Sunday, April 29, 2012
Final Blog/Paper
Throughout the short history of American capitalist society, all citizens have been told by government, corporations, and others that they are what they buy. For this final paper I will be incorporating much of my first blog post, which focused on how large firms can use advertising to convey certain people as deviant, and purchasers of their products as “ideal.” Let’s face it: materialism has run the world since human society was conceived, it has only been proliferated recently though, with the formulation of a capitalistic structure. Don’t misperceive me; capitalism is a great system when discussing economic outputs, as competition breeds innovation. However, the inevitability that large, powerful corporations can and do make social constructions about their customers as the ideal image or person someone should strive to be, while at the same time demonizing and making deviant those who choose not to buy their products—all in the name of money—is the truest form of an unfortunate reality.
One of the ways I am vastly changing this paper from my first blog post is that I am going to focus not only on why and how corporations create conflicts and stark contrasts between what men should be like and what women should be like. I am going to go in-depth on strategies large companies use to advertise that goes so much farther than gender stereotyping, and that is supplemented by capitalism. Next, I am going to take a look at advertising through a different lens; delving into the controversial topic of prescription drugs, and how they advertise their products, and what effects it can have and has had on individuals in our population. My overarching focus will be to show people that corporations and the media have a stranglehold on our minds, habits, and lives. And that their motives in doing this are anchored in controlling the masses and turning a profit. By constantly changing or modifying the perception of whom and what is deviant, people will continue to be materialistic consumers in the name of not being seen as deviant.
Take my first commercial example that is quickly becoming an absolute classic: Old Spice’s “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like.
In this commercial the actor is essentially talking to women viewers asking if “their man” looks like him, after he establishes that they can’t look like him, he reassures them that they could smell like them if their men stopped using “women’s body wash.” This is a classic example of making a portion of men in society deviant. According to the ad, if you are a man that doesn’t use old spice body wash, you MUST be using a woman’s body wash, thereby decreasing your masculinity each time you lather up with something other than Old Spice.
As Quinney points out in discussing Conflict theory in our textbook, “The social reality of crime is constructed on conflict in our society” (Thio, Calhoun, & Conyers, 45). To be more specific, “Definitions of crime are applied by the class that has the power to shape the enforcement and administration of criminal law” (Thio, Calhoun, & Conyers, 46). While these definitions deal with crime and how a dominant class in society gets to choose what the laws are, as a byproduct they also get to socially construct individuals as deviant based on those laws and customs. This is precisely what the Old Spice commercial above does. As the film Tough Guise suggested, men in U.S. society feel pressured all the time to prove to everyone how “man” they are, because the media and yes—corporations like Old Spice—are constantly creating a “problem,” such as a man smelling like a girl. This is brilliant on the companies’ part, because once they frame a problem, they get to offer you a solution in the form of a product, which they will sell to you and make large sums of money from self-conscious consumers just like you.
Next, let’s take a look at a different type of advertisement—this one focuses on the conflicts between men and women—and makes a compelling case to buy their product to demonstrate that you are not “controlled” by your spouse. Nothing says the man wears the pants like driving a new sports car, right? This commercial is titled “Man’s Last Stand.” The title makes sense once you watch the video.
In the ad, Dodge is using a male actor who is looking very pensive, while talking to himself in his head. He is talking of all the ways in which his wife gets to control the actions and behaviors he exhibits: taking the trash out, walking the dog at 6:30 a.m., eating fruit in his breakfast, agreeing with his wife, being silent when he disagrees, etc. Then at the end of the commercial he says “And because I do all of this……I will drive the car, that I want to Drive.” This commercial is doing the same thing as the last ad in a sense, by creating a problem for the consumer to think about. Instead of creating a problem that attacks masculinity by what they smell like, they are attacking masculinity by saying that women wear the pants in so many ways now—men need to take their role back as the dominant, decision maker in the relationship—and they can do that, by buying a car that is far too fast, loud, and expensive for a “woman” to supposedly want. By stereotyping the dynamics of a single relationship in the commercial, Dodge is able to convey that if men don’t get the car, it is because the wife said no, and if the wife said no to the car, you are not man enough to make your own decision.
