As we have been discussing in previous classes, the doctor’s word is treated like the word of God. This either causes the individual with an illness/condition to doubt their instincts or when they trust their feelings not be taken seriously when making decisions about treatments and operations. Lourde makes a good point that the individual should be responsible for their own health, a doctor’s role should be to advise and/or treat an illness when applicable, but not to make the decisions for the patient. However since doctors tend to know more about the condition than the patient, they sometimes end up making the decisions. As Lourde shows, the way to combat this is to arm oneself with as much information as possible.
It scares me to think that if I had an illness and knew how I wanted the illness/condition to be addressed, my opinions could be dismissed. Fear is powerful and forces people to take actions which may be different from what they would have done had they had time and not felt pressure to make a decision. We saw this with the woman with the intersexed individual who was told who had dealt with the issues she was facing.
The woman felt her situation was a private matter and that she was alone. For Lourde, by wearing the prosthesis it was as if she was being told to hide what had happened to her body and in deciding not to wear one was treated as if she was the only one who felt did not need to wear one. Lourde also identifies this pressure to make a decision to wear prosthesis after having a mastectomy as in indicator of society sees the female body as objectifiable and merely serving sexual and reproductive purposes. In contrast to a leg amputation where a prosthetic leg functions in helping the individual perform physical tasks, a breast prosthetic performs an emotional task which may sometimes benefit others more than the individual.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Dealing With the Challenges of Breast Cancer
After reading the two pieces by Lorde I was extremely moved by her strength and spirit. She is clearly a woman who is comfortable with who she is and wants to share her passions and insights. Before reading her article I was not aware of the social stigma surrounding breast cancer survivors. I thought that surviving the cancer was the battle, but now I know that the battle really begins after the cancer. I was shocked by the attitudes of her doctors and other authority figures towards her choice not to wear a fake breast. Even though I was shocked I shouldn't have been because this is exactly the type of attitude to expect from a society that only views women as objects. Only a culture in which a woman's worth is determined by her outward appearance would the loss of breast equate the loss of her femininity. Femininity in our culture is our culture is defined by looks, sex appeal, and the role of motherhood and breasts play a major role in each one of these. We have seen this objectification of women before when discussing sexuality in Western cultures. The idea that woman's only purpose is to please the man and be a mother is still not behind us!
The other horrific aspect of Lourde's experience was the lack of support and understanding she received from her doctor when she choose to not have a live biopsy. This parallels the experience that the parents' of intersex children went through. I feel that Lourde brought up the very important point of listening to one's body. This is a concept that is often not respected the way it should be in modern medicine, but it is the key to staying healthy.
Who Defines Normal?
Normal--it's such an over used word. Yet, what is normal? Who defines it? Can there be a norm? In the "Constructing Normalcy" and "Rejected Body" articles, the text displays the battle of norms. It was difficult for me to read about intelligent people, such as Marx and Quetlet struggling to define normal. Their usage of math and science was convincing at times, because these two categories are perceived as accurate and objective. However, it was obvious that their reasoning was inappropriate. I was shocked to learn about the category of disabled people. Handicap and mentally ill people are not dumb or uneducated people just because of their disabilities. Even though they may not be able to function in society in common ways, they are people who can contribute to society in unique ways.
I think it is interesting how the definition of normal can change over time. I think this common trait is apparent in eastern societies. Many countries, such as India or Korea are heavily influenced by the west's culture. For example, when my parents were growing up in India the normal Indian woman was traditional, not too educated, and highly conservative. Now, women are obtaining proper education, respectable jobs, and are displaying a sense of "american" culture in their lives. When I was in India last year, I remember seeing college students in short skirts and halter tops, which now is apparently normal in the bigger cities of India. I was completely shocked to see this type of culture being accepted in the Indian society. It just proves that normal cannot be defined or established. Everyone is different and it is impossible to label people into a category.
Thus, there is no normal.
By the way, I looked up normal on Webster and this is one of the definitions. I found it quite interesting.
Normal: free from mental disorder
I think it is interesting how the definition of normal can change over time. I think this common trait is apparent in eastern societies. Many countries, such as India or Korea are heavily influenced by the west's culture. For example, when my parents were growing up in India the normal Indian woman was traditional, not too educated, and highly conservative. Now, women are obtaining proper education, respectable jobs, and are displaying a sense of "american" culture in their lives. When I was in India last year, I remember seeing college students in short skirts and halter tops, which now is apparently normal in the bigger cities of India. I was completely shocked to see this type of culture being accepted in the Indian society. It just proves that normal cannot be defined or established. Everyone is different and it is impossible to label people into a category.
Thus, there is no normal.
By the way, I looked up normal on Webster and this is one of the definitions. I found it quite interesting.
Normal: free from mental disorder
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Breast Cancer: Silence and Invisibility
So far this semester, we have discussed the problem of silence several times and how it affects society's understanding of certain medical issues. I found that Lordes' approach to the problem of silence surrounding breast cancer fascinating, in that it has a profound effect both on women living with cancer, and also on access to information about cancer treatment. The emphasis upon the need for prosthesis that Lordes describes becomes an emphasis on silencing the reality that women whose lives are in danger because of cancer must have their breast(s) removed. Society tries to persuade cancer victims, in an attempt to maintain optimism, that they can be the same person after their mastectomy. However, this creates an understanding that women without prostheses are anomalous. Lordes example of how the Israeli politician with his eye patch is considered a warrior, but one-breasted women are made to feel abnormal.
This type of silence forces cancer victims to aim towards a sense of invisibility - they can be the same with cancer as they were without. Even more atrocious is the attitude of the American Cancer Society toward holistic treatments. The silencing of all information that deviates from the western medical bias is tragic, for cancer patients lose control over the spectrum of treatments that might help them conquer their disease. Lordes expresses the importance of overcoming both aspects of this silence: "we must pierce this silence ourselves and aggressively seek answers to these questions about new therapies" (75).
This type of silence forces cancer victims to aim towards a sense of invisibility - they can be the same with cancer as they were without. Even more atrocious is the attitude of the American Cancer Society toward holistic treatments. The silencing of all information that deviates from the western medical bias is tragic, for cancer patients lose control over the spectrum of treatments that might help them conquer their disease. Lordes expresses the importance of overcoming both aspects of this silence: "we must pierce this silence ourselves and aggressively seek answers to these questions about new therapies" (75).
Breast Cancer: Silence and Invisibility
So far this semester, we have discussed the problem of silence several times and how it affects society's understanding of certain medical issues. I found that Lordes' approach to the problem of silence surrounding breast cancer fascinating, in that it has a profound effect both on women living with cancer, and also on access to information about cancer treatment. The emphasis upon the need for prosthesis that Lordes describes becomes an emphasis on silencing the reality that women whose lives are in danger because of cancer must have their breast(s) removed. Society tries to persuade cancer victims, in an attempt to maintain optimism, that they can be the same person after their mastectomy. However, this creates an understanding that women without prostheses are anomalous. Lordes example of how the Israeli politician with his eye patch is considered a warrior, but one-breasted women are made to feel abnormal.
This type of silence forces cancer victims to aim towards a sense of invisibility - they can be the same with cancer as they were without. Even more atrocious is the attitude of the American Cancer Society toward holistic treatments. The silencing of all information that deviates from the western medical bias is tragic, for cancer patients lose control over the spectrum of treatments that might help them conquer their disease. Lordes expresses the importance of overcoming both aspects of this silence: "we must pierce this silence ourselves and aggressively seek answers to these questions about new therapies" (75).
This type of silence forces cancer victims to aim towards a sense of invisibility - they can be the same with cancer as they were without. Even more atrocious is the attitude of the American Cancer Society toward holistic treatments. The silencing of all information that deviates from the western medical bias is tragic, for cancer patients lose control over the spectrum of treatments that might help them conquer their disease. Lordes expresses the importance of overcoming both aspects of this silence: "we must pierce this silence ourselves and aggressively seek answers to these questions about new therapies" (75).
Audrey Lorde- activist of the highest degree
Audrey Lorde has made me think about the view of society, question my own values, search for the key to my own happiness, and spur me to act. Her personal story about breast cancer as a search for her own self, not for her lost 'femininity' and liver cancer as a quest for control over her own body moved me deeply. I did not realize how much discomfort professionals had when dealing with people who are deviations from the norm (especially in terms of appearance). It seems to be a common trait for our society to deny any wrong-doings. For example, we talked about sterilization as a type of population control used to solve economic problems such as unemployment, crime, and disparities. The society would not try and solve the problem by making jobs so that these people that were the 'undesirables' of the superior could make their own lives and be independent people. In Lorde's articles, society is guilty of emphasizing the female as one defined in a set appearance (large breasts, large bottom, hourglass curves, tanned skin.... ... just pick up a magazine and you get the idea).
I agree that appearance is really important to women (or we are raised that way). In order to do well in society with less hindrance, one dresses in a way to portrays that person as one who is professional, well-dressed, sensible and responsible. To make a lasting first impression, one uses the accepted rules of society to be accepted by others. One way people become more accepted is through plastic surgery is so popular, especially among females of all ages. My first encounter with plastic surgery occurred when I was in fifth grade. My piano teacher told me she was going to get plastic surgery so that she would have a higher bridge (in imitation of the high European nose). I did not understand back them what was "wrong" with the nose she had (since who has surgery except to correct something that is wrong?). When (not if) the populace will accept all different kinds of people for all being amazing, everyone can live in a happier place. For now, we, as readers of feminist articles and texts, can spread the awareness through our own activist thoughts and actions. By exposing ourselves to the different spectra that are all humans, we can fight the preconceived notions that society places on us.
I agree that appearance is really important to women (or we are raised that way). In order to do well in society with less hindrance, one dresses in a way to portrays that person as one who is professional, well-dressed, sensible and responsible. To make a lasting first impression, one uses the accepted rules of society to be accepted by others. One way people become more accepted is through plastic surgery is so popular, especially among females of all ages. My first encounter with plastic surgery occurred when I was in fifth grade. My piano teacher told me she was going to get plastic surgery so that she would have a higher bridge (in imitation of the high European nose). I did not understand back them what was "wrong" with the nose she had (since who has surgery except to correct something that is wrong?). When (not if) the populace will accept all different kinds of people for all being amazing, everyone can live in a happier place. For now, we, as readers of feminist articles and texts, can spread the awareness through our own activist thoughts and actions. By exposing ourselves to the different spectra that are all humans, we can fight the preconceived notions that society places on us.
Being Honest About Breast Cancer
Audre Lorde's personal story about her struggle with breast cancer and life following mastectomy touched me on a personal level. The main point I took out of her article was that society needs to be more honest and accepting about the nature of this common disease and its effects on women's lives. After her mastectomy, she felt pressured by many people, including medical professionals, to wear a prosthetic breast in order to look or feel "normal." Her argument was that wearing something fake would not help her accept her new body and the changes which cancer brought about in her life.
I can understand why she would feel this way. She would rather have society accept the way her body actually is than force her to look like everyone else. Perhaps this visible sign of difference makes other people feel uncomfortable, reminding them of the painful subject of cancer. However, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, with very serious implications (Lorde's statistics say that only 50% live three years after a diagnosis). From personal experience, I believe that it is most therapeutic for people affected by breast cancer if the topic is discussed openly and honestly, without any shame involved. Trying to cover up the reality of the situation does not actually solve anything.
