know plenty of women than are much smarter than me so it wouldn't have been anything that would have changed my mind

In response to Meghan’s Post-Interdisciplinary Studies:

I agree with you that it’s valuable for students to take interdisciplinary classes. I think it is beneficial in broadening a person’s education, but also for them to learn things in a different way. For me as a biology major, I was required to take an upper level class outside of my major, such as History of Authority. Unknowing that this class would be about medico-science, I was not very interested in having to take a class that would not pertain to what I wanted to study. But, now taking this class even though it does relate to things I enjoy learning about, it has also taught me to see things in a new way, which I find valuable. I think having CCC’s are important in a college institution because it does allow students to be forced to take a variety of classes and really learn about their interests and passions that they may not have realized before. Also, I think it provides a way for students to get out of their comfort zone in which they usually only study and focus on one subject.

-emothersell

Response to Meghan's post about Interdisciplinary Studies

I fully agree that Interdisciplinary Studies is an excellent way for multiple disciplines to combine their knowledge, experience and expertise to work toward a common goal. This allows people to escape the narrow views that some single fields can sometimes have and allow them to see things from multiple points of view and consider solutions from different angles and points of view.

I disagree that this would be confusing if introduced to college classes; I think it's an excellent way to teach students to look at things from different points of view, as well as to allow students to "dabble" in different fields in case they don't quite know what they want to major in.

Having an interdisciplinary major in graduate school has been an excellent experience so far. It has allowed me to view things from not only a women's & gender studies perspective, but also cross reference with English, Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, and Biology. It's so interesting to see how these fields interact and work together surrounding the topics I am interested in studying, and I feel as though it makes me more well rounded and prepared in my field.

Studying in an interdisciplinary field also works to fight against the institution of school itself, in a way, because it goes against norms and breaks down traditional views of doing things. Many other fields have risen out of interdisciplinary studies, and they are very legitimate.

Brain Size

Last class was extremely interesting to me during the discussion of brain size. Apparently, size does not matter, to finally answer that question. I guess the most important part of that discussion to me was how simple it was to explain why women's brains are smaller, and how easily it could be mentioned. I feel like if everyone knew that it was because of biological and chemical reason during pregnancy, everyone would understand. I guess what I'm hinting at is that, we never really do figure out why certain facts are true. Whenever I hear an interesting fact, I just remember what I heard, and never look into it. It's kind of a reflection on what today's like. People will hear information, but never truly look into it, unless it applies directly to themselves. Either way, that was interesting to me, and I really enjoyed the rest of the discussion from last class.

Interdisciplinary Studies

In class, we briefly touched upon the idea of interdisciplinary studies as a part of studying neuroscience and culture. The neurocultural manifesto emphasizes an interdisciplinary approach, but as many of us agreed, it is difficult to get scientists to recognize the value of integrating other perspectives and disciplines into their field of study. However, reading the two articles for tuesday's class were both interesting and intriguing in considering how neurocultural perspectives need to be more pronounced in the field of study.

Personally, I feel that interdisciplinary studies are both valuable and provide a place for discovery. We discussed the changes in gen. ed. courses that is supposed to be coming about for a more interdisciplinary approach. Although some mentioned this may become confusing, and I don't completely disagree, I do believe though that these kind of classes could be extremely beneficial for students who don't know what they want to do or are looking for a major.

In my experience, having an interdisciplinary studies minor in women and gender studies, I have gained so much knowledge and experience in all different types of classes and subjects. However, I still have my Psychology major that has provided me with a direct and focused study of one subject that is important to most college students completion of a degree. I wish that the value of interdisciplinary studies in trying to figure out one's place in college was emphasized more because it really helped me to figure out where my true interests and passions lie as an individual. I think that this is more important than the degree that I receive at graduation, but rather that I know what I have truly gained as a person from my college experience. Overall, being a part of the interdisciplinary program of women and gender studies altered my experience at college and maybe if more areas like it existed other people would be able to feel this same way.