These attacks on masculinity have several adverse effects on society. First off, because corporations have the power and the assets to reach wide audiences, if just a few people buy into what they are selling, it creates a cycle in which several more consumers buy into it as well. Next, if a corporation can manufacture an image or type of “ideal” person, people will spend astronomical amounts of money attempting to become that person—who is a fictional individual anyways, and in a lot of ways is unattainable for the majority of people, similarly to the American Dream.
Furthermore, we can easily flip the coin and demonstrate how women are socially constructed based on ads that are targeted at them. According to Jean Kilbourne,
“advertisements sell more than just a product. Modern advertisements 'sell' socially constructed values which are often deemed to be the values that society should uphold and reinforce. Waters and Ellis (1996) have also argued that advertising does play a critical role in reflecting and shaping culture. As such, advertising tends to promote a set of false ideals that women should strive to achieve. These include women having to look visually appealing and embodying society's perception of femininity.”
This once again demonstrates that not only are companies saying that when you buy their product, you will smell better; when you buy their product, you will become akin to the image you are being sold. In this video, in which Jean Kilborne narrates, she demonstrates through multiple examples the negative effects of gender biased advertising towards women. In virtually every ad, women are turned into objects, something to look at vs. someone to look at. Next, by dehumanizing women and only focusing on hypersexualized parts of their body or turning them into objects, that is the first step in justifying violence, hatred, and bigotry towards them. Kilborne points out that in racism, terrorism or any activity in which violence or harm is meant toward a group, the first step is dehumanizing them. We see this with the letters Christopher Columbus wrote to the king and queen regarding the Native Americans. By viewing them as uncivilized, dirty, long-haired, naked creatures—he was able to justify the rape, pillage, and genocide of 99% of the Indians in Cuba.
Furthermore, women in ads are airbrushed and photo-shopped by professionals to look like a woman that is completely free of flaws. This is a tool used by advertising firms as well: By making women look unnaturally beautiful, they can keep selling products that will supposedly make them look closer to the model on TV. In reality though, the model on TV doesn’t even look like that without hours of make-up and digital enhancing. Next, advertising like this creates a public health problem for weight loss. Anorexia is a pandemic in this country among young women, because they are constantly being sold the image of the ideal woman as someone unsustainably skinny.
As promised though, I will not focus solely on how gender is framed to sell products. Symptoms are also designed to pedal products to consumers who are socially constructed to be sick or ill. This ad by the Onion News Network is a satirical, fictional news report that gets at some of the core issues with the pharmaceutical industry.
While the video is not discussing a real drug, its merits are vast when you consider the statistics among prescription drug use in this country. According to the film Generation Rx, the United States consumes Eighty percent of world's supply of prescription opioid pain relievers. Along with that, we account for 5% of the World’s population and consume 50% of the prescription drugs. A lot of this can be easily seen on TV ads, in which the they ask you if you ever feel tired, depressed, have foot cramps, etc. The drug companies have found out that if you can relate certain natural, physiological behaviors such as fidgeting or cramping to a disease or an illness, then they can make a lot of money. As Generation Rx stated though, because the prescription drug companies are incentivized primarily by profit instead of the nation’s health, they intentionally covered up negative side effects of drugs that millions of Americans were taking.
Furthermore, advertising agencies for prescription drugs don’t focus on the side effects or adequately warn their consumers of the potential risks. The Zoloft commercials are a perfect example of how the prescription drug company uses deceptive advertising mechanisms to sell their products.