I can understand why she would feel this way. She would rather have society accept the way her body actually is than force her to look like everyone else. Perhaps this visible sign of difference makes other people feel uncomfortable, reminding them of the painful subject of cancer. However, breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in the United States, with very serious implications (Lorde's statistics say that only 50% live three years after a diagnosis). From personal experience, I believe that it is most therapeutic for people affected by breast cancer if the topic is discussed openly and honestly, without any shame involved. Trying to cover up the reality of the situation does not actually solve anything.
Normalcy?
I think the idea of normalcy as a cultural objective is absurd. Clearly, not everyone is the same. Moreover, it is impossible to know what every single person in a society is like—mentally, physically and, emotionally. Thus, we must beg the question of who creates these notions of normalcy. One could argue that the media is responsible for this idea. But at least in modern day, the range of people being showed on the television is more diverse than our definition of the societal norm. Consider the television shows like “Will and Grace” which boast of a homosexual and heterosexual list of characters. Consider still movies that try to bring the issues of mentally or physically “disable” individuals to light, such as the film “I am Sam.” Yet, even with these (and many more) diverse ranges of people, society’s idea of normal is much more narrow. In my opinion, this idea is much more ingrained, as the article outlines: throughout history, people have held others to an ideal. This ideal has transformed throughout time to represent normalcy.
Unfortunately, the ideal in the past has been for a strong, physically able because people were widely responsible for growing their own food, building their own houses, and providing for themselves. Thus, a physically able body was the ideal. This transition from the past to present and from ideal to normal has created a society hostile towards a group of people who are no longer bound by the necessity to provide for themselves. Today, a physically or mentally “disabled” person can fully participate and function in society. Thus, to eradicate the stigma attached to these individuals, society must understand the vast capabilities—not the disabilities—of these individuals.
Unfortunately, the ideal in the past has been for a strong, physically able because people were widely responsible for growing their own food, building their own houses, and providing for themselves. Thus, a physically able body was the ideal. This transition from the past to present and from ideal to normal has created a society hostile towards a group of people who are no longer bound by the necessity to provide for themselves. Today, a physically or mentally “disabled” person can fully participate and function in society. Thus, to eradicate the stigma attached to these individuals, society must understand the vast capabilities—not the disabilities—of these individuals.
The Rejected Body
Before reading Wendell's article I had never considered disabilities as being socially constructed. However, I was convinced of this idea when she raised the point concerning how the environment is constructed from a healthy, non-disabled, male, perspective. These inaccessible surroundings contribute to how culture views disabilities and how we define a disability. Anyone who has trouble maneuvering in society is considered to be disabled, therefore is society were made accessible to a wider range of people then there would be fewer "disabled." In an idealized society I believe that every space should be accessible to the disabled, but should this be a law that every workplace, school, and other facilities should be handicap accessible? In order to make a building fully handicap accessible this costs thousands of dollars. If small businesses were forced by law to make their space accessible many would have to go out of business. I believe that every new space and building should be built with accessibility for all in mind, but this does not answer the tougher question of how to deal with the older, inaccessible buildings.
This problem of cost and benefit was one that we addressed in my biomedical ethics class that I took last semester. I believe that one of the biggest problems facing our modern day society is the rapidly increasing numbers of the uninsured. The cost of health care in America has become outrageous and as a result many employers can no longer afford to offer insurance and hardly an individuals can afford to pay for it on their own. This is contributing to the numbers of disabilities in society because many easily preventable problems are not being treated and are therefore developing into disabilities. One of the more widely circulated arguments about why a nationalized health care system can't work is based on the idea that health care and insurance for the majority of people could be handled relatively easily by the government, but it is the extreme that is bringing the cost of health care up so dramatically. According to this idea the 10% of the population that requires extensive medical care is raising the costs of insurance dramatically for everyone. I believe that this argument is just another way to marginalize the disabled and attempt to normalize society. Basically, this argument is implying that the government should cover insurance for everyone except the people who really need it. This is especially wrong if we believe Wendell's argument that the majority of disabilities are created by society to begin with. Throughout this course we have seen the terrible mistreatment of groups who had no voice or power in our society. I believe that society is continuing this terrible treatment by how it is dealing with disabilities in our culture. Society is mistreating the disabled by ignoring the problem of maneuvering in an inaccessible environment and the difficultly in affording treatment in a culture that makes few allowances.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Today's Discussion...
I feel that the idea of 'normalcy' is just a method by which the ideals of a society are expressed. As discussed in class, to be normal is not necessarily representative of the 'average', but rather may be defined as what is hoped to be achieved. This is why the idea of what normal is varies from society to society, or from time to time. For instance, the ideal body of a woman used to be of one that was curvy/extremely healthy, representing the women from the wealthy class. The definition of what is normal nowadays, is very different. Who we look up to, who we see as the most successful of individuals, really influences what we see as truly being normal.
I find it extremely disheartening when people are disrespectful to those who are not grouped in this same category. We create stereotypes and have these perceptions of how people with disabilities are; if anything, I believe that the only way to overcome these misunderstandings is to relate to different groups of people. It is difficult to do so, especially when fear is presented alongside the misunderstanding. As was mentioned in class, this may be one of the reasons why in horror films today, the villain can be categorized as someone in the "other" category. Stemming off this comment, if we are unable to accept and understand the differences our society may hold, then we will never excel as a community.
By trying to relate to the difficulties and lifestyles of those individuals that are different from us, we can definitely improve how community works as a whole. A point was brought up in the discussion as to if we should change the structure of a building to make it more wheelchair accessible. I definitely feel that this is an initiative that should be taken. The individuals that this change would benefit are members of society just like anyone else. I feel that such changes are no different than improving the road system, parks, etc. If someone can benefit from such improvements, then we should definitely go for it. I understand that these changes may be costly, but I believe that in the long run, such expenditures would be a step in the right direction.
I honestly just believe that by making such minor changes, we can definitely making a lot of progress. This country is meant to be a place where people of all religions, ethnicites, beliefs can come and feel accepted and not threatened. By showing such stark differences in what advantages are given to those that are "normal" and those that are "disabled" in any shape or form, this country is not living up to what it is supposed to be representing. I hope that we can begin to accept people that are different from us, and use such achievements to become better as a whole.
I find it extremely disheartening when people are disrespectful to those who are not grouped in this same category. We create stereotypes and have these perceptions of how people with disabilities are; if anything, I believe that the only way to overcome these misunderstandings is to relate to different groups of people. It is difficult to do so, especially when fear is presented alongside the misunderstanding. As was mentioned in class, this may be one of the reasons why in horror films today, the villain can be categorized as someone in the "other" category. Stemming off this comment, if we are unable to accept and understand the differences our society may hold, then we will never excel as a community.
By trying to relate to the difficulties and lifestyles of those individuals that are different from us, we can definitely improve how community works as a whole. A point was brought up in the discussion as to if we should change the structure of a building to make it more wheelchair accessible. I definitely feel that this is an initiative that should be taken. The individuals that this change would benefit are members of society just like anyone else. I feel that such changes are no different than improving the road system, parks, etc. If someone can benefit from such improvements, then we should definitely go for it. I understand that these changes may be costly, but I believe that in the long run, such expenditures would be a step in the right direction.
I honestly just believe that by making such minor changes, we can definitely making a lot of progress. This country is meant to be a place where people of all religions, ethnicites, beliefs can come and feel accepted and not threatened. By showing such stark differences in what advantages are given to those that are "normal" and those that are "disabled" in any shape or form, this country is not living up to what it is supposed to be representing. I hope that we can begin to accept people that are different from us, and use such achievements to become better as a whole.
Constructing Normalcy
Davis' article on the history and philosophy of normalcy really added a subtlety and profundity on how normalcy is usually viewed. One part of the article that we didn't really talk about in class related this "normalizing" of the population with the rise of industrialization, and how this caused people to be viewed as products and resources to be used for the good and progression of the nation-industry. I thought this was a very interesting thought. I can relate it to a philosophy class I took in which we read some of Martin Heidegger's thoughts on the use of nature and people as reserves. This objectifies humans--each unit is then viewed as working or defective. Relating this to how we view disability, the objectification of human exaggerates the already negative light people view the disabled under in that now it's either they work or don't work, with no gray area or room for exception. With the article Mary presented, I thought this tied together nicely. By normalizing the healthy, "able" population, we push this marginalized group of people into a corner, lowering them into a subgroup of humans and stamping them with the label of useless.
the social construction of disability.
It’s a shame how easy it is to become labeled as disabled because of pace changes and how easy it is to be stigmatized as a result. It is an even bigger shame how difficult it is to get rid of that stigma even when you have not become any more disabled than you were before the pace change. It is also ashame what some people label as disabilities. The authors bring up the point that even social statuses can be seen as disabilities. For example one author states that “common colds can be acknowledge publically, and allowances are made for them, but menstruation cannot be acknowledged and allowances are not made for it.” It is easier to understand why the world is biased for physically and mentally able people, but very difficult to see why menstruation is stigmatized, as it occurs in the world just as much as the cold does, simply because it is a female thing.
It makes you wonder how being a woman is disabling when there are more women than men and women live longer than men. It is strange and frustrating how under appreciated women are for their strength and resilience. Its funny how life in underappreciated in general. So many people with physical disabilities are so much more psychologically and emotionally “able” than able-bodied individuals. Its sad how many people take their health for granted until they lose a key part of it; then all of a sudden life and their other abilities are so precious and they become model citizens.
These readings beg the question what does it means be normal versus abnormal? Able and disabled? Everyone is disabled in one way or another. Some people can simply hide their disability better than others can. Being socially awkward, not having rhythm, not having money is easier to conceal than not having a leg.
It makes you wonder how being a woman is disabling when there are more women than men and women live longer than men. It is strange and frustrating how under appreciated women are for their strength and resilience. Its funny how life in underappreciated in general. So many people with physical disabilities are so much more psychologically and emotionally “able” than able-bodied individuals. Its sad how many people take their health for granted until they lose a key part of it; then all of a sudden life and their other abilities are so precious and they become model citizens.
These readings beg the question what does it means be normal versus abnormal? Able and disabled? Everyone is disabled in one way or another. Some people can simply hide their disability better than others can. Being socially awkward, not having rhythm, not having money is easier to conceal than not having a leg.
Killing the Black Body and the Pamphlet on Overpopulation
I found the discussion during last Tuesday's class to be particularly interesting. The article "Killing the Black Body" presented a completely different side to the eugenics movement and to Planned Parenthood. I have always viewed Planned Parenthood as a great and necessary resource especially for young woman. I believe that it plays a valuable role in our society where young girls may only be receiving information on abstinence only sex education or come from backgrounds that are incestuous or that just don't support premarital sex. However, reading how Planned Parenthood came in to being was shocking. After learning the history of its developments it is clear now why often times the presence of Planned Parenthood in primarily minority neighborhoods is resented.
Sanger is a very complicated figure and her involvement with the eugenics movement was a disreputable way to achieve her ends. I found it to be very interesting how the Women's Liberation groups at the time didn't want to associate themselves with Sanger. Sanger was advocating for birth control for all women and this would allow women to enjoy sex and find fulfillment outside of a traditional caregiver/mother role. Sanger's ideas are very modern and they are ideas that I attribute to the modern women's rights movement, but it is interesting how leading women of the day rejected these ideas. The eugenics movement that Sanger then turned to did not support Sanger's view of birth control for all women they believed that certain women should be forced to be sterilized if they were though to be "genetically unfit."
