Medical Advances Weigh Heavily Against Human Morals

Many people instinctively throw the idea of using someone with a disability as an example away and consider it appalling. When people do this, they begin to fully consider the situation, but do not realize most of the time consent is required for these studies or shows. Another common issue arising now however, is how disabled must someone be to be considered unable to consent for their self? These two factors are very controversial and discussed and protested against frequently.
Addressing the issue of someone being disabled helplessly, the government should make much more specific guidelines and/or laws to aid in the determination of whether someone is responsive enough to handle themselves or not. These guidelines should include things such as reaction times, their ability (based off of their disease and the level of the disease they are at) to handle real life situations and their decision making skills. For example an elderly person who cant speak at all should still be able to live by themselves instead of in a nursing home by law.
-Derek Guarino

Consent

As a child I ran into many occasions where my parents would have to sign something saying that i was allowed to participate in something or go somewhere in school. At the time I never really understood why kids in general needed to have their parent/guardian to sign something to make someone else's (the kids') decision. I do understand it more now of course, but i do believe that there is a flaw in the construction and composition of the laws revolving consent. The reason these flaws are present is because the laws are way too general. It's almost as if the government is too lazy to do anything with them, because all they really say is regardless of people's intelligence and amount of independence they still have to be eighteen and up to make their own decisions.
Some parents are excessively protective and wind up sheltering their kids and overpowering them when given such a responsibility. Due to this, many children lose out on endless amounts of opportunities and lack the trait earned otherwise, which is being a well-rounded individual. Without this necessary trait, many kids wind up missing out on proper decision making skills when it comes to something of actual significance where they let the parent/guardian take over.
-Derek Guarino

Challenges

I feel as if someone who is able to take care of themselves should be able to have a kid. Some people are considered disabled can have a kid. The parents can still care for the kid, and the kid will have parents there for them when they get older. I'm not saying that people who can not take care of themselves should not have kids but it would be harder. If someone has to take care of a disabled person, and a kid would be extremely hard. Not only for the person who is taking care of the disabled person, but also for the kid as they grow old.

The doctors and government classifies you as if you are disabled or not. I have not really thought about this, until this reading. I know from a personal experience, how it feels to know someone that you love who is considered disabled. They are able to do everything except use that one body part. They raised a great family for being classified as disabled. (Nicole Butzke, Post 19)

Who Is to Judge?

Clare writes about Supercrips. In the story, Clare mentions how all these handicapped people do extraordinary activities. These activities are not even performed by humans that are not disabled. These people have something to talk about. The supercrips which I think means someone who is handicapped and doing something that is not expected of them due to their disability. The Supercrips set a bar for the other handicapped people.

I almost think the supercrips look at us non-handicapped people and feel superior. I believe they should, they are accomplishing stuff that I would NOT even think about doing. I almost feel they did not only set the standards for the handicapped people but also for people without a disability. (Nicole Butzke, Post 18)

How do we learn?

There seemed to be a big debate about the viewing of disabled people by the medical profession. I have been thinking about how there may be another way to study these medical issues in a way that seems less public. I think though still for me I have to look at it in a trustful way. I want to believe that doctors are here to help not to get a kick or laugh out of what patients are going through. I believe that a class viewing of a disabled child is the most efficient way for medical students to learn. I know that doesn't sound very nice and caring, but that is not what doctors are supposed to do. They are supposed to look at a patient objectively without emotion so that they can make the best decision for the patient. I think by allowing the students to view disabilities in this way it doesn't allow them to make a personal connection to place emotion into decisions they make later in life.

You may think why back the viewing of disabled people in this way. I worked with the disabled for awhile young and old. Many don't live that long and the lives they do live are never easy. It was hard to not get close to these people especially the children. However I learned quickly that if I allowed my emotions to take control I wasn't helping them I was doing things that I thought would allow them to not have pain because I didn't want to see them hurt. I think doctors run the same risk when allowing emotion to get in the way. I say allow these medical students to view whatever they need in a way that THEY need and yes it may make the patient uncomfortable and cause some mental anguish, but in the long run these students won't make it personal. They will keep their professional opinions that will BEST help the patient.
Thomas Moss (post 14)

Sexuality and Disability

Eli Clare makes some great points in the essay "Reading Across the Grain" about societies view of the sexuality of disabled people. I think personally the main points are correct and many non-disabled people feel rather uncomfortable discussing disabled people in general let alone their sexuality. To be honest before this reading I never really thought about it. Besides just seeing the view TV shows that highlight a disabled couple starting a family and living on their own, I never really thought of disabled people of even having a sexuality or sexual feelings like a non-disabled person. I don't know why this is, but I think that if a survey was taken a lot of people in society would share the same opinion.