First of all, the animation of an unhappy “ball” looks as if it is targeting children. Next, it says that the “reason” or “cause” of depression is unknown… but it may be due to a chemical imbalance in the brain. It then states that Zoloft helps to correct this imbalance. Here is my problem… If they don’t know the cause or reason for depression, then how can they isolate the source of it to “correct” it. This ad is a complete contradiction of itself and the scientific method. Because of its deception that most consumers can’t see, Zoloft is the most widely used prescription drug of its kind.
When advertising medicine deceptively and deeming a segment of the population as sick or in need of medication, Big Pharmaceutical is socially constructing individuals in a way that is conducive only to their profit margins; discarding their health, wellbeing, and psyche from a very young age. Next, consider this statistic by Natural News, “The tragedy is happening right now. Over 750,000 people actually do die in the United States every year, although not from plane crashes. They die from something far more common and rarely perceived by the public as dangerous: modern medicine” (Natural News, 2005). According to this article, the deaths are due from over taking prescription drugs or negative side effects that can be life threatening. Think about that number for a minute though…437,000 people die a year from cigarettes; modern prescription drugs kill almost two times as many people as cigarettes do. Cigarettes have been forced to put disclaimers on their boxes telling the user they may die from using the product, prescription drugs on the other hand, are supposedly supposed to help individuals; the remedy given to us by doctors is more lethal than the poisonous vice pedaled by merchants of death.
Although one may not think, Merton’s Strain Theory can be a wonderful tool to take a look at individuals in a society that are pushed to deviant behaviors due to the pressure exerted by individuals and institutions of power. Merton states, “social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons in the society to engage in nonconforming rather than conforming conduct. In the context of advertising, these corporations are bombarding individuals with images and ideals that everyone in society ought to value. As a result individuals spend unsustainably, don’t get the desired result, and are deceived to such an extent that there is little else for them to do than commit deviant acts or separate themselves—at least socially—from the society. However, this is not at all bad for the corporations in their advertisements. For every person that backs out of their ideal image—they get more evidence that if consumers don’t buy their products, they will be just like the individual affected by Merton’s Strain theory—and no one wants to be perceived as deviant.
It is this scenario in which capitalism stops becoming the inputs and outputs of an economy that are enhanced by ownership of private property and an emphasis on competition; becoming a system of the winners and losers, the shepherd and his sheep, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Capitalism definitely puts the rich against the poor in some ways, but is not nearly as detrimental to the social fabric of said society as the ways in which the powerful wield their power using tools of deception, idols, and capital to effectively infiltrate the minds of the masses. As we have learned throughout this course, deviance is a social construction, and those with the assets and resources can shift and modify the definitions of deviance as they see fit to benefit themselves, and keep segments of society against each other, instead of unifying against the institution. Advertising is just one way in which we can look at this dynamic, however through my research and understanding of sociology, it is evident that more people should learn how to dissect advertisements and detect underlying social assumptions and constructions, so we can be educated in the fight against materialism.
Word count 2,492.
Works Cited
"Statistics Prove Prescription Drugs Are 16,400% More Deadly than Terrorists." Natural Health News. Natural News, 05 July 2005. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html
Thio, Alex, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers. Readings in Deviant Behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. Print.
Generation Rx: Reading, Writing, and Ritalin. A&E Networks, 2001. DVD.
Youtube. (Not required to cite)
"Gender Studies: Advertising and the Social Construction of Gender." Wet Paint. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. http://sc2220.wetpaint.com/page/Advertising and the social construction of gender
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Live Nude Girls Unite! Film Review
1.) The main thesis of the film seemed to be that strippers and other sex workers have less discretion and maneuverability at their jobs because society deems there profession as disgraceful. This was demonstrated in the film throughout the unionizing discussions and talks.
2.) An argument in the film that demonstrates this is when they were discussing what the outcome is if they have a trouble customer and they have to call the police--in many cases one of two things happen, the cops never show up, or they show up hours later. Next, the thesis is further fortified when the girls shared the fact that if they call in sick they get fired, and if you wanted someone to fill in for your shift her breasts had to be bigger than yours.