The eugenics movement is a horrible distortion of science. It allows people's racists ideas to be expressed in a "scientific" and therefore socially acceptable manner. The eugenics movement in America was trying to eliminate all "undesirable" groups of society. So anyone who wasn't white, male, middle class, and who didn't follow the moral codes of the day was a target of forced sterilization. This effort to sterilize "unfit" people was mainly directed towards poor white Southerns and African Americans. Both of these groups had no way of defending themselves since they had no power in society and both groups failed to meet the ideals of the day. This forced sterilization clearly resonates with the film La operacion. Also, another unifying theme is the idea of the ideal. In Puerto Rico the perfect family was a family of four, this discouraged big families, in America during the early 20th century (and still today) the ideal family was mentally and physically fit and white. Both of these ideals further oppresses minority groups and makes it all the easier to dehumanize these different and "unacceptable" members of society.
Another interesting point that is brought up with sterilization is the idea of population control. This is the reason that was used in Puerto Rico to sterilize women and it was also an idea invoked in Roberts's article. This idea of population control is one that I still commonly hear as a reason not to have big families. The pamphlet "10 Reason to Rethink 'Overpopulation'" does a great job refuting a lot of the commonly held stereotypes about overpopulation. One of the points that I found most interesting was that the richest fifth of society consumes 66 times more resources than the poorer fifth! However, the point that ties in best with forced sterilization is that the population boom is over and also, that the world can handle more people. So governments and other programs need to stop scaring people into having less children. It is a basic and individual right to have children or not to have children and no one should be allowed to make that decision for you!
Disability as defined by society and culture
The two articles definitely had a central theme: disabilities (for the most part) are defined by how society and culture believe the whole should treat the individual. I do have to agree (and I feel reluctant to) that society does cause some of the disabilities such as infection due to lack of clean, running water. The US is very driven on results: better, faster, easier. A lot of this society has been mechanized; there is only one way to do something and no more. People with disabilities are shown as miracle stories. However, with so many people living until the really old ages, disabilities will pop up. I don't believe this society is so blind to disabilities as it once was. More educational facilities are recognizing the fact that people learn differently and this can't be considered a disability. I have been in several classes, especially in high school, where I learned that there are different approaches to learning and one type usually does not work with everyone. This is not a disability but requires creativity.
I personally do not see society changing to accommodate everyone. The amount of expense it would take to make sure that every store has wheel-chair access or that grocery stores have benches is so much greater than the benefits these "disabled" people would receive. If a store has a potential five more customers if wheelchairs were put into the equation, would it be worth it? Probably not, the space between aisles would have to be larger- which means that less products can be displayed and potentially bought in the same amount of space; space that could be used for parking outside (and another customer) would be turned into a ramp. Keeping the shelves down to a certain level so that people with limited reach could get the things they would need also limits the number of products on display. Overall, I don't see those who are disabled as being independent. ON the other hand, I respect their ability to perform tasks, and I am sure they could also do the same things I do (even if differently) probably better than me. People who are disabled probably can't be independent, but they sure can work. I liked how this article addressed issues I wouldn't think about head on.
I personally do not see society changing to accommodate everyone. The amount of expense it would take to make sure that every store has wheel-chair access or that grocery stores have benches is so much greater than the benefits these "disabled" people would receive. If a store has a potential five more customers if wheelchairs were put into the equation, would it be worth it? Probably not, the space between aisles would have to be larger- which means that less products can be displayed and potentially bought in the same amount of space; space that could be used for parking outside (and another customer) would be turned into a ramp. Keeping the shelves down to a certain level so that people with limited reach could get the things they would need also limits the number of products on display. Overall, I don't see those who are disabled as being independent. ON the other hand, I respect their ability to perform tasks, and I am sure they could also do the same things I do (even if differently) probably better than me. People who are disabled probably can't be independent, but they sure can work. I liked how this article addressed issues I wouldn't think about head on.
Medical Experimentation
Even though we watched the film La operacion a few classes ago, this film has stayed with me. This film presents a powerful take on medical experimentation and the rampant racism that existed and still exists in our world. The forced sterilization of these women was ethically and morally wrong. The women were misinformed (if they were informed at all) about what was taking place because many thought that they could have children later on if they so desired. The misogynistic structure of society is revealed in this piece because in the vast majority of the cases in this film the information and consent forms were given to the husbands. Also, the idea of male sterilization, which is much less invasive than female sterilization, was never pursued as an actual possibility. Another fact that clearly indicates the subjugation of women is that the city leaders who were implementing these plans were male. An aspect of this coercive sterilization process that surprised me was the fact that women employees were the ones that went and solicited the poor women to come in and be sterilized!
The sterilization program in Puerto Rico preyed on a class and group of society that had no means of protecting themselves. This is a common theme that we have already seen in the article on Sim's experimentation on slave women, and the treatment of intersex individuals and their families. Other groups of society that were clearly targeted and abused by medical experiments because of their minority status in America were Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and African Americans. I found Smith's article on medical experimentation in Native communities to be particularly chilling because these were horrible experiments that were done on these communities and yet these atrocities have still have not received the national recognition that they should. The minority status of these groups allows people of others races and backgrounds to distance themselves from these people and dehumanize them to the degree that allows for this medical experimentation. This is a problem that is very relevant for our modern society because lots of drug testing and other types of medical experimentation are moving over seas to Africa and other places. We have allowed and are allowing groups of people that have no means of protecting themselves because of their position in our modern day society to be exploited. This clearly emphasizes the need for ethical guidelines and a stronger public interest in the doings of pharmaceutical companies and medicine in general.
Monday, February 25, 2008
It's All in the Mind
As with poverty and diseases, we see disability as a private and individual problem. Both authors show how “disability is caused and maintained by the physical structure and social organization of society” (Wendell, 39). Wendell points out that most industrialized societies give non-disabled people more resources than the disabled because the help for each group is viewed differently; one as entitlement (non-disabled) and the other as an act of charity (the disabled). So then when helping a person who is either physically, emotionally, or economically disabled the bear minimum is all that is offered. If the individual takes steps to become more self-sufficient they lose the bare minimum support. Once again, the concept of extremes reappears. A person is either completely capable or self sufficient or they are completely disabled; there is not middle area or partial disability. This creates situation that does not allow for any change and feeds the stigma and misconceptions associated with any type of disability.
Wendell argues that people have come to see disabilities as devaluing a person’s humanity or life’s worth. Just as stereotypes of minorities benefits those in the white, ruling, boring class, The fear of disability benefits individuals deemed fit to be included in the normal category; who would have thunk it?! Those who are normal must maintain a certain (fast) pace in public and social facets that prevent the disabled from gaining entrance.
Almost every aspect of our lives is shaped by our understanding of what is normal or expected of us at different times. Though Davis takes the approach by analyzing the construction of normal, he also arrives at conclusions similar to Wendell’s. By manipulating statistical interpretations through language, the normal becomes the ideal which should describe the majority population. I was taken aback by how Quetelet used language to achieve his goals. The law of frequency of error/ error curve becomes the normal distribution curve and to justify the bias for one extreme, the way the curve should be interpreted is changed. Quetlet’s use of statistics to make the ideal normal and then proceed to argue for the reduction of the unwanted deviants shows how math and data can be used to support just about any opinion, something Eugenicists used to their great advantage. Something we also continue to see is that one mindset or perspective affects an area that may seem unrelated. Statistics affected eugenics which was exaggerated in the worst extreme in the works of Hitler and the Nazis.
What strikes me is that the things we study in retrospect may seem ludicrous but were not so at the time. Institutions that are highly esteemed and trusted once took part in such things as the Tuskegee Study (CDC) or approving the sterilizing of the disabled (Nature magazine). This just makes me think what other institutions which we hold to the highest esteem are doing now which people in the future will look at in disgust.
As we see, the power of a culture to construct a disability is revealed through language, cosmetic surgery, construction and redefinition of normalcy. Most non-disabled people have a fear having any type of disability and this also affects how disability is viewed. Both authors note that another major problem affecting disability its perception as unchangeable and unable to be adaptive and dare I say it, adaptive. This coupled with the egregious interpretation of evolution as a constant march of progress, creates a redefinition of normalcy that continuously narrows and limits those who are deemed to fit to be included.
Wendell argues that people have come to see disabilities as devaluing a person’s humanity or life’s worth. Just as stereotypes of minorities benefits those in the white, ruling, boring class, The fear of disability benefits individuals deemed fit to be included in the normal category; who would have thunk it?! Those who are normal must maintain a certain (fast) pace in public and social facets that prevent the disabled from gaining entrance.
Almost every aspect of our lives is shaped by our understanding of what is normal or expected of us at different times. Though Davis takes the approach by analyzing the construction of normal, he also arrives at conclusions similar to Wendell’s. By manipulating statistical interpretations through language, the normal becomes the ideal which should describe the majority population. I was taken aback by how Quetelet used language to achieve his goals. The law of frequency of error/ error curve becomes the normal distribution curve and to justify the bias for one extreme, the way the curve should be interpreted is changed. Quetlet’s use of statistics to make the ideal normal and then proceed to argue for the reduction of the unwanted deviants shows how math and data can be used to support just about any opinion, something Eugenicists used to their great advantage. Something we also continue to see is that one mindset or perspective affects an area that may seem unrelated. Statistics affected eugenics which was exaggerated in the worst extreme in the works of Hitler and the Nazis.
What strikes me is that the things we study in retrospect may seem ludicrous but were not so at the time. Institutions that are highly esteemed and trusted once took part in such things as the Tuskegee Study (CDC) or approving the sterilizing of the disabled (Nature magazine). This just makes me think what other institutions which we hold to the highest esteem are doing now which people in the future will look at in disgust.
As we see, the power of a culture to construct a disability is revealed through language, cosmetic surgery, construction and redefinition of normalcy. Most non-disabled people have a fear having any type of disability and this also affects how disability is viewed. Both authors note that another major problem affecting disability its perception as unchangeable and unable to be adaptive and dare I say it, adaptive. This coupled with the egregious interpretation of evolution as a constant march of progress, creates a redefinition of normalcy that continuously narrows and limits those who are deemed to fit to be included.
The Social Construction of Disability
Through the readings for Tuesday, I found it incredibly sad that people define themselves by comparing themselves to others. People are afraid to be unique or different because of their fear of standing out. Though many people do not care what others may think, a large majority, especially those of younger age, fear how others may describe them or what category they will be put into. As stated in, "The Social Construction of Disability," any deviation from a society's conception of a normal or acceptable body is scorned. In many societies, being average is ideal, which for many is an upsetting fate. When it comes to disabilities, society does not accommodate for these people because of the association with criminal activity, mental incompetence, and sexual license. As someone who was born "normal", and never had to deal with these stigmas and stereotypes, I cannot begin to understand how different my life would be. I disagree with Wendall when she says that life would not be worth living because I feel that no matter how much harder life would be, I would no nothing else and thus I would try and do the best I could for myself.
I was made aware of the stigmas when that disabled people struggle with when applying for a job. The statistic that 59% of the disabled population make less than $25,000 dollars a year while only 37% of the non disabled population makes $25,000 or less, particularly stuck out to me in this reading. It is shallow how a disabled person may be plenty capable of performing the tasks required of a certain occupation, but the company will not go out of their way to accommodate the person. An example of this may be a person in a wheelchair who wants to be a secretary but the company cannot give them an office on the first floor, or create ramps. Even if you are already in a company and are in an accident, there is no flexibility in defining your disability. You must either be fully disabled or fully capable, and these terms determine if you can work the full time or no time at all. There is no such thing as partial disability which limits the amount of work available to those with disabilities.