Brain Differences

I found yesterday's discussion to be very interesting in that most of the class didn't see that the size of the brain effected brain function.  In school we are not shown a female brain and a male brain, we are just shown a brain.  I don't think that education now is set up in a way where we are taught these gender differences in brain size.  Saying that women can't do something because they have a smaller brain size is ridiculous.  Birds, which have a very small brain can fly.  Humans cannot.  If we had the physical attributes to fly but the same brain, we would not be able to fly because that part of our brain is not developed.  I think sexists like to use the brain size as an excuse.  I was told two years ago that I should not be able to vote.  I didn't ask questions but I am quite sure that it was because I was a women and most likely not intelligent enough to make my own decisions.  Attributing brain size and intelligence together is ridiculous and an out dated theory.  Neuroscientists should take into account the effect of culture on the brain because the brain is not just a scientific being.  From day 1 on the earth we are being influenced by our surrounding and if they forget this, they are leaving out a huge part of how we develop and how we turn out as people.  There should be a balance between culture and biology when researching the brain.  I don't know how this should be achieved because I don't know enough about either subject, but they should work together to reach an appropriate balance. 

Size of the Brain

Yesterday in class we talked about how womens brain are smaller then mens. I personally do not think that matters. I have heard that many times and not once did I ever think oh that must mean men are smarter or oh I guess I should stop doing this because men are smarter anyway. I think its interesting that some would think that just because the womens brain is smaller then men that they cant do what ever you want. I find the study about the face and mobile is very interesting because how can you tell the child is not just looking at either one and not just staring into space. 

Sex Differences, Neuroculture and Educators/Schools

For class on 4/18 we had to read two articles: "Picking Barbie's brain: Inherent Sex Differences in Scientific Ability?" and "Neocultures Manifesto".  The former concluded that there are no inherent biological differences between the two sixes while the later advocates for a critical approach to considering research and issues relating to neuroscience and the brain. While the first article is by no means definitive evidence that there are no absolutely no biological differences between the sexes, it certainly follows that assuming there is a biological difference between the sexes is wrong. The second article reinforces the need for all of us to approach research and cultural norms on sex differences with a critical and unbiased viewpoint.

I think this holds especially true for teachers. In class Tuesday we spent a period of time discussing the role of educators in shaping children and their views on disability. In particular the point was made that the education department here at SUNY Fredonia emphasizes that teachers should treat all pupils as equal, regardless of gender, disability, or any other categorization. I think that that is wonderful and shows that positive progress is being made towards a balanced, unbiased view on various issues like disability and gender. The following documentary, created for this year's Disability Awareness Week, in part highlights the successes and failures of schools in dealing with people with disabilities.

The R Word

Throughout the past few classes we have been talking about madness, mental retardation, and people who are mentally handicapped. I just wanted to point out that many people still use the word "retard". People would say things like "This is retarded" or "That guy is a retarded". I really hate it when people use that word. My great-aunt Anne has down-syndrome, and she is 50 years old. Whenever I walk her around her hometown, a lot of people see her, and people say something like "That retarded girl". Even though we have so many people that believe that the word is wrong, it is surprising to hear that people are still using that word.

What Did You Call Me?

So today's class brought out many frustrations on what the correct way of terming an individual with a disability was. This post is somewhat of a relation to last week but I wanted to further investigate into what the proper ways of addressing those that have certain obstructions were. This file from the Amherst Museum of Disability (the same museum that we will be visiting this weekend) shows a list of commonly used terms towards people with disabilities and addresses the correct way of terming people.
http://museumofdisability.org/pdf/List_Acceptable_Terms.pdf

Many of the terms listed include the words, "people" and "person" and do not address the obstacle head on. The class also focused their attention towards certain people embracing their issues and others trying to stay away from the spotlight. As a society, I think we should learn to respect those decisions instead of criticizing them because the social aspect is diminished for these individuals. Do you feel like there should be classifications of people? Do these classifications help with understanding an individual's problem and allow anyone to help? I listened to how people were addressing the issue and could not think of the proper way of addressing the issue without stepping on some sharp rocks.


Darren Pope

Madness Presentation

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lG9gijOzuI

Description:

           For my artifact I chose the video “Psychiatric Survivor Pride Weekend”. I chose this video for my artifact because it is a perfect representation of the community behind the term “Psychiatric Survivor”. In the video, a celebration of uniqueness and disability is shown and I think it’s important to take note of. The video also has an interview with a father who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He not only sheds light on the community he has been welcomed into, but also shows him proving his ability to be a “normal” father to his children, and husband to his wife.