3.)The thesis of the film relates pretty well to our course. Sex workers are seen as deviant by moral entrepreneurs and much of the middle class in our society, and this view, while tempered with bigotry and "They could have...instead" rhetoric, enables sex workers to be taken advantage of by their employers and others. In this class we are deconstructing the views of such individuals deemed to be deviant. By watching the film, the class was able to see that they were actually real people and that they deserve the same respect as anyone else.
4.)The point I found most convincing was that by the end of the movie, the woman from the local union helping them fight the attorneys, was an ardent advocate for their cause because she was exposed to injustices through the dancers' eyes.
5.) I didn't know enough about the sex work industry to really deconstruct or disagree with their arguments.
6.)The point that really stood out to me in the film was the stage fees that owners nationwide began imposing on their dancers in order to perform. The stage fees began pretty low, but exploded to upwards of $250 dollars, just so dancers could do their job... I would research this point and find out what percentage of the strip clubs in Washington State have stage fees, and how much they are. This would enable us to find an average stage fee for a strip club and have solid data about how much owners are making off of it, and maybe raise enough public awareness to change it.
2.) An argument in the film that demonstrates this is when they were discussing what the outcome is if they have a trouble customer and they have to call the police--in many cases one of two things happen, the cops never show up, or they show up hours later. Next, the thesis is further fortified when the girls shared the fact that if they call in sick they get fired, and if you wanted someone to fill in for your shift her breasts had to be bigger than yours.
3.)The thesis of the film relates pretty well to our course. Sex workers are seen as deviant by moral entrepreneurs and much of the middle class in our society, and this view, while tempered with bigotry and "They could have...instead" rhetoric, enables sex workers to be taken advantage of by their employers and others. In this class we are deconstructing the views of such individuals deemed to be deviant. By watching the film, the class was able to see that they were actually real people and that they deserve the same respect as anyone else.
4.)The point I found most convincing was that by the end of the movie, the woman from the local union helping them fight the attorneys, was an ardent advocate for their cause because she was exposed to injustices through the dancers' eyes.
5.) I didn't know enough about the sex work industry to really deconstruct or disagree with their arguments.
6.)The point that really stood out to me in the film was the stage fees that owners nationwide began imposing on their dancers in order to perform. The stage fees began pretty low, but exploded to upwards of $250 dollars, just so dancers could do their job... I would research this point and find out what percentage of the strip clubs in Washington State have stage fees, and how much they are. This would enable us to find an average stage fee for a strip club and have solid data about how much owners are making off of it, and maybe raise enough public awareness to change it.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Blog Post 4- Deviant Minds - PTSD
As we have been delving into and discussing the complex topics of deviant minds, many tough questions and issues have already been raised? Do some mental disorders carry heavier negative connotations than others? Does the ascribed v. achieved argument have any play in how others look at people with mental disorders that occur in the DSM? These are some of the topics I will be discussing through the lens of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) as we try and understand exactly what it is, how individuals with PTSD acquire it, and how they are viewed. I have wanted to learn about this disorder for a long time, given that so many of our soldiers are coming back from the Middle East with it. Next, in lieu of the massacre of 17 Afghani civilians murdered in cold blood a couple of weeks ago, I think it is a subject more people are wanting to know more about. I know that many more demographics and groups of people experience PTSD than just soldiers, but for the purpose of this blog, in order to be concise and coherent about PTSD, I am choosing to only focus on soldiers and veterans, especially in light of the skyrocketing rates of PTSD among soldiers in the last decade.