Overall, as much as society may want to break through their restrictions of what is normal and what isn't, it continues to stereotype against people and reinstate the distinction. Wendall makes her point very clear in stating that society constructs disability and that it is not all biological.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Tuesday's Discussion
As the teacher of Tuesday’s class on the readings, “The Dark Side of Birth control” and the pamphlet on overpopulation, I really appreciated everyone’s participation and comments. One point that was particularly interesting in the discussion was the commentary on the atmosphere of fear created by society. Certainly, the eugenics movement in America used fear to make black people and minorities be sterilized or use other forms of birth control. We can see this use in the illustrations of the forced sterilization of thousands of black people. This fear has been manipulated throughout history to suppress groups of people. One connection that the article makes to the eugenics movement is the Holocaust movement in Germany. The manipulation of power in Germany is one of the most outstanding examples of the use of fear to suppress a people.
Another point that was brought up was the controversial role of Margaret Sanger. I agree with the general consensus of the class which took a moderate view on Sanger’s role. It seemed like the class thought that Sanger used the eugenics movement as a political veil for her real agenda of birth control. However, Sanger clearly had eugenical ideals that influenced her main goals. The discussion of such controversial figures enables us to understand the movement more in-depth. In doing so, we give a face to the people who were affected by this monstrous sterilization.
Another point that was brought up was the controversial role of Margaret Sanger. I agree with the general consensus of the class which took a moderate view on Sanger’s role. It seemed like the class thought that Sanger used the eugenics movement as a political veil for her real agenda of birth control. However, Sanger clearly had eugenical ideals that influenced her main goals. The discussion of such controversial figures enables us to understand the movement more in-depth. In doing so, we give a face to the people who were affected by this monstrous sterilization.
Understanding Disability
Susan Wendall's article, "The Social Construction of Disability," addresses the fact that while disability is caused biologically, it is also socially constructed. She calls into question the way we think, and don't think, about disability.
On page 10, she quotes the philosopher Anita Silvers that "it is impossible for most non-disabled people to imagine what life is like with a disability, and that their own becoming disabled is unthinkable to them." Wendall then states that, "certainly many people without disabilities believe that life with a disability would not be worth living." She believes that this is caused by stereotypes of disability.
This made me think about my own approach to the matter. How do I think about disability? I think Silvers and Wendall are a little extreme in saying that it is "impossible to imagine" or that "life would not be worth living." In my opinion, it is not that we are incapable of this thought, but more accurately I would say that the average non-disabled person almost never encounters a situation in which they have to imagine themselves with a disability. The capability of this thought is there, we are simply never forced to think about it. It is important, but difficult, for people to try and think about disability from as close to an inside perspective as possible. One of Wendall's main points is that the reason society contributes to disability is that most architectural and city planning is done with the young, healthy, able-bodied male in mind. If the disabled point of view was taken into consideration during planning in a serious and careful way, many people would benefit. I think it will be a great step forward if people begin thinking more personally about the way society could help break down barriers for people with disabilities.
On page 10, she quotes the philosopher Anita Silvers that "it is impossible for most non-disabled people to imagine what life is like with a disability, and that their own becoming disabled is unthinkable to them." Wendall then states that, "certainly many people without disabilities believe that life with a disability would not be worth living." She believes that this is caused by stereotypes of disability.
This made me think about my own approach to the matter. How do I think about disability? I think Silvers and Wendall are a little extreme in saying that it is "impossible to imagine" or that "life would not be worth living." In my opinion, it is not that we are incapable of this thought, but more accurately I would say that the average non-disabled person almost never encounters a situation in which they have to imagine themselves with a disability. The capability of this thought is there, we are simply never forced to think about it. It is important, but difficult, for people to try and think about disability from as close to an inside perspective as possible. One of Wendall's main points is that the reason society contributes to disability is that most architectural and city planning is done with the young, healthy, able-bodied male in mind. If the disabled point of view was taken into consideration during planning in a serious and careful way, many people would benefit. I think it will be a great step forward if people begin thinking more personally about the way society could help break down barriers for people with disabilities.
The Rejected Body
I appreciate Susan Wendell's ability to openly discuss disability and how it has been socially constructed in our culture for much of our history. In her chapter "The Social Construction of Disability," Wendell opens up about the construction of disability and how it has affected the way that people carry out their normal lives, regardless of their health status. First, I really enjoyed how Wendell defines the idea of disability in the most literal sense. Although this term can apply to those who have certain restrictions of their mind, body, or soul, the author considers the inability to be able to do something as a disability. This could include someone not being able to dance or sing, which are simple tasks. In doing so, Wendell redefines an idea that exists in our culture and widens its breadth so that it can apply to anyone, regardless.
I was very interested in Wendell's ideas about the pace of life and how they relate to our social perception of disability in a variety of spheres. To be completely honest, we do live very fast paced lives that most certainly exclude those who cannot keep up, and this is especially true in America. The fast pace of our lives is now almost considered a downfall by other people cultures, and I would most certainly agree. As Wendell points out, we do not think about our fast pace of life unless we are marginalized or threatened in any way by ideas concerning normal functioning. Furthermore, I enjoyed how Wendell discusses disability and functioning in terms of occupation. Many times employers are concerned only with the disability of their employees, rather than their ability to perform tasks in an either unique or efficient way. We definitely have high expectations, which only seem to create more disability in our society.
Lastly, I enjoyed how Wendell talks about both the physical structure and social organization of our society as impeding forces of many people. She agrees with many feminists about the construction of our masculine world, but further discusses how particular structures in our society make the divide between the "abled" and "disabled" even greater. I never quite understood how many obstacles exist. This idea reminded me about some of the points that surfaced in "Unpacking the White Knapsack;" the author argued the ignorance of a great majority of our society. In her discussion about obstacles Wendell says, "This is no coincidence. Much architecture has been planned with a young adult, non-disabled male paradigm of humanity in mind" (p40). These aspects of our society create so much stress and widely range from public transportation to communication systems. It thus splits our world into two spheres and further persists our construction of disability.
I really did enjoy this reading by Susan Wendell and her perspective of disability in our culture, today. It has been a part of our history to ostracize those people who are considered "different," rather than shift our thinking and way of life to accommodate everyone. Why are we always so reluctant to change? When taking a quick look back at our history, it is only evident that change can bring many good things. I was reminded of the Tuskegee study and how the exposure of this medical shame brought about changes to the way in which we now conduct research. Without the IRB many of these problems could be taking place in areas a lot closer to home.
I was very interested in Wendell's ideas about the pace of life and how they relate to our social perception of disability in a variety of spheres. To be completely honest, we do live very fast paced lives that most certainly exclude those who cannot keep up, and this is especially true in America. The fast pace of our lives is now almost considered a downfall by other people cultures, and I would most certainly agree. As Wendell points out, we do not think about our fast pace of life unless we are marginalized or threatened in any way by ideas concerning normal functioning. Furthermore, I enjoyed how Wendell discusses disability and functioning in terms of occupation. Many times employers are concerned only with the disability of their employees, rather than their ability to perform tasks in an either unique or efficient way. We definitely have high expectations, which only seem to create more disability in our society.
Lastly, I enjoyed how Wendell talks about both the physical structure and social organization of our society as impeding forces of many people. She agrees with many feminists about the construction of our masculine world, but further discusses how particular structures in our society make the divide between the "abled" and "disabled" even greater. I never quite understood how many obstacles exist. This idea reminded me about some of the points that surfaced in "Unpacking the White Knapsack;" the author argued the ignorance of a great majority of our society. In her discussion about obstacles Wendell says, "This is no coincidence. Much architecture has been planned with a young adult, non-disabled male paradigm of humanity in mind" (p40). These aspects of our society create so much stress and widely range from public transportation to communication systems. It thus splits our world into two spheres and further persists our construction of disability.
I really did enjoy this reading by Susan Wendell and her perspective of disability in our culture, today. It has been a part of our history to ostracize those people who are considered "different," rather than shift our thinking and way of life to accommodate everyone. Why are we always so reluctant to change? When taking a quick look back at our history, it is only evident that change can bring many good things. I was reminded of the Tuskegee study and how the exposure of this medical shame brought about changes to the way in which we now conduct research. Without the IRB many of these problems could be taking place in areas a lot closer to home.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Rethinking Overpopulation
The pamphlet titled "10 Reasons to Rethink Overpopulation" is both unique and interesting. The population and development program at Hampshire College points out many of our fears and combats many ideologies about overpopulation. Still, and probably more so than ever, people and states are especially fearful of overpopulation and over-crowding in our modern world. Despite our history, people seem to be very fearful in our own country. I appreciate how the authors of this piece recognize the fault of "conventional wisdom" and call for a different school of thought. It is often hard to push for new ideologies or to divorce ourselves from the past, yet the authors unravel the idea of overpopulation in the context of several arguments. This is the essence of how issues can be conceptualized; we must be critical of our own thinking.
I appreciate how the creators of this pamphlet are quite blunt with both their ideas and language. While viewing the concept of overpopulation in a different light, the authors point out how we have been masking our fears in a completely misguiding context. Instead of understanding overpopulation for what it is and how it changes the social, economic, and political worlds that we live in, we caste our perceptions of it through other crises that make us suffer. For example, one of the points in the packet refutes the idea that overpopulation creates hunger and starvation. Our prevailing ideas about hunger are simply not true; despite population size and density, hunger still exists in many areas of the world. Hunger exists from small townships in South Africa to the inner city communities of Atlanta or any other metropolitan city in the US. Additionally, the creators note that we focus more so on numbers rather than the underlying causes of a certain problem. This abstraction and disillusionment exists in many other places. Furthermore, this piece specifically draws upon the relationships that exist in our society that we do not want to face, including how our economic modes and political systems are tied to social strife and injustice. The pamphlet points out that population pressure is not the cause of much conflict, but rather the ways which nations interact with one another. Using the idea of overpopulation as a scapegoat for more deep-seated problems seems to me like we are traveling down the wrong road.
We have previously seen how easy it is to view a problem completely out of the context of reality. Similarly to the prevailing thoughts about overpopulation, we have seen how ideas such as this existed during the sterilization period in Puerto Rico. Scientists, doctors, and government figures portrayed their actions in a positive light and as something that would only benefit their country in the future. Unfortunately, people either believed or were forced to believe in their misguiding leaders. It maybe a stretch, but this disillusioned idea also relates to how Sanger pushed for the birth control movement.
I enjoyed both this piece and the other selection for Tuesday's class. I always enjoy reading something that changes the way I critically think about today's "issues." Maybe we could read more short pieces such as this one.