I think that it is wrong for people to share this view and know that I have become more aware it may cause me to think differently in the future. Personally I don't think that people with a disability should not be allowed to have a family or spouse and should have rights like everyone else. However, if that disability, whether it be mental or a serious physical disadvantage impairs their ability to be a responsible and caring parent then we should question whether or not they have the right to bring a child into this world. (Shawn Parkhurst, 18)

Having a Disability is an Advantage?

Although Eli Clare has trouble reclaiming the identity of freak, he suggests that some people reclaim offensive labels. It is my personal belief that individuals do this because it gives them something that others don't have. It makes them unique and different from the crowd. I feel that people with disabilities are often told things that they can't do because of their disability, which cause them to draw closer to the label. This is because although they may not be able to do some things, many times they are capable of doing things that a "normal" person can't.

On a similar note, yet different topic I think the title as a story of its own. "Exile and Pride," although people may be excluded from certain advantages or opportunities in society, those individuals are proud of who they are. These are the individuals that although are denied of certain rights and are looked down upon, ignore the insults and the dirty looks and continue to live their life in a way that makes them happy. (Shawn Parkhurst, 17)

Freek to Sheek

In Eli Claire's chapter of Freeks and Queers, we learn a lot about what is going on from a disabled persons point of view. These so called freeks are not just labeled as freeks. They have numerous names like retards, monkeys, and just plain being handicapped. The point that Claire is trying to make is that disabled people have feelings and are people too just like us. If we were to go out and call them deragatory names we are no better than them for even saying that.Disabled people are in fact normal they just take a little more time to fit in but that is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing because it is our responsibility to help them and be friends with them so it can be easier for them to cope with society.

In class we were discussing our papers with our partners for the paper 2 assignment. It was very helpful to have some other person look at my paper for revising bevause they see differently than I do. My partner have me helpful tips and revising corrections to fix to make my paper better and more professional. It took a lot of time to have a good finished copy ready, but after numerous revisions and look overs of my paper I believe it is strong enough to achieve a good grade. Looking in depth to the stories I have chosen were also helpful in writing my paper because it allowed me to see what the message of the stories were and how they relate to everyday life. (Mason Roessler Post 16)

Making it Difficult

The sexuality of disabled people can be a very uncomfortable topic for the general public. It is not something that we really think about. We subconsciously think that disabled people should not be sexual; they are children who don’t necessarily have a gender. Eli Clare touches on this topic in her essay, “Reading Across the Grain”. I believe the points she makes about how uncomfortable the idea of disabled people’s sexuality is for non-disabled people are correct.

When she spoke about how disabled people used to be forced into sterilization, I was shocked to hear that it was legal until the 1970s. Hitler started sterilizing and killing disabled people before he started persecuting the followers of the Jewish faith. I thought that alone would want our government to make illegal, even if it was just to make us a little bit less like Hitler. I was also surprised to hear how difficult our government makes it for disabled people to get married, have children, and keep their children. I have a good friend who is in a wheelchair because of a complicated illness when he was a child, but he is one of the smartest people I know. I don’t believe that physically disabled people should have any difficulty from anyone about getting married or having children. Just because their bodies are disabled, doesn’t mean that they don’t understand what they are doing, or can’t take care of their children.

While I don’t think that it is necessarily right, but I can understand the point if it focused on mentally disabled people. They truly might not understand the consequences of their actions, and might not be able to take care of a child. It does take a certain level of understanding and knowledge to raise a child, so if mentally the parents were children themselves, I can understand why people might be concerned. I have heard of a case where the parents of a mentally disabled child had her uterus removed, based on that fact that she could not keep herself clean when she got her period. She didn’t understand what was going on, and how to keep herself clean. I think this might have been a little extreme of a reason to sterilize their child, but I understand their reasoning. I don’t think I would have been able to make this decision, especially because it is such a final decision. That young woman will never be able to have her own children, even if someday there is a medical breakthrough that miraculously cures her of her problems. But this idea of making it difficult for physically disabled people to get married and have children is upsetting to me because it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t understand what they are doing or be able to take care of a child just because their bodies don’t work the same way ours do.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 18)

Reclaimed Goods

In Eli Clare’s essay “Freaks and Queers,” Clare discusses the idea of a person who is a member of a discriminated against group taking a potentially derogatory word and using it prideful manner. This is all fine and good when that person is comfortable with the term and using it that way, but it is easily just as offensive. If there is another person in their group that does not accept that specific term, it does not matter if it is used in a prideful manner or not. It still has the possibility to hurt and offend.