First, what exactly is PTSD? The DSM describes that “PTSD always follows a traumatic event which causes intense fear and/or helplessness in an individual” (DSM allpsych.com). In short, it is an anxiety disorder following a one-time dangerous or disastrous event, or chronic disastrous events such as soldiers in lengthy, grueling wars or individuals subject to sexual abuse for long periods of time. All humans have what is called a fight-or-flight response which generally occurs when a stressful situation is imminent or occurring. In this natural response, your body is preparing you and getting you ready as best it can for what is to come. However, in the case of PTSD, this fight-or-flight response can occur when the individual is no longer in danger, and do so frequently, sometimes endangering themselves or others unnecessarily (National Institute of Mental Health). Furthermore, these realities could also just contribute to what an individual believes to be deviant. Labeling theory goes into depth about how individuals that are labeled are actually more likely to ascribe to and epitomize “their” label more as they hear it or see individuals act differently in response to it (Calhoun, Thio, & Conyers).
Salem-news.com
While I could spend a lot of time talking about different aspects of what individuals with PTSD face, I feel I would be slighting my readers since I am in no way qualified to talk about what people with PTSD have, instead I believe it would be much more beneficial and enrich your understanding if I showed a couple of videos of what people with PTSD experience. This first video is a rap song, done by a soldier, who discusses his struggles and mindset dealing with PTSD. Even if you don’t listen to or like rap, hear what he has to say, and I promise it will benefit your understanding.
As you can see, the man in the video is definitely a troubled individual due to his PTSD. This next video is a compilation of veterans speaking out about PTSD and what they experienced, and how they dealt with it.
The next crucial question to ask though, how are people with PTSD stigmatized? Are they seen as inferior, dangerous, or brave? Do people understand or trust them anymore? What kinds of support do they have for their illness? And finally, are they treated differently due to the ascribed v. achieved argument?
People with PTSD are often stigmatized as being dangerous or overtly mean. This could be because the disorder can make you somewhat of a social hermit, not feeling comfortable around other people, especially in public places where you don’t know many people. Next, as the second video points out, some things individuals with PTSD do can be perceived as dangerous, such as sleeping with a knife or weapon, or carrying a knife or weapon on your person. In these ways I understand people’s hesitance to interact a lot with soldiers and veterans that have PTSD, especially considering many with PTSD never get treated, but instead resort to alcohol in drugs, not comfortable with the reality they perceive sober.
woundedtimes.blogspot.com
Next, I believe the reactions people have to PTSD are mixed. On the one hand you have people that judge them negatively because they are seen as different, and their sometimes paranoid behavior is unusual and perceived as threatening. On the other hand, especially when it comes to views of our soldiers, we revere their sacrifice and the extensive coverage the media has focused on PTSD has helped to inform more people about it, and let them understand that many individuals with it have been to hell and back and deal with chronic nightmares, voices that aren’t there, have suicidal impulses, and feel helpless to the voice in their head. This brings me to the ascribed v. achieved discussion we have been having all semester. Whereas 40 years ago when Vietnam veterans began coming back home, the medical community and general public certainly didn’t know the psychological effects of war like they do now, and therefore they were stigmatized due to people believing they had “achieved” that mental state and attitude as a fault of their own. However, now it is seen much differently by the American public, and many people are more sensitive and try to be understanding when it comes to PTSD, since it is now viewed as an ascribed condition. However, it is incredibly interesting to see that such a subtle difference—do people think you chose it or it was chosen for you—can change how these individuals are seen and treated.
While it is not as stigmatized as it was, since we now know what it is, there are still many barriers that PTSD victims face when integrating back into society and trying to live a “normal” American life. For example, individuals with PTSD find it much harder to get employment and keep a job, due to the stresses and mental battles they must fight daily. Until recently there really was not a great method for addressing and treating the disorder. As we learned from the Frowner story that Professor Williams linked to in the Blog 4 assignment, how individuals and family members choose to deal with abnormal behavior and disorders can have a large impact on how they can overcome them (RadioLab).