Analysis:

            I think this artifact is especially important because of the amount of information that fits in the 3 minutes that is shown. Not only do you get an inside story of one survivor, but the video also shows multiple clips of the Pride Weekend events, and many of the attendants. In the video, the other survivors are shown displaying their talents, that may be unknown to many because of the way society has dismissed these survivors, and for many, this event maybe their only showcase for their talents. Survivors are seen reading their own poetry, role-playing, and homemade art.

            This artifact coincides with reading specifically because of the vocabulary that is used. The title itself proves that the description of ‘survivors’ in the reading is something that exists in our society today, and that people really do come together as a community and celebrate their unique qualities. This video also proved that, not only do survivors have to do undergo discrimination or judgment by society, but that emerging out of this seemingly inferior position they’re put in, they can carry themselves just like any other person. This video proves that, although they’ve been diagnosed with a mental disability such as autism, or bipolar disorder, they can overcome the labels given to them by the medical professionals, and pursue a normal life.

Questions:

Based on Awareness

1.         What is your opinion of Mad Pride Weekend, and have you ever heard of it before? Do you think there is enough awareness for this cause, and if not, do you know of any ways this message could be spread more affectively?

Based on the Reading

2.         What is your opinion of the way the terms ‘cure’ and ‘survivor’ are used within the reading? Do you think these terms downgrade the people with these disabilities?

           

For example: Do you think calling someone a survivor gives the idea that they had to overcome their disability in order to live a normal life?

3.         Do you think it’s necessary to try and pursue a cure for disabilities such as Autism, or do you think it’s unnecessary? Also, do you think trying to find a cure is a considerate gesture to the autistic, or do you think it makes them feel even worse about their ‘condition’ that needs curing?

Based on the Video

4.         Would you have been able to tell that Richard was ‘disabled’ if you hadn’t heard him tell you he was? Do you think these ‘disabilities’ such as bipolar disorder really separate people from being ‘normal’?

Madness, crazy, insane, and in need of help

To me our readings for Margaret Price's Mad at School hits two sides of my academic learning history about the field of psychology and history. The terms crazy, madness, and insane are all words which have plagued and shadowed what is the real problem in our society is and that is giving help to those who can't help themselves. When people say things like nuthouse, looney-bin, cuckoo's nest and other nicknames we have trouble realizing that what all of those words symbolize is society mistreatment of those people who are mentally unable to function as a "normal" person in today's society. As a psychology major I have learned through direct and indirect affects of society turning a blind eye to people in help because those same individuals don't fit their schema of what a person should act like. To me Margaret Price's article is exactly what the world needs in order to realize some of their faults and imperfections. Miss Price also made a valid argument in a major problem in this world and that is naming the problem, issue, or condition someone might suffer from. To society a mislabel of any kind can influence the rest of your existence as part of the human race and can literally affect how you are treated based on that label. For example, mental stress from war used to be called "shell shocked" but in today's society it have developed into post tramatic stress disorder or PTSD. It is labeling and relabeling which can shift a society of people to loss focus of what is important and who is involved and suffering. Between shell shock being switch to PTSD our society saw a mistreatment of veterans and it is not until in our present day that we see a major improvement to the men and women returning from active duty over seas. We also see that a difference is being made in the world of psychology and the medical profession. For example, the negative term retarded has been relabeled cognitive impairment. I can only say that time will tell if this relabeling will be a change for the better. But as long as people such as Margaret Price keep pushing some of the issues like negative label only then will society pay closure attention to its own actions as a whole.