I appreciate how the creators of this pamphlet are quite blunt with both their ideas and language. While viewing the concept of overpopulation in a different light, the authors point out how we have been masking our fears in a completely misguiding context. Instead of understanding overpopulation for what it is and how it changes the social, economic, and political worlds that we live in, we caste our perceptions of it through other crises that make us suffer. For example, one of the points in the packet refutes the idea that overpopulation creates hunger and starvation. Our prevailing ideas about hunger are simply not true; despite population size and density, hunger still exists in many areas of the world. Hunger exists from small townships in South Africa to the inner city communities of Atlanta or any other metropolitan city in the US. Additionally, the creators note that we focus more so on numbers rather than the underlying causes of a certain problem. This abstraction and disillusionment exists in many other places. Furthermore, this piece specifically draws upon the relationships that exist in our society that we do not want to face, including how our economic modes and political systems are tied to social strife and injustice. The pamphlet points out that population pressure is not the cause of much conflict, but rather the ways which nations interact with one another. Using the idea of overpopulation as a scapegoat for more deep-seated problems seems to me like we are traveling down the wrong road.
We have previously seen how easy it is to view a problem completely out of the context of reality. Similarly to the prevailing thoughts about overpopulation, we have seen how ideas such as this existed during the sterilization period in Puerto Rico. Scientists, doctors, and government figures portrayed their actions in a positive light and as something that would only benefit their country in the future. Unfortunately, people either believed or were forced to believe in their misguiding leaders. It maybe a stretch, but this disillusioned idea also relates to how Sanger pushed for the birth control movement.
I enjoyed both this piece and the other selection for Tuesday's class. I always enjoy reading something that changes the way I critically think about today's "issues." Maybe we could read more short pieces such as this one.
Which sex is the norm?
Schiebinger’s piece, “Theories of Race and Gender,” explains that since Aristotle, society has posited women as the deviation from the male norm. Men were regarded as the “core” of humanity, with women as a necessary abnormality. When included in cross-cultural studies, women automatically became the “Other,” the most distant and anomalous members of an already “savage” society: women, in essence, are the “Other” of the “Other.” This view contrasts one position of 21st century medicine, mentioned in previous articles such as Fausto-Sterling’s. The newer notion of femininity and masculinity explains males as the deviation of females— the reverse of the Aristotelian position.
For example, clinical medicine asserts that genetically, men are women (XX) with a chromosomal substitution, making XY. And even though biologically both sexes naturally produce estrogens and androgens (just in different amounts), large amounts of testosterone are considered to make a man more masculine, while estrogen has little or no bearing on femininity. In fact, men with androgen insensitivity are said to be physically feminine, while women with little estrogen are not considered manly. Further, clinical medicine conceives men as women without a penis; 90% of transgender babies are assigned the female sex because genitals are automatically feminine without a properly sized phallus. I am interested in learning how and why the West began viewing men, rather than women, as the deviant sex. How long will it take medicine to recognize men and women as two equal but disparate sexes, rather than analogies of one another? And finally, how many years until medicine formally acknowledges the existence of “in-betweens”?
For example, clinical medicine asserts that genetically, men are women (XX) with a chromosomal substitution, making XY. And even though biologically both sexes naturally produce estrogens and androgens (just in different amounts), large amounts of testosterone are considered to make a man more masculine, while estrogen has little or no bearing on femininity. In fact, men with androgen insensitivity are said to be physically feminine, while women with little estrogen are not considered manly. Further, clinical medicine conceives men as women without a penis; 90% of transgender babies are assigned the female sex because genitals are automatically feminine without a properly sized phallus. I am interested in learning how and why the West began viewing men, rather than women, as the deviant sex. How long will it take medicine to recognize men and women as two equal but disparate sexes, rather than analogies of one another? And finally, how many years until medicine formally acknowledges the existence of “in-betweens”?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Killing the Black Body
Genocide. Period. Whether intended for the black community or not, there's still the Native American tribe in Oklahoma whose women were sterilized, ending the existence of that tribe. In this class, I've read several articles on concepts I've never heard of before, acts by the American government that I would like to believe were not true. Twenty-one years of life, several American history classes, and I hear about this now? Where are all these studies in American history courses?
One thing that made the article slightly easier for me to read was the part on students reporting the sterilizations in training hospitals because they didn't believe it was right. To trick a woman and sterilize her without her knowledge is despicable and denying her what defines her as a woman, her ability to bear children. And true, not all women want children, but to underhandedly sterilize women who think they are only having abortions or giving birth, Cesarean section, whatever they think they are doing, and to learn they were also sterilized, its disheartening.
And eugenics?! Don't even, that's just horrible, and it really makes me think of how ignorant I used to be with my high school friends, us being the "AP kids" who would demean the slacker students that failed because they didn't give an effort to schoolwork or were ignorant on a worse level than we were. I recall a friend stating "stupid people shouldn't procreate" in regards to someone making very generalized, racist statements, and I never once that that such a statement once held such power and influenced the way America worked. I'm honestly ashamed for ever laughing at such a statement, regardless of what the person in question might have said or done. The readings in this course are opening my eyes.
One thing that made the article slightly easier for me to read was the part on students reporting the sterilizations in training hospitals because they didn't believe it was right. To trick a woman and sterilize her without her knowledge is despicable and denying her what defines her as a woman, her ability to bear children. And true, not all women want children, but to underhandedly sterilize women who think they are only having abortions or giving birth, Cesarean section, whatever they think they are doing, and to learn they were also sterilized, its disheartening.
And eugenics?! Don't even, that's just horrible, and it really makes me think of how ignorant I used to be with my high school friends, us being the "AP kids" who would demean the slacker students that failed because they didn't give an effort to schoolwork or were ignorant on a worse level than we were. I recall a friend stating "stupid people shouldn't procreate" in regards to someone making very generalized, racist statements, and I never once that that such a statement once held such power and influenced the way America worked. I'm honestly ashamed for ever laughing at such a statement, regardless of what the person in question might have said or done. The readings in this course are opening my eyes.
Monday, February 18, 2008
On the Londa Schiebinger Article
In “Theories of Race and Gender,” Schiebinger comments on the Western world’s hierarchy of races in the “Great Chain of Being.” White men, not surprisingly, roost at the top of the hierarchy, looking down on the Africans, Native Americans, Asians, Indians, et al. far below. While I have encountered the Great Chain in several cultural anthropology classes, it was never brought to my attention that the hierarchy fails to address exactly (or about so) half of humanity: it excludes women.
I also never realized that early 20th century eugenic charts made to compare races were composed strictly of men. Whether representing (or more accurately, misrepresenting) Europeans, Asians, or Africans, each chart detailed the crania and postcrania of men, never women. Thinking back to my studies of the beginnings of modern social anthropology, I cannot recall any drawing, flow chart, or text that examined women exclusively, or even in comparison to men. Further, the ethnographies of early social anthropologists, such as Malinowski and Boas, regarded women largely in relation to their roles in male-dominated society. Schiebinger has exposed a great omission in a field that prides itself in thoroughness. What is most interesting about this exclusion is that today’s social anthropologists readily acknowledge the racist beginnings of their field, then called ethnology. However, the exclusion of women from early anthropological studies and texts remains unrecognized.
I also never realized that early 20th century eugenic charts made to compare races were composed strictly of men. Whether representing (or more accurately, misrepresenting) Europeans, Asians, or Africans, each chart detailed the crania and postcrania of men, never women. Thinking back to my studies of the beginnings of modern social anthropology, I cannot recall any drawing, flow chart, or text that examined women exclusively, or even in comparison to men. Further, the ethnographies of early social anthropologists, such as Malinowski and Boas, regarded women largely in relation to their roles in male-dominated society. Schiebinger has exposed a great omission in a field that prides itself in thoroughness. What is most interesting about this exclusion is that today’s social anthropologists readily acknowledge the racist beginnings of their field, then called ethnology. However, the exclusion of women from early anthropological studies and texts remains unrecognized.
Killing the Black Body
I was completely surprised at the attitudes presented in the article, "Killing the Black Body." It seemed as though the beliefs about eugenics were mainly based on generalized assumptions of racial and gender-related superiority. It was sickening to read the ideas that many of these "scientists" and other supposed intellectuals had, and how they used science to objectively back up their claims. The Carrie Buck story reminded me of the Salem witch trials--the persecution of women in the name of religion. One line in the reading summed up the driving force behind eugenics: "eugenic sterilization enforced social judgments cloaked in scientific terms."
The issue of Black sterilization seems to be caught between two viewpoints: fear of Black extermination and eradication of white supremacy, as the article mentioned at the end. The sterilization argument, like eugenics, is rooted in social attitudes and injustices. Still, the issue is even more complex than that. Roberts did a good job at providing arguments and counterarguments to the topics she brought up, eventually coming to the conclusion that the motivation behind the sterilization of minorities is really a oppressive tool.
The issue of Black sterilization seems to be caught between two viewpoints: fear of Black extermination and eradication of white supremacy, as the article mentioned at the end. The sterilization argument, like eugenics, is rooted in social attitudes and injustices. Still, the issue is even more complex than that. Roberts did a good job at providing arguments and counterarguments to the topics she brought up, eventually coming to the conclusion that the motivation behind the sterilization of minorities is really a oppressive tool.
Sterilization = Eugenics?
The chapter entitled "The Dark Side of Birth Control" by Dorthy Robert displays the birth control in many forms and how controversial the subject still is, especially among black women. As I read through the chapter, I remembered learning about eugenics during the first year of science in high school. I was surprised to think the Darwinism developed into eugenics and gave way to the Nazi's genocide of undesirables in the most extreme manner. Yet this article tries to prove that the US government was no better than the Nazi regime. By the actions taken, especially towards black women in the southern states, the US government tried to curb the growth of a race whose inferiority justified its forced population decline. I was interested to see how birth control started out as a feminist movement and later got tagged onto eugenics. The actions and motivations of Margaret Sanger are very mixed. I don't know how to interpret her actions as racists or feminist. She seems unable to see other minority groups as occupying the same social value as the one she was in. The amount of sheer surprises the article had kept putting me off guard. I didn't know that medical residents would perform more surgeries than were necessary and how minority women would be forced to consent to sterilization with various methods.
I was astounded at the fact that the government ended up using the institution as the way to continue performing sterilizations. By giving people shelter and sustenance but at the same time denying the reproductive freedom of these people is a cruel way to accomplish one's goals. I can understand why many minorities distrust doctors' advice and are unwilling to go to the hospital except in emergency situations. The aftereffects of the practices performed during this century are startling and horrifying. The end of such practices would require great change in our society. Even today, boards that oversee the medical operations do not have the force to back-up their judgments. It is a hard world we live in, and only constant diligence can keep these acts of abuse at a minimum.
I was astounded at the fact that the government ended up using the institution as the way to continue performing sterilizations. By giving people shelter and sustenance but at the same time denying the reproductive freedom of these people is a cruel way to accomplish one's goals. I can understand why many minorities distrust doctors' advice and are unwilling to go to the hospital except in emergency situations. The aftereffects of the practices performed during this century are startling and horrifying. The end of such practices would require great change in our society. Even today, boards that oversee the medical operations do not have the force to back-up their judgments. It is a hard world we live in, and only constant diligence can keep these acts of abuse at a minimum.
The Dark Side of Birth Control
While reading the article on birth control and sterilization, I found myself particularly blown away by the dates of different rulings. The range of dates was between 1924 and 1978 which seems incredibly recent. It was hard to believe that the the abuse of sterilizations occurred only a few decades ago. I was angered when reading that many women were violated in hospitals when going in for different procedures. I found it bold of the group of medical students who reported that the Boston City Hospital was performing excessive and medically unnecessary hysterectomies on black patients. For these procedures to be performed without consent and then in order to educate the medical students, really makes me question the validity of the doctors themselves. As a student who is interested in going into healthcare, it is upsetting to see that my personal motives to help people are not always shared by others. I cannot understand the reasoning of a doctor to go against their patient's will.