Word Count 1173 (Including Everything)
Works Cited:
Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
"Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)." What Is Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD? National Institute on Mental Health. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/what-is- post-traumatic-stress-disorder-or-ptsd.shtml
"Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Anxiety Disorders at ALLPSYCH Online." Psychology Classroom at AllPsych Online. AllPsych Online. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://allpsych.com/disorders/anxiety/ptsd.html
Warner, Gregory. "The Frowners - Radiolab." RadioLab. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/29/the-frowners/
First, what exactly is PTSD? The DSM describes that “PTSD always follows a traumatic event which causes intense fear and/or helplessness in an individual” (DSM allpsych.com). In short, it is an anxiety disorder following a one-time dangerous or disastrous event, or chronic disastrous events such as soldiers in lengthy, grueling wars or individuals subject to sexual abuse for long periods of time. All humans have what is called a fight-or-flight response which generally occurs when a stressful situation is imminent or occurring. In this natural response, your body is preparing you and getting you ready as best it can for what is to come. However, in the case of PTSD, this fight-or-flight response can occur when the individual is no longer in danger, and do so frequently, sometimes endangering themselves or others unnecessarily (National Institute of Mental Health). Furthermore, these realities could also just contribute to what an individual believes to be deviant. Labeling theory goes into depth about how individuals that are labeled are actually more likely to ascribe to and epitomize “their” label more as they hear it or see individuals act differently in response to it (Calhoun, Thio, & Conyers).
While I could spend a lot of time talking about different aspects of what individuals with PTSD face, I feel I would be slighting my readers since I am in no way qualified to talk about what people with PTSD have, instead I believe it would be much more beneficial and enrich your understanding if I showed a couple of videos of what people with PTSD experience. This first video is a rap song, done by a soldier, who discusses his struggles and mindset dealing with PTSD. Even if you don’t listen to or like rap, hear what he has to say, and I promise it will benefit your understanding.
As you can see, the man in the video is definitely a troubled individual due to his PTSD. This next video is a compilation of veterans speaking out about PTSD and what they experienced, and how they dealt with it.
The next crucial question to ask though, how are people with PTSD stigmatized? Are they seen as inferior, dangerous, or brave? Do people understand or trust them anymore? What kinds of support do they have for their illness? And finally, are they treated differently due to the ascribed v. achieved argument?
People with PTSD are often stigmatized as being dangerous or overtly mean. This could be because the disorder can make you somewhat of a social hermit, not feeling comfortable around other people, especially in public places where you don’t know many people. Next, as the second video points out, some things individuals with PTSD do can be perceived as dangerous, such as sleeping with a knife or weapon, or carrying a knife or weapon on your person. In these ways I understand people’s hesitance to interact a lot with soldiers and veterans that have PTSD, especially considering many with PTSD never get treated, but instead resort to alcohol in drugs, not comfortable with the reality they perceive sober.
Next, I believe the reactions people have to PTSD are mixed. On the one hand you have people that judge them negatively because they are seen as different, and their sometimes paranoid behavior is unusual and perceived as threatening. On the other hand, especially when it comes to views of our soldiers, we revere their sacrifice and the extensive coverage the media has focused on PTSD has helped to inform more people about it, and let them understand that many individuals with it have been to hell and back and deal with chronic nightmares, voices that aren’t there, have suicidal impulses, and feel helpless to the voice in their head. This brings me to the ascribed v. achieved discussion we have been having all semester. Whereas 40 years ago when Vietnam veterans began coming back home, the medical community and general public certainly didn’t know the psychological effects of war like they do now, and therefore they were stigmatized due to people believing they had “achieved” that mental state and attitude as a fault of their own. However, now it is seen much differently by the American public, and many people are more sensitive and try to be understanding when it comes to PTSD, since it is now viewed as an ascribed condition. However, it is incredibly interesting to see that such a subtle difference—do people think you chose it or it was chosen for you—can change how these individuals are seen and treated.
While it is not as stigmatized as it was, since we now know what it is, there are still many barriers that PTSD victims face when integrating back into society and trying to live a “normal” American life. For example, individuals with PTSD find it much harder to get employment and keep a job, due to the stresses and mental battles they must fight daily. Until recently there really was not a great method for addressing and treating the disorder. As we learned from the Frowner story that Professor Williams linked to in the Blog 4 assignment, how individuals and family members choose to deal with abnormal behavior and disorders can have a large impact on how they can overcome them (RadioLab).