The Male and Female Brain Artifact

My artifact is an image of the male and female brain next to each other. This image was taken from a discussion by Dr. Oz on the Oprah. Dr. Oz was essentially discussing how the brain develops early in life and how certain events in a woman’s life such as pregnancy will lead to some shrinking in the brain. The main reason I choose this image was to have a side by side image for the class to see for themselves that even though the female brain is smaller it is not necessarily a case of “size matters.” I feel that by seeing this image the class will be stimulated to discuss that even if there is a size difference between the two brains displayed, it is not the real sex difference. The real problem with sex differences in neuroscience are due to the fact that they were developed with stereotyping and misrepresentation in conclusions of research involving male and female brains. One other point I would want to make it is that even though the female brain is not necessarily as big as the male’s there are some important facts to keep in mind. One of the best to think about is that according to the Huffington Post, of the ten smartest people still alive today one of those individuals is a woman by the name Judith Polgar with an estimated 170 IQ. This is just place emphasis on the ability of what men and women are truly capable of developing into. For the comparison of my artifact and our readings for today I couldn’t help but question what, if any, significant research has come from past research in the field of Psychology as it pertains to female and male brain activity. In the analysis of “Picking Barbie's^TM Brain” we see that the previous research preformed by Simon Baron-Cohen was not only incorrectly concluded and riddled with problems with such things as his operational definitions, but his entire hypothesis was based on finding sex differences. For his conclusion he wrote the results as if he had found a significant result when in fact he simply implied that due to there being a difference in his statistics it must be that female and male brains function differently thus supporting his hypothesis. However, I am pleased to see that the authors of the analysis article on such research pointed out the mistakes and enlightened the reader with the real problem with medical research in neuroscience and psychology. The running stereotype that if the female brain is smaller than the male brain then it is less capable to function as well as the larger male brain. This to me means that all research preformed in the past is riddled with this stereotype and possibly leading researchers down the wrong path of understanding knowledge capacities in both genders. As for the other reading for today, even though, it is more of an activist ideal it is still a step in the right direction for eliminating the stereotype of smaller brains functioning less than male brains in such matters as education. To me the reading of “Neurocultures Manifesto” is a piece of information that all new neuroscientist such keep in mind when starting their careers as researchers. In conclusion, based on the readings for today I say that previous research on neuroscience needs to be scrutinized if emphasis was placed on gender or sex differences. This is because the medical-scientific authority has filled its history books with the idea that the female brain is less functional in the educational sense due to its size when in fact if enough testing is produced then we might see a different answer altogether. Perhaps males are at a disadvantage that we never knew about, due to years of belief that female brains are simply inferior and therefore males will always be the more dominate species as it concerns the brain. Only time will tell if the world will start to understand that “size doesn’t matter” when it concerns the fully functioning brain of a male or female.  Discussion Questions:

1.    Do any of you believe that the stereotype of females having smaller brains has affected the society at large and spilled into other areas of concern other than the medical or scientific field?

2.    As it pertains to the “Picking Barbie’s Brain” article does anyone agree that previous research has been riddled with problems and has shaped our current beliefs about the neuroscience of women in a negative way? For example, the author of the study that was being analyzed concluded “We have demonstrated that at 1 day old, human neonates demonstrate sexual dimorphism in both social and mechanical perception. Male infants show a stronger interest in mechanical objects, while female infants show a stronger interest in the face.” But the authors of the article made the observation that this conclusion did not hold water by stating, “this conclusion incorporates comparisons that were not significant: Boys did not look at the mobile more than the face; they only looked at the mobile more than girls did, and girls did not look at the face more than boys did; they only looked at the face more than the mobile.

3.    As it pertains to the “Manifesto” article do you believe that some of the suggestions given by the authors will change the ideals of future neuroscientists if all new researchers are requested to read such an article, and if so how will it be affected in your own opinion? For example, the statement from the article, “We should all participate in negotiating these stakes. Neuroscientists are expanding their reach far beyond their training, into realms of philosophy, ethics, society, and culture. Scholars of these fields must return the favor. When boundaries are broken down between biology and culture, cultural theorists need to be as empowered to speak about biology as biologists are about culture.”

4.    Do you believe if the situation was turned around and males were the ones with the smaller brains would things be different in that one type of gender difference or would males find a way to turn it around and make it work to their advantage?
Here is the link to the picture of the male and female brain: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=799&q=male+and+female+brain&oq=male+and+female+brain&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i5j0i24l5.955.6739.0.6926.30.23.2.5.5.1.991.3848.10j7j1j3j6-1.22.0...0.0...1ac.1.9.img.Lkeu297O950#hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=male+and+female+brain+dr.+oz&oq=male+and+female+brain+dr.+oz&gs_l=img.3...22365.23718.0.23893.7.7.0.0.0.0.89.463.7.7.0...0.0...1c.1.9.img.ySpzT1EJqKA&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.dmQ&fp=2d74829b90cb510&biw=1440&bih=799&imgrc=9QQr5hX8BkrMVM%3A%3BD2-hmWzicuCx9M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fcache.jezebel.com%252Fassets%252Fimages%252F39%252F2008%252F10%252Foprahbrains_jez_Sm.flv.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fjezebel.com%252FHead-cases%252F%3B475%3B268

-William Webster

Prosthetics as Pro-war narrative, The aggression of War discourse.