Some marginalized groups do reclaim offensive names or labels. When I see them used, it is usually to shock people. It is a way to proclaim that you are a member of this group, and that derogatory labels will not do any damage. In a way, it is taking the words out of a non-member’s mouth and saying them, accepting them, before the non-member has a chance to use them in a hurtful manner. These potentially hurtful words become an accepted joke in the group, losing their power over these people. As an example: a close family friend of mine was diagnosed with a mental illness several years ago, and she reclaimed the word “crazy”. She used it all the time, but her favorite time to use it was when anyone asked, “where are we going?” She would respond, “CRAZY! Wanna come? I have the directions!” This became a popular joke among her friends and family. It took the hurtfulness away, and just made it laughable. She still uses it from time to time.

I think what helps in removing the dangerous parts of these labels is the fact that these marginalized groups truly identify themselves as “queer,” cripples,” or “crazy”. These labels become personal words, ones that don’t bother them, but instead offer a kind of protection from the possible hurtful uses of that word. It is becomes easy to say, “Yeah, I’m crazy [or queer, crippled, etc.]. So what?” It goes back to that shock value. People who use words like that in an offensive manner usually expect those words to cut, and they certainly never expect them to be thrown back in their faces like that.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 17)

Blog Prompts: Eli Clare

Hi Everyone,

Below are some questions you may consider responding to in your posts for this week. I have also posted the lecture slides on the history of the freak show on Angel for your reference.


For "Freaks and Queers"

1) Why do some marginalized groups reclaim offensive names or labels?

2) Why is it that Clare has difficulty in reclaiming the identity "freak"? Why, for her, is this identity not a source of pride?

3) How does "freakdom" today differ from freak shows of the past?

4) What is the difference between witness and pride? Why is the difference important to a discussion of freak shows?

5) What similarities exist between the identities "freak" and "queer"?


For "Reading Across the Grain"

1) What do the three advertisements Clare discusses say about people with disabilities?

2) Why does Clare take issue with the medical model of disability (the idea that disabilities need cures)?

3) What does the general public usually assume about the sexualities of disabled people?

4) What problematic and liberatory aspects of Ellen Sthol's images does Clare identify?

5) What does it mean to "read across the grain"?

6) Why does Clare include a discussion of the photo of disability activist Ed Roberts at the end of the chapter?


For Clare's poem "Tremors"

1) What representation of disabled sexuality does Clare present in the poem "Tremors"? How does it relate to her arguments on disabled sexuality from "Reading Across the Grain"?

Have a great weekend!

--Jeff

Dehumanizing Behavior?

In Eli Clares "Across the Grain" is talk a lot about sexual objectification. She seem to have some wavering about whether or not Ellen Stohl in playboy was right or wrong. I mean if this type of behavior shows women as objects what good could come from it. It seem to just normalize here the social mountain. On the other hand she mentions that it puts disabled people out there as be sexual beings. This could be a way to rationalize it as something good but what does its affects have in the long run. There already treat as almost not be people. Some of there humanity has already been taken away. By doing something that make one viewed as an object, doesn't that make them even more less human in their eyes. Wouldn't this in the long run possible create an reinforce urge to rape and molest more disabled. Rape for what we call able people occur against women or men view as sexual objects to fulfill their sexual desire. If this is the case why even think of encouraging such a behavior by saying anything good about. So is this type of behavior truly beneficial for able bodies and disables alike?

No Home On The Mountain

In "The Mountain" Eli Clare has a section called Home. She says, "I will never find home on the Mountain." Why does she say this? I think by being pushed down by society we begin to wonder where is our home? And by different aspects of us, we all are pushed down the mountain. Weather it be of race, disability, sexuality, social classes, and even sexual abuse. In a way most of us if any are on that social mountain, by virtue of some social expectation we don't meet. The people on top are like the religious leaders during the time of the Greek empire and and time of Jesus in Israel. They saw themselves as above the people and look down on all others becauce they were not as holy as them. But to find out that in the eyes of Jesus the creator they did not even reach such a standard. Maybe the people on top are just as defected as we are, maybe their just hiding their own defects. This is done to keep others from finding a home or maybe they already do and they just do not know it.

Living in Another World

"Reading Across the Grain" really opened my eyes to the hardships that disabled people have to endure throughout their lives. Not only do they have to endure harsh criticisms from their peers, but the public views disabled people as outcasts who cannot possibly conform to society's high demands. Disabled people are thought of as being incapable and of really doing anything significant and their actions always seem to surprise the public when in fact they aren't trying to impress anyone. When the narrator mentions Ellen Stohl, it seems as though she glorifies that she had poised for Playboy, but at the same time the narrator is really trying to demonstrate that although one may be disabled, this does not mean that he/she is unable to do what he/she feels like doing. Stohl was confined to a wheelchair, but did not allow this to hold her back and showed that disabled people can exist in a sexual world even though society views this as impossible. Stohl is a "full-time student, a part-time actress, model, and a public speaker;" she is capable of performing acts that would be seen by a non-disabled person. This passage shows that despite one's flaws adhering to their body or mental stability, one should not be negated from being a human being, nor should they be placed into a separate category based upon their physical or mental attributes.