Word Count 1173 (Including Everything)
Works Cited:
Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
"Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)." What Is Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD? National Institute on Mental Health. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/what-is- post-traumatic-stress-disorder-or-ptsd.shtml
"Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Anxiety Disorders at ALLPSYCH Online." Psychology Classroom at AllPsych Online. AllPsych Online. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://allpsych.com/disorders/anxiety/ptsd.html
Warner, Gregory. "The Frowners - Radiolab." RadioLab. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. http://www.radiolab.org/2008/dec/29/the-frowners/
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Generation Rx Film Review
1.) The main thesis of the film was that big pharmaceutical corporations, who boast billions of dollars in profits each year, have been lying to the public and making backroom deals with doctors by paying M.D.'s commissions when prescribing anxiety, depression, and ADHD medication. In turn, the public is left ill-informed of the unsafe nature of the drug, since big pharmaceutical has been covering up and botching studies, claiming the drugs they pedal are safe, when in reality they simply are not.
2.) The arguments in the film that supports this thesis are frequent and consistently brought up in the film. One of the more prolific arguments brought up is when the F.D.A. held a conference to discuss the negative psychological and physical side effects of the drug Prozac. During this press conference, hundreds of people offered their testimony of the tragedies their loved ones and themselves had experienced with the drug. This conference resulted in no change; the FDA said that there was no sound basis or science to conclude there was anything wrong in Prozac that left a user more prone to severe side affects that could harm them or someone else. Next, the film discussed the sheer increase in ADHD medication in the 80's and 90's compared to the 60's and 70's. According to the film, our nation consumes more than 400% of Ritalin than all other nations--combined. This startling statistic really lays into the fraud and deception that has gone on for so long unrecognized by the general public, and really supports and speaks to the thesis and overall purpose of the film.
3.) The thesis of the film relates very well to the course because in this class we are being asked to question our preconceived notions. One preconceived notion that we all have or want to have is that our doctors know what is best for our health, and will give sound advice in the calmest and direst of circumstances. However, as the film demonstrates, these doctors are financially incentivized to prescribe these drugs to patients, since they will in many cases receive kick-backs from the drug companies. Next, it relates to this course because the medical and pharmaceutical industry have found a way to label yet another group of people deviant. Since kids can no longer be kids and need to behave like mature, mellow adults, the ones who can't sit in a desk for 6 hours nonstop are said to have a chemical inbalance in their brain, that can be fixed by a 3 times a day prescription or Ritalin or Aderol.
4.) The point I found most convincing was the fact that of the M.D. doctors on the committee board for the FDA, 56% of them have financial links and incentives to the drug companies. The implications for that much conflict of interest has been huge, and we can see it currently in our youth nation that is being fed minor doses of cocaine, speed, and meth. Next, out of the 13 well known school shootings that had occurred by the time this film was released, 8 of them were taking anti-depressants like Prozac. Coincidence? Doubtful, when you consider that well under 10% of the nation takes it.
5.) The point I found least convincing in the film was the doctor's testimony at the conference on ADHD in which a reported asked "What symptoms does a child with ADHD typically exhibit." To that, before the doctor almost ate his own tongue, he murmured that the biggest problem was that individuals exhibit it differently, but that it was a serious problem....after not being able to concisely or even cohesively formulate a recognizably sensible sentence to answer in response...where did he go to school? Probably Harvard.