I thought that it was interesting that in the examples we talked about last week, in the case of prosthetic limbs, that we primarily discussed WWII veterans. I was curious as to how the conversation might have been different if the examples used were cases of less popular wars. It struck me that we felt safe discussing war so long as we were talking about a "popular" war or one which we can space over half a century back.

I thought about how when it comes to injured vets, we tend to create hero structures not only as an admission of a probable horrible circumstance, but also as a way to adapt pro-war narratives without breaking them. It seems to me that equating wounded vets as "heroic" is an attempt to not only shape but to control discourse about military culture and about war. There's a sense of a large dis-service that is done when the young people of this country are sent over seas in occupational wars and in turn are violently injured as a consequence. War hungry "hawks" Imperializing the third world for the sake of U.S. posturing, and as a means to bolster U.S. dominance, find far too much comfort in "support our troops" yellow ribbon rhetoric.

The "heroicizing" of soldiers is difficult when many of our soldiers return home injured. Soldiers without limbs don't fit our conventional/traditional understandings of hero and therefore the discourse itself has to be reshaped in order to accommodate instead of ignoring injured vets, to broaden the idea of hero so that it can now sustain within it mutilated bodies. But the problem is that in creating the Heroic out of the brutally injured we attempt to alleviate or disregard any dis-service done to the young waves of people signing up for service in the U.S. military.

I'm not saying that injured vets are "un-heroic" (or insert any arbitrary binary opposition to "heroic). What I am saying is that the "Hero" narrative is a lie, and a dangerous lie at that. Instead of entitling individuals as "hero" we should consider more deeply the larger hands at work in order to be able to critically address our country's morally apprehensive Geo-political stance without feeling that such analysis is a disservice to the many U.S. military personal who have fought, served, and died in the service of their country.

It comes as no surprise the power of war rhetoric and all the ways in which war is at often times reduced to the "heroic" actions of "Soldier" (Army of One) in order to symbolize the "good" that is done by a U.S. military presence in just about every corner of the globe. With the war on terror exhibiting no signs of slowing down, I find it ironic that we are now considering wounded vets, a group of people who are arguably most affected by war (if not the neo-colonized themselves), as those who can be normalized and rightfully cared for by the employment and advancement of prosthetic limbs. And at least dully "compensated" by the corrections provided by adequate post-war medical care, and all the while being elevated to the status of "hero" in the process.



-Jayson Castillo

A little off topic...

So my post for this week doesn't necessarily directly relate to what we've been discussing recently, but it does relate to the idea of men as the "norm" and how men are still the preferred gender in our society. I would argue that disability is not just about someone who got injured and lost a limb, or someone who needs special assistance in a physical or mental way. I think anyone who is stigmatized, oppressed, and discriminated against is disabled, and this could include racial minorities and even women.

Patriarchy is still present no matter how many advances the women's movement have made. For anyone who doesn't think this is so, please check out the link below to see some products being sold by the popular store, Spencer's Gifts.

http://www.spencersonline.com/stuff-to-wear_guys-tees-clothing_tees_humor-attitude/sortType_newProducts/



(I had a difficult time copying and pasting all the examples I wanted to show, so the link will bring you to all the "humor" themed shirts for guys. Granted, some are funny! But I wanted to focus on the ones that specifically objectify women and "glorify" masculinity.)


Although some people may think that these things are just teasing and all in good fun, I would argue that it perpetuates the idea that men are dominate and women are subordinate. These thoughts further buy into patriarchy and can have damaging repercussions for women.  There is nothing healthy about teenage boys wearing a shirt that says "I have the dick so I make the rules" , "Calling all Sluts" or "Is it OK if I just call you Bitch?" It can make boys and men truly feel like they can treat women poorly; and may also make girls and women feel as though they deserve to be treated poorly.

Personally, I would like to boycott stores that sell these products and, essentially, are saying it's OK to say and believe these things. A friend of mine in another class even suggested having a company that sold shirts saying things such as "This is what a Feminist looks like" and "I will not live by gender binaries." I think it's just important to realize that even things that might seem innocent or funny can have damaging effects on people, and we need to make sure we practice what we preach. It's bad enough that some people really do think that these statements are OK, but I think it's just as bad as the people who know it's not OK but do it anyway. ("I don't really think that so it's fine! It's just a joke!") We need to be the ones to take a stand and fight against things if we don't believe in them, not just go along with it.