Even the Supreme Court rulings were outrageous in the early 20th century. To permit sterilization of "potential parents of socially inadequate offspring," makes me question who gets to decide who is normal or not. Sterilization is a severe punishment for those who cannot change their social status and is definitely not the best way to enforce birth control. Sterilization cannot be reversed and thus it is too harsh of a practice. In the Buck vs Bell ruling I think it is unfair to prevent people from procreating if they are found to be less intelligent. The desire to "prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...because 3 generations of imbeciles is enough" is a ridiculous statement to make. How can you predict if an offspring will prevent society from progressing? I can understand wanting to better society and different racial groups but I do not think that sterilization is the best option.
Even the Supreme Court rulings were outrageous in the early 20th century. To permit sterilization of "potential parents of socially inadequate offspring," makes me question who gets to decide who is normal or not. Sterilization is a severe punishment for those who cannot change their social status and is definitely not the best way to enforce birth control. Sterilization cannot be reversed and thus it is too harsh of a practice. In the Buck vs Bell ruling I think it is unfair to prevent people from procreating if they are found to be less intelligent. The desire to "prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...because 3 generations of imbeciles is enough" is a ridiculous statement to make. How can you predict if an offspring will prevent society from progressing? I can understand wanting to better society and different racial groups but I do not think that sterilization is the best option.
Children in “Natural Laboratories”
What stuck me most about the “Natural Laboratories” article was that so many of the experiments conducted among native population were performed on children. In my opinion, unethical experimentation on children is among the worst offenses committed by American science. By their nature, children cannot fully understand the potential consequences of a trial, and therefore can never be provided enough information to make an education decision to participate—the most basic premise of ethical research. Neither can children refuse or discontinue “treatment”—another basic right of ethical medicine— because they lack voice. Given that children are inherently unable to provide informed consent, regardless of any expressed approval, the parents of potential subjects must decide whether the consequences of experimentation outweigh the benefits; they must stand in for their children, consenting only to procedures they deem beneficial.
In “Natural Laboratories,” every experiment involving children was unethical on at least two accounts. First the personnel never bothered to explain even the vaguest details of their study to the children, never mentioned whether pain would be involved, never asked their opinions. The parents were placed in no better position to provide informed consent on behalf of their children. In the best case scenarios, the parents were misinformed, bribed, or threatened signing consent forms. In the worst cases, such as in the late 1960s and early 1970s trachoma experiments, parents were not even asked for consent. The research company’s justification for this outrageous flouting of human rights was pathetic; the Proctor Foundation claimed that native students at boarding schools were under the jurisdiction of “Indian Health Services” which acted on their behalf in any legal matters. Sadly, we learn of most unethical science experiments years or decades after they occur. This begs the question: even in our “enlightened” age, where the IRB supposedly screens for immoral science, how many unscrupulous child experiments studies are we averting our eyes from?
In “Natural Laboratories,” every experiment involving children was unethical on at least two accounts. First the personnel never bothered to explain even the vaguest details of their study to the children, never mentioned whether pain would be involved, never asked their opinions. The parents were placed in no better position to provide informed consent on behalf of their children. In the best case scenarios, the parents were misinformed, bribed, or threatened signing consent forms. In the worst cases, such as in the late 1960s and early 1970s trachoma experiments, parents were not even asked for consent. The research company’s justification for this outrageous flouting of human rights was pathetic; the Proctor Foundation claimed that native students at boarding schools were under the jurisdiction of “Indian Health Services” which acted on their behalf in any legal matters. Sadly, we learn of most unethical science experiments years or decades after they occur. This begs the question: even in our “enlightened” age, where the IRB supposedly screens for immoral science, how many unscrupulous child experiments studies are we averting our eyes from?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Medical Experiments on silenced people
The horrors of doctors' visits are small stories spread as kids that have a small grain of truth to them: not all medical practices are made to aid the indiviual practiced on relief from his or her symptoms. As I read through the article, listened to the recording, and watched the clip in class, I realized how hard small groups of populations in the US have it. According to last week's articles, archeologists tried to justify the white-male superiority by the comparative use of anatomy. I started thinking that it was medically incorrect to use a specific race that is only represents a small portion of the whole racial spectrum that the US encompasses. How can researchers apply the effects that one race has to a specific illness, vacination, or other medical phenomenon to all the other races? The human body is a complex organism that should not be generalized. Also, how can these people be relaesed from their suffering. According to the article, organizations reviewing the actions of the research did not perform their investigation deep enough to find the truth in the matter. Hardly any of the patients were called for a follow up after the complaint had been filed for malpractice. Would it have been too hard to just make a follow-through?
While learning about these experiences that groups of people went through, I tried to come up with ways that the average cictzen could prevent this. We certainly couldn't call everyone who has a doctor's appointment up to see how the visit went. We also can't go into the reports of medical studies. Also, the amount of time and effort needed to accomplish this (assuming that the resources were available to the general public) would be huge. The journalists who end up writing these articles and reporting the news to the public have a long up-hill battle to fight. I commend them for their effort. They have to first find clues that such abuse is happening. Then hard-core evidence must be found-- this can be hard when the studies hide themselves quite well and refuse to release detailed information. After the article is written, someone must publish it. How many newspapers are willing to print a controversial story on the front-page? Not many, I believe. I am happy a story like Tuskegee could come out to the public, but how many stories have not had the effect that Tuskegee has had? How long will it take for all this to be put behind us? It's scary to think about. When can doctors be trusted to just heal people without getting extra money for it? After all this new information, I am scared to step into a doctor's office and wonder if I could ever be one myself.
While learning about these experiences that groups of people went through, I tried to come up with ways that the average cictzen could prevent this. We certainly couldn't call everyone who has a doctor's appointment up to see how the visit went. We also can't go into the reports of medical studies. Also, the amount of time and effort needed to accomplish this (assuming that the resources were available to the general public) would be huge. The journalists who end up writing these articles and reporting the news to the public have a long up-hill battle to fight. I commend them for their effort. They have to first find clues that such abuse is happening. Then hard-core evidence must be found-- this can be hard when the studies hide themselves quite well and refuse to release detailed information. After the article is written, someone must publish it. How many newspapers are willing to print a controversial story on the front-page? Not many, I believe. I am happy a story like Tuskegee could come out to the public, but how many stories have not had the effect that Tuskegee has had? How long will it take for all this to be put behind us? It's scary to think about. When can doctors be trusted to just heal people without getting extra money for it? After all this new information, I am scared to step into a doctor's office and wonder if I could ever be one myself.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
the seventh reason and the wrong perspective
Number seven in the “10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’” article we read for class caught my attention in particular. It seems to be a recurring theme in our studies that communities are missing the big point for the details, treating the symptoms rather than the real problem. Misaligned priorities do nothing but ultimately extend the problem. Lately, in many poor countries, population control is a greater focus than primary health care. Due to the misconception of overpopulation, these countries do everything to reduce fertility, meanwhile neglecting the establishment of proper healthcare and treatment of other social problems such as malnutrition. Their limited view says that malnutrition is a result of poor population control when really, according to the article, it is more due to an uneven distribution of wealth. So, they try to fix everything by fixing population control instead of approaching the general problem of poor healthcare and poor social structure head on.
This situation reminds me very much of the state of the Native American and Native Alaskan communities in
Natural Laboratories - Children
Mistreatment of children brings any social issue to a whole new level of injustice. In my involvement with anti-slavery efforts in
Alaska Native children were the subjects for the 1982 hepatitis B trial vaccine program. Many of the parents didn’t even know that their children were being vaccinated, or if they did they were ill informed, bribed, and/or misled. The mercury used in some vaccines can cause autism in children. Some vaccination procedures can even be particularly painful, especially for children. And many people end up dying after contracting the disease from a vaccination, especially in experimental practices. It is hard to believe that the government is consciously risking our children’s lives in this way. The
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Natural Laboratories/Tuskegee Experiment
Hate is a word that we often try to deny exists in our American society. We fight wars with other countries because of their hate for other cultures and/or ethnic groups. We condemn those who kill entire groups based solely upon their ethnicity. However, after reading these two articles I am totally disgusted at how parts of America's belief system is based upon lies and hypocrisy. I am appalled and greatly hurt by how ,in many cases, the government dehumanizes those who are either poor or apart of minority groups. I couldn't imagine inflicting such pain upon another human and can only describe the governments actions as those of pure hatred.
The letter at the beginning of the "Natural Laboratories" article is a complete cry for help. This woman has seen and possibly endured things that many of us could not even fathom. As a reader, we can only sympathize with her and feel sorrow for her troubles. But how could those who performed these experiments not feel any remorse or guilt for what they did? The same idea goes for those involved in the Tuskegee experiment. Is a paycheck or status really worth to you than another human's life. I know that many people are socialized into believing that life is all about "the survival of the fittest" but at what point does a person really believe that another human life is not equal to their own.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Human Experimentation
The Tuskegee study and the experiments done on Native American communities were appalling, and I found that I was pretty much horrified that such things had even occurred. It was surprising to see how casually these experiments were done on minority, underpriveledged and forgotten communities as though they were animals. I think the Smith article about the Native communities summarized the issue when it said that the Natives were seen as "rapable, deserving of destruction and mutilation." Using these people as experiments and objects, a means to an end seems to take away their humanity and devalue them at the same time. The black men were not informed of their diagonoses and the Natives were tested through deception. Undercurrents of racism and greed also ran through what I determined to be the intent behind these experimentations in that, again, a blind eye was turned toward the senselessness of these acts. It's ironic to see that people are being hurt in order to heal others. As a pre-med student, I can't imagine that a doctor would even consider taking such routes, no matter what the "benefits" are.
Tuskegee
While listening to Alex Chadwick's report about the Tuskegee experiment I was once again saddened by the Tuskegee experiment that began in the 1930's. Although we often hear about bad things happening, the course and disclosure of this experiment continues to be dramatic. I had previously learned about this study in a sociology class, and my professor did not spend much time going over the details. Although the NPR clip is short and the text is quite brief, I think that the collection of people who speak during the segment is quite interesting. I enjoyed listening to Jean Heller speak about her struggles to publish this story and unmask forty years of history. I, also, secretly appreciated that the main reporter was a female; after learning about the exploitation of females and minority groups I was glad that Heller, a female, was the one who publicly uncovered the story. Additionally, I automatically thought about a book titled Mama Might Be Better Off Dead. This book discusses the quality, access, and cost of health care for those living in the poor communities in Chicago. The book primarily focuses on an African American family and traces their experiences with the local hospitals. One of the men in the story comment about his fear of white male doctors and notes that abuse and experimentation that some of his friends faced while in prison. Why is it that our government allows or turns a blind eye to this type of treatment? It is so unfortunates that despite Tuskegee, minorities still continue to be violated or feel uncomfortable in the presence of a doctor. The male character in the story mentions the history of Tuskegee and how the African community is haunted by the power of the government; he, along with many others, still cannot trust the government.
Exploitation of minority groups is just plain awful. Our readings from this week demonstrate how this has happened quite frequently throughout our history. If it is not one group, then it is another. Although health officials think that they are "helping" in some way, they really are not. For example, Smith notes in his piece Natural Laboratories that Native Americans were being immunized with trial and medical drugs that they did not even know about. In the end, science and much research has proven that these immunizations may be harmful, rather than helpful, to the people.