An interesting point that the narrator focuses on deals with disabled people's sexuality. Most people would think that disabled people could not engage in sexual activites, or in some instances should not at all. It is unfair to dictate someone else's life and tell him/her what they can or cannot do. This very similar to the case in U.S. history involving Carrie Buck. In the case of Buck v. Bell, Carrie Buck was ordered to undergo compulsory sterilization for being considered "feeble-minded." The term feeble-minded can be considered now as having mental retardation in various types. Buck was sterilized simply because she was considered mentally disabled. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now to cast a disabled person aside like they are some defect that cannot possibly conform into today's society. It really makes you think about how would you like to be treated if you were disabled, and how would you feel if you were Carrie Buck?
(David Roberts, Post 18)

Life is a Struggle

The story of "The Mountain" was an inspiring story concerning the struggles that one must overcome in life. The concept of the mountain can be related to the structure of today's society in which the powerful reside at the summit, while those inferior create the base. Those wanting to achieve success must travel towards the top of the mountain overcoming obstacles in the process of doing so. However, even if one were to reach it to the top, one may not be completely satisfied, because "it's goddamn lonely up there on the mountain." We have to become something we are not in order to reach the peak of the moutain, and that can mean losing friends as well as losing one's self. We have to decide when and where we are comfortable on the mountain, and maintain a life that we may be proud of.

The narrator of the story tells of her own life and the struggles in which she had to endure. The concept of the mountain was more than just a literal sense, but was also an actual element in which she wanted to overcome. She wanted to travel up Mount Adams despite her disability of having cerebral palsy, which had made life all the more difficult for her. However, she still was able to overcome many aspects throughout her life, and even was given the title of "supercrip." In a way, a supercrip is basically someone who is disabled that is able to overcome their deficiences to be able to perform actions that would otherwise be seen as extraordinary for a person of their stature. It almost seems more of an insult to be called a supercrip, because if makes a disabled person seem not even human, which is how some people in the world view disabled people now, which is sad. Someone who is disabled is just like anyone else, because every person in the world is the same, despite abnormalities or problems, we are all the human just unique in our own ways. So, to categorize someone as a supercrip is rather hurtful. Although the narrator was not able to complete her voyage up the mountain, it was her effort that had made her great. She failed but she had at least attempted something that she loved despite her medical condition.
(David Roberts, Post 17)

Accomplishing Success

After reading "The Mountain," I began to think about the importance of accomplishing your goals. When you set a goal for yourself it is very important to accomplish it because with accomplishing success you accomplish confidence in yourself. I think that the message the mountain is trying to convey is that no matter who you are accomplishing a goal is equally important. The level of goals may be completely different but at the same time they mean the same to each person. You should never look down on someone for accomplishing a less significant task. For someone who is disabled it is much more significant to accomplish goals. Part of accomplishing goals as a disabled person is proving to people that you aren't completely different from them. It is their time to prove that they can do "normal" things eventhough it may take them longer to achieve this.

For the narrator, accomplishing the hike that she did was important for her to let everyone know that she doesn't need their pity or sympathy. She didn't want their pity she wanted them to know that she can do everything they can. It is important for a disabled person to accomplish small goals that later on turn into larger goals. It is a one step at a time kind of situation for them because they don't have all the mobility that we may have.

(Kelcey Summers 17)

Mount Impossible

In reading "The Mountain," we learn about how life is like for a disabled person. Being disabled is never easy. Upon finding it hard to function, people look at you if you are always in need of help and are never capable of doing things on your own. People see how life affects you on the outside but on the inside it is much worse for the disabled person. You are living in pain that only you can feel and the more you try and become normal like everyone else, the more upset you will get when you realize that you cannot be normal like everyone else. The internal struggle for this person is so deeply covered in pity and sympathy that it just makes them feel worse because they want to be treated like everyone else. When they use the term "supercrips," it is like they are not people but more like freaks. Disabled people do not want that kind of attention because it is hard enough trying to get by in society and they do not need people looking at them as freaks and something they are not.

The metaphor they use as a mountain signifies the struggle it is for a disabled person to fit into society. When they reach the top of the mountain, they accomplished what they have been aiming for. However, the journey is very long and steep. They hit spots on the mountain that are slippery and cause them to fall backwards. This may be when they start to lose hope in themselves to become normal. They may reach certain checkpoints by accomplishing small goals to achieve a greater goal. The mountain is fill with various obstacles and paths that one must choose to climb and it is important to choose the right path or else they may be headed down a different track that shys away from the top. In order to reach this top of the mountain, the disabled body must overcome their disability and keep climbing and do'nt stop until they reach their final destination. (Mason Roessler Post 15)