I hope that we can learn more about the Tuskegee experiment and what has happened since President Clinton's public apology. Although the victims and their families received a settlement and health care, I would like to know how they are doing today? Many of the men have probably passed away, but their wives, children, and family members must still live with this haunting memory. Like Charlie Pallard says in the clip, people would no longer shake his hand after the Washington Evening Star published the story. Are men and women in Tuskegee still stigmatized by syphilis or diseases? How have these families reconciled with a major disappointment in the government. Additionally, I would like to more about folk medicine, as it was mentioned in the audio clip and text. Public Health Services got people to join the study by saying that they would fix their "bad blood," and I am pretty sure that some of these traditions still exist today. Maybe we will learn more when reading Anne Fadiman's book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.
Exploitation of minority groups is just plain awful. Our readings from this week demonstrate how this has happened quite frequently throughout our history. If it is not one group, then it is another. Although health officials think that they are "helping" in some way, they really are not. For example, Smith notes in his piece Natural Laboratories that Native Americans were being immunized with trial and medical drugs that they did not even know about. In the end, science and much research has proven that these immunizations may be harmful, rather than helpful, to the people.
I hope that we can learn more about the Tuskegee experiment and what has happened since President Clinton's public apology. Although the victims and their families received a settlement and health care, I would like to know how they are doing today? Many of the men have probably passed away, but their wives, children, and family members must still live with this haunting memory. Like Charlie Pallard says in the clip, people would no longer shake his hand after the Washington Evening Star published the story. Are men and women in Tuskegee still stigmatized by syphilis or diseases? How have these families reconciled with a major disappointment in the government. Additionally, I would like to more about folk medicine, as it was mentioned in the audio clip and text. Public Health Services got people to join the study by saying that they would fix their "bad blood," and I am pretty sure that some of these traditions still exist today. Maybe we will learn more when reading Anne Fadiman's book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down.
La operacion and Related Readings
For me, “La operacion” was a startling view into the lives of exploited women. This film was particularly disturbing to me because I am best friends with someone from Puerto Rico. I remember when we were both awkward middle schoolers that my Puerto Rican friend told me that her mother was getting her tubes tied. Of course at the time, neither of us really knew what that meant and certainly had not heard of the sterilization genocide described in the movie. However, after seeing this film, that comment so many years ago takes on new meaning to me. There was actual proof, tangible evidence that women in Puerto Rico suffer from the pressures and propaganda of sterilization. His really hits home for me because I know that my friend’s mom was poor growing up and that she has many siblings. The evidence is all too clear that she was exploited as a poor minority by the government of Puerto Rico in the attempts to balance economics and population; just like the other women from the film and the women suffering under Sims’ knife, she was silenced into operation.
Realizing the pain that my friend’s mom must have gone though gave me a deeper appreciation for the women’s sufferings in the article, “Women as Victims of Medical Experimentation.” These women also were exploited by someone in power, not the government but the white man. They too were subjected to surgery to benefit this power. Furthermore, all of these women were forced to suffer in silence. Being a minority and slaves, these women could not simply complain or refuse the operations because they ran the risk of being beaten or otherwise harmed. Similarly, the women in Puerto Rico would have a hard time refusing the “popular” operation. One scene in the movie depicts a worker from Planned Parenthood going door-to-door harassing women about coming to the clinic. These women virtually had no choice. This problem is not isolated to times when there were slave or just in Puerto Rico, but as Blackwood suggests in her article, "Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender Females,” we must also be conscious to the possibility of this silence and exploitation.
Realizing the pain that my friend’s mom must have gone though gave me a deeper appreciation for the women’s sufferings in the article, “Women as Victims of Medical Experimentation.” These women also were exploited by someone in power, not the government but the white man. They too were subjected to surgery to benefit this power. Furthermore, all of these women were forced to suffer in silence. Being a minority and slaves, these women could not simply complain or refuse the operations because they ran the risk of being beaten or otherwise harmed. Similarly, the women in Puerto Rico would have a hard time refusing the “popular” operation. One scene in the movie depicts a worker from Planned Parenthood going door-to-door harassing women about coming to the clinic. These women virtually had no choice. This problem is not isolated to times when there were slave or just in Puerto Rico, but as Blackwood suggests in her article, "Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender Females,” we must also be conscious to the possibility of this silence and exploitation.
Women as Victims of Medical Experimentation
After reading the articles for both Thursday and Tuesding, along with watching the documentary in class, the biggest problem women suffer from in medical experimentation is being uninformed. Doctors promote their products such as vaccines and sterilization without telling the women about the consequences. By not acknowledging the fine print, women find themselves in situations as presented by the "Natural Laboratories" article because of the over zealous doctors. For the first page and a half I squirmed in my seat reading about how women had their eyes scraped thinking that they had a serious eye disease to later find out that this was not that case and consequently losing their vision. Theresa Brown says that these procedures were "forced on 'them' " they had no choice. Similar to the women in the documentary who underwent sterilization, they were presented no other options, there was only one path to take in order to control the population or control the disease.
These situations greatly differ from the men in the documentary who when asked if they would be sterilized refused to undergo the procedure. Even when told that the procedure was less invasive and painful like the women's sterilization process, the men still did not accept the proposition. It is ridiculous that men think there is a difference between how a man views their masculinity and how women view their femininity and ability to give produce children. The men were given a choice while the women were not. The men also contributed nothing in attempts to conquer the over population of Puerto Rico. How does it become solely the woman's job to fix this.
These situations greatly differ from the men in the documentary who when asked if they would be sterilized refused to undergo the procedure. Even when told that the procedure was less invasive and painful like the women's sterilization process, the men still did not accept the proposition. It is ridiculous that men think there is a difference between how a man views their masculinity and how women view their femininity and ability to give produce children. The men were given a choice while the women were not. The men also contributed nothing in attempts to conquer the over population of Puerto Rico. How does it become solely the woman's job to fix this.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Remembering Tuskegee/ Natural Laboratories
Withholding information is thematic in the recent articles; the fact that the men of the Tuskegee experiments were DYING just tears me apart, knowing that these men were very sick and were denied help, especially when penicillin became the method of treatment, it really destroys my faith in the American government knowing it allowed things like this to occur. Sure, try to amend it by providing health care to the survivors, to their wives, children, grandchildren... you can't fix deliberately taking a man's life for the sake of charting a disease's progress. There is no undoing for that. And when Clinton formally apologized in 1997, for something that was occurring when he was a child, on behalf of the nation, as respectable as his actions were, the action was years too late. The people involved in the study were probably already dead, and they should have been the ones to apologize to the men of Alabama for not only prolonging their illness, but destroying their standing in their community. [On a side note, Clinton apologizing for the nation reminded me of people apologizing to Sharpton/Jackson when trying to address the black community.]
"Natural Laboratories" reminded me of the Sims article in which people were equated to animals rather than fellow humans, and to think that the native people of America were equated to "plants and animals" is upsetting PERIOD. The fact that hepB "vaccines" were given to children upset me as well, I thought children would be left out because they are so young, but apparently if you can't fully understand what's going on, you're a prime subject for experimentation. I question where ideas of morals and ethics went during these experiments; honestly, over 30 years of denying men infected with syphilis their rightful treatment and not once in 30 years did someone say, "Hey, this can't be right, what if I were one of these men," is so shocking. And to be doing experiments on black men, and then bring in black medical students to oversee the study? Distasteful. These studies we're covering are completely distasteful.
"Natural Laboratories" reminded me of the Sims article in which people were equated to animals rather than fellow humans, and to think that the native people of America were equated to "plants and animals" is upsetting PERIOD. The fact that hepB "vaccines" were given to children upset me as well, I thought children would be left out because they are so young, but apparently if you can't fully understand what's going on, you're a prime subject for experimentation. I question where ideas of morals and ethics went during these experiments; honestly, over 30 years of denying men infected with syphilis their rightful treatment and not once in 30 years did someone say, "Hey, this can't be right, what if I were one of these men," is so shocking. And to be doing experiments on black men, and then bring in black medical students to oversee the study? Distasteful. These studies we're covering are completely distasteful.
Theories of Gender and Race Response
What stood out most to me in the Theories of Gender and Race was the concept of scientific racism/sexism. Those scientists and anthropologist of the time could not quite make up their minds. First the African female pelvis was larger than the European female which meant they could give birth with ease and quickly continue with their hard labor. Then finding some contradictory results, decided the African female’s pelvis was in fact smaller than the European female and the ease with which the African women delivered their babies was because of their small brains. These "scientific" results were then used to validate such acts as enslavement.
Last class we talked about racism and how stereotypes have become a quick reference to how one race may describe another. The physical strength and threshold for enduring pain associated with slaves in both of the articles cane be seen are informing the modern stereotype of African Americans as tough strong and more athletic. The large rear end which results from the small pelvis then influences the modern stereotypes that all Black female have big behinds. The examination of the mostly male skulls was then used to argue that reason is male trait influences the stereotypical irrational female. These examples of scientific racism can also be seen in different cultures and times from the Holocaust to theories regarding shape of eyes in Asian culture.
Last class we talked about racism and how stereotypes have become a quick reference to how one race may describe another. The physical strength and threshold for enduring pain associated with slaves in both of the articles cane be seen are informing the modern stereotype of African Americans as tough strong and more athletic. The large rear end which results from the small pelvis then influences the modern stereotypes that all Black female have big behinds. The examination of the mostly male skulls was then used to argue that reason is male trait influences the stereotypical irrational female. These examples of scientific racism can also be seen in different cultures and times from the Holocaust to theories regarding shape of eyes in Asian culture.
Monday, February 11, 2008
So an apple-bottom makes up for a lacking pelvis...
With scientific advances today , I found this article a bit far fetched and felt like I read a piece of fictional literature. Also, I'm not sure when the article was published, but it's information is certainly outdated. The closest relation to humans is actually the bonobo, a type of chimpanzee in Africa. Bonobos have very high sex-drives and have probably done more things than humans could come up with. Is this intelligence/creativity? Hmmm....
Something that really troubled me concerning this article was the comparison of Africans to apes and the assumption that Africans came from Caucasians mating with apes... what was going on in the 18th century? Looking back on that kind of information now, we all see the err in thinking that, but I'm sure then it seemed pretty valid to much of Europe (and whomever else was thinking it). The comment of the voyager who said Africans resembled the apes makes me think he didn't have anything better to report from his trip. Hmm Africans are shaped like me, but they have dark skin... apes are dark, they must be related! I'm sure Africans of the 18th century were not quadrupeds, they were erect bipeds like every other human, so the connection of Africans to apes strikes me as odd when the clear first assumption is to connect African to European. There must have been many similarities that should have struck the voyager to say "You know, these Africans, they're a lot like us!" Both wear clothing, both speak, both eat in similar ways, hunt, farm, live in dwellings, I just don't understand the logic (or lack thereof) in that situation.
Though I feel that the study of skulls and pelvises was pointless in determining a "dominant" race, the information gathered, whatever it resembled, must have been... biased?... without the inclusion of enough female data. I don't understand why the "scientists" would have deliberately left women out of the research, even denying female assistance in studying specimens.
Something that really troubled me concerning this article was the comparison of Africans to apes and the assumption that Africans came from Caucasians mating with apes... what was going on in the 18th century? Looking back on that kind of information now, we all see the err in thinking that, but I'm sure then it seemed pretty valid to much of Europe (and whomever else was thinking it). The comment of the voyager who said Africans resembled the apes makes me think he didn't have anything better to report from his trip. Hmm Africans are shaped like me, but they have dark skin... apes are dark, they must be related! I'm sure Africans of the 18th century were not quadrupeds, they were erect bipeds like every other human, so the connection of Africans to apes strikes me as odd when the clear first assumption is to connect African to European. There must have been many similarities that should have struck the voyager to say "You know, these Africans, they're a lot like us!" Both wear clothing, both speak, both eat in similar ways, hunt, farm, live in dwellings, I just don't understand the logic (or lack thereof) in that situation.
Though I feel that the study of skulls and pelvises was pointless in determining a "dominant" race, the information gathered, whatever it resembled, must have been... biased?... without the inclusion of enough female data. I don't understand why the "scientists" would have deliberately left women out of the research, even denying female assistance in studying specimens.
Response to “Women as Victims of Medical Experimentation”
Prior to Graham Barker-Benfield’s publication in 1976, the majority of our knowledge of J. Marion Sim’s “ethics” came from Seale Harris, who published the surgeon’s biography in 1950. Harris’ main offenses were strongly exaggerating both the severity of the women’s condition and their willingness to participate in the Sim’s surgeries. Naturally the public would know little about vesico-vaginal fistulas. Therefore we cannot chastise the audience for not knowing whether Anarcha, Lucy, and Betsy were indeed in so much pain before Sim’s heroic surgeries that they “lived on year after year in misery and ostracism wishing for death” (p. 11). However, I am astounded that the 20th century public was so disillusioned as to believe that Sim’s procedures on slave women were wanted, voluntary, or consensual—especially after Harris’s description of the invasiveness, lack of anesthesia, and shear volume of surgeries that these women suffered.
I was therefore shocked that Sim’s work was celebrated without question until 1976. Given Harris’s accounts, why did Sim’s surgeries remain unexamined for so long? After some thought, I realized that the ethics of any “father,” in this case the “father of American gynecology” are always golden by default. Our culture’s “fathers” remain innocent until proven guilty—which rarely happens. We are taught to assume that groundbreaking medical procedures are simply “discovered.” The ethical background of Western medicine usually remains unquestioned and is known only to the select few that care to pry. After all, if we take too close of a look at Western medicine, we might debunk the golden ethics of all our scientific “fathers,” leaving our textbooks devoid of objective science. Rather, America prefers to keep its proverbial head in the ground when it comes to medical history, especially in regards to women and minorities.
I was therefore shocked that Sim’s work was celebrated without question until 1976. Given Harris’s accounts, why did Sim’s surgeries remain unexamined for so long? After some thought, I realized that the ethics of any “father,” in this case the “father of American gynecology” are always golden by default. Our culture’s “fathers” remain innocent until proven guilty—which rarely happens. We are taught to assume that groundbreaking medical procedures are simply “discovered.” The ethical background of Western medicine usually remains unquestioned and is known only to the select few that care to pry. After all, if we take too close of a look at Western medicine, we might debunk the golden ethics of all our scientific “fathers,” leaving our textbooks devoid of objective science. Rather, America prefers to keep its proverbial head in the ground when it comes to medical history, especially in regards to women and minorities.
The Male European "Norm"
Londa Schiebinger's article, "Theories of Gender and Race" explored the problematic characteristics of anthropological study during the period of the Enlightenment. One of the fundamental attributes of this anthropology was its ethnocentrism. European males were studied most thoroughly, and were considered the "norm." Both women and non-European males were studied, but the findings were always presented in comparison to this "norm." Furthermore, these minorities were never studied as extensively. Schiebinger describes this practice as being marked by both "scientific racism" and "scientific sexism."
I found the nature of the studies conducted to be extremely problematic. From what I know of modern theories in anthropology, the findings of the 1800s seemed like generalizations arrived at based upon very little factual evidence. I think it is a reflection of who was allowed to have a say in academia and science at the time, as it was obviously biased towards the white male. While I believe that society has improved from this point, I think that this bias is still present in our society. It has somehow remained in our culture in a way that privileges white males.
I found the nature of the studies conducted to be extremely problematic. From what I know of modern theories in anthropology, the findings of the 1800s seemed like generalizations arrived at based upon very little factual evidence. I think it is a reflection of who was allowed to have a say in academia and science at the time, as it was obviously biased towards the white male. While I believe that society has improved from this point, I think that this bias is still present in our society. It has somehow remained in our culture in a way that privileges white males.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Invisible Knapsack and White Privilege
It is rare that I sit down and ponder the experience I have had as a white individual in my country. Fortunately, reading Peggy McIntosh’s article “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” and participating in class discussion really broadened my perspective. Like McIntosh explained, I have grown up being told that my experience as a financially sound white girl is the norm, that my privileges are normal. This set perspective limits my way of thinking and problem-solving when it comes to issues of race and equality in
This alternate approach involves whites recognizing the invisible knapsack, the reevaluation of the knapsack itself and then the redistribution of the knapsack to everyone. Or better yet, no need for a knapsack at all. We’ve just learned that white society in its entirety is not ideal. Are all the privileges in the knapsack the most ideal? Or are some merely faulty white privileges? For example, McIntosh mentions the white privilege to “ignore less powerful people” which will, “distort the humanity of the holders as well as the ignored groups.” This is one privilege that we can completely let go. Progression towards ideal equality isn’t about granting non-white people everything whites have, rather it is a reevaluation of everything. It’s a cleansing and balancing act rather than just an act of “catching up.”
Our class discussion about group settings helped me to think about McIntosh’s perspective even further. When I was younger I thought similarly to Damali Ayo in her article “I Can Fix It!” When in group settings where I had to interact with people not of my race, I would make a conscious effort to give them more attention. I would “broaden my experience” (Ayo 7) by picking group project partners that were black or Asian (and similarly excluding white students) on purpose. It was a white privilege of mine to always be a part of a group and never be neglected. The other white students were also included enough already. I thought that by incorporating students different from me, I was raising them up to my level of privilege and inclusion. While it was good to desire equality, my approach and understanding were all wrong. I thought I was raising them to my level, when I shouldn’t have separated “them” from “us.” I shouldn’t have supposed an ideal “level” at all. It is not opening a door for a black person that is wrong. It is opening a door for a black person just because they are black that is wrong. Just as opening a door for a white person just because they are white is wrong. We should open doors for each other because we care for one another as humans, completely regardless of race. I think this strategy of Ayo’s is off. It sets up the wrong intention and enforces the duality between colored and white rather than enforcing the plain respect of everyone. Whites should be aware of the privileges we have, but begin to look past them, humbling ourselves so that eventually, interaction becomes more a consideration of human treatment than of supposed social ideals and norms.
Victims of medical experimentation or medical practice
In her article “Women as Victims of Medical Experimentation,” Diana Axelsen points out injustice against Black slave women in Sims' medical practice. She points out that these incidents are “an example of the ways in which social values can deprive whole groups of persons of the right to participate in decisions concerning heir own health” (12). Medical injustice against groups with less power is prevalent in history. The Nazi's well-known medical experiments on Jews are one example. Another perhaps less known example of this injustice is the Japanese's experimentation on their colonial subjects (mainly Koreans and Chineses), men and women alike, during World War II. The brutality of the Japanese army unit 731 is too inhumane to describe. The term that the Japanese army used to refer to their "subject" was Maruta, meaning 'log' in Japanese. It is clear that these people weren't even seen as human being, but rather as instruments for their advancement in medical science and war.
The examples of Sims' medical practice, Nazi's and Japanese Army's medical experimentation shows that when the personal or national desire for fame or victory drives health care or medical science, it is very easy to fall into a pitfall of forgetting to recognize human beings as human. As Axelsen points out, "there is still a need to be on guard against invasive surgery" (12). It is true that there is more emphasis put on human dignity and rights. However, I see that medical injustice against a group whose voice cannot be heard is still being done everyday. Abortion. Perhaps this practice is not driven by the desire for personal fame. However, maybe it is possible that this practice is being done for the benefit of the group whose voice can be heard. If one does not sees an unborn as a human being, then this would not be an issue of violation of human right. In any case, respect for patient, and not using them as my personal success is an issue I should be attentive to, as I go through medical school and eventually become a physician.
The examples of Sims' medical practice, Nazi's and Japanese Army's medical experimentation shows that when the personal or national desire for fame or victory drives health care or medical science, it is very easy to fall into a pitfall of forgetting to recognize human beings as human. As Axelsen points out, "there is still a need to be on guard against invasive surgery" (12). It is true that there is more emphasis put on human dignity and rights. However, I see that medical injustice against a group whose voice cannot be heard is still being done everyday. Abortion. Perhaps this practice is not driven by the desire for personal fame. However, maybe it is possible that this practice is being done for the benefit of the group whose voice can be heard. If one does not sees an unborn as a human being, then this would not be an issue of violation of human right. In any case, respect for patient, and not using them as my personal success is an issue I should be attentive to, as I go through medical school and eventually become a physician.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Human body, Medicine, and Social Values
Both Schienbinger's article "Nature's body: Theories of Gender and Race" and Axelsen's article about Sims's abuse of black women in his experimental procedure exemplifies the influence of social values on how one looks at the human body of different races and genders and vice versa. Schienbinger spends most of the article exploring the research procedure of scientific racism and scientific sexism. Scientific sexism would look at the differences between male and female bodies of Europeans, not other races. Scientific racism would only compare and contrast male samples of varying races. This refusal to overlap race while studying differences in sex and sex while studying differences in races has its roots in the assumption that European males are the ideal human beings, the highest status of humans along the chain of being. This article strongly reminds me of the first pair of articles assigned to the class. 'Scientists' attempted to use the varying parts of the human body, especially males, to prove the superiority of European males to all other groups of people. I am amazed that this article tries to 'explain away' the ease of birthing that african females enjoyed in comparison to european females as a compensation of their small brains and close relation to apes and other 'beasts.'
Aexlsen's article explores the medical procedures of J. Marion Sims and how the social values of his days contributed to his approach to the practice of medicine. I found the article rather lengthy and the information limited in regards to Sims malpractice. This could be due to the fact that there was not much documentation that goes into the actual procedure or Sims's reputation discouraged historians from pointing out his faults in his pioneering surgical techniques. Axelsen tries to justify the way that Sims performed his experimentation by pointing out how his professional expectation and the cultural definitions of his time affected the view he had towards his patients. It seems that the majority of the blame for abuse of minority women must not be placed on Sims himself but the social values that allowed such abuse to occur. In today's world, we talk about animal testing and how animals are not volunteering themselves for lab experimentation. The amount of abuse on women, especially minorities, is hardly heard.
Aexlsen's article explores the medical procedures of J. Marion Sims and how the social values of his days contributed to his approach to the practice of medicine. I found the article rather lengthy and the information limited in regards to Sims malpractice. This could be due to the fact that there was not much documentation that goes into the actual procedure or Sims's reputation discouraged historians from pointing out his faults in his pioneering surgical techniques. Axelsen tries to justify the way that Sims performed his experimentation by pointing out how his professional expectation and the cultural definitions of his time affected the view he had towards his patients. It seems that the majority of the blame for abuse of minority women must not be placed on Sims himself but the social values that allowed such abuse to occur. In today's world, we talk about animal testing and how animals are not volunteering themselves for lab experimentation. The amount of abuse on women, especially minorities, is hardly heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)