6.) The point that really stands out to me in the film was financial relationship between the doctors and big pharmaceutical. However, I was disappointed the film didn't go into depth on the issue of the schools being pressured. Therefore I would like to research the links between big pharmaceutical, the FDA and other governmental agencies, doctors, and the schools, to make more sense of how and why the money flows where it was--specifically with the schools though. The way I see it, the Big Pharmaceuticals create and research the drugs, go through the FDA where the conflicts of interest are obscenely evident, and get released for prescription to the doctors, where they receive a kickback. However, the film didn't mention anything about the schools in this equation, I would argue and research that it should. Take this for example, the federal government with No Child Left Behind mandated that schools reach certain learning goals and test requirements each year in order to get funding. So teachers have increased pressure from principals and vice principals, and they have pressure from the school districts, who have pressure from the states, who finally have pressure from the federal government. So what do you think the odds are that a teacher who has let's say 3 students out of a class of 30 that are disruptive and hyper and are therefore hard to control, decides to "medicate" them (apparently they are doctors now) in order to teach the rest of the children without disruption--in order to try and get the learning done to get those test scores up so the school can once again receive federal funding? I love the film, and think they did a great job, but I would love to see that scenario looked into and played out. Because it seems that it would be pretty obvious to me that teachers sending home letters to students "diagnosing" them of ADHD is a little of base and track within the lines of their profession, expertise, and business.
Once again all, thanks for reading my blog. I hope I made you think.
Brett Hoyt
2.) The arguments in the film that supports this thesis are frequent and consistently brought up in the film. One of the more prolific arguments brought up is when the F.D.A. held a conference to discuss the negative psychological and physical side effects of the drug Prozac. During this press conference, hundreds of people offered their testimony of the tragedies their loved ones and themselves had experienced with the drug. This conference resulted in no change; the FDA said that there was no sound basis or science to conclude there was anything wrong in Prozac that left a user more prone to severe side affects that could harm them or someone else. Next, the film discussed the sheer increase in ADHD medication in the 80's and 90's compared to the 60's and 70's. According to the film, our nation consumes more than 400% of Ritalin than all other nations--combined. This startling statistic really lays into the fraud and deception that has gone on for so long unrecognized by the general public, and really supports and speaks to the thesis and overall purpose of the film.
3.) The thesis of the film relates very well to the course because in this class we are being asked to question our preconceived notions. One preconceived notion that we all have or want to have is that our doctors know what is best for our health, and will give sound advice in the calmest and direst of circumstances. However, as the film demonstrates, these doctors are financially incentivized to prescribe these drugs to patients, since they will in many cases receive kick-backs from the drug companies. Next, it relates to this course because the medical and pharmaceutical industry have found a way to label yet another group of people deviant. Since kids can no longer be kids and need to behave like mature, mellow adults, the ones who can't sit in a desk for 6 hours nonstop are said to have a chemical inbalance in their brain, that can be fixed by a 3 times a day prescription or Ritalin or Aderol.
4.) The point I found most convincing was the fact that of the M.D. doctors on the committee board for the FDA, 56% of them have financial links and incentives to the drug companies. The implications for that much conflict of interest has been huge, and we can see it currently in our youth nation that is being fed minor doses of cocaine, speed, and meth. Next, out of the 13 well known school shootings that had occurred by the time this film was released, 8 of them were taking anti-depressants like Prozac. Coincidence? Doubtful, when you consider that well under 10% of the nation takes it.
5.) The point I found least convincing in the film was the doctor's testimony at the conference on ADHD in which a reported asked "What symptoms does a child with ADHD typically exhibit." To that, before the doctor almost ate his own tongue, he murmured that the biggest problem was that individuals exhibit it differently, but that it was a serious problem....after not being able to concisely or even cohesively formulate a recognizably sensible sentence to answer in response...where did he go to school? Probably Harvard.
6.) The point that really stands out to me in the film was financial relationship between the doctors and big pharmaceutical. However, I was disappointed the film didn't go into depth on the issue of the schools being pressured. Therefore I would like to research the links between big pharmaceutical, the FDA and other governmental agencies, doctors, and the schools, to make more sense of how and why the money flows where it was--specifically with the schools though. The way I see it, the Big Pharmaceuticals create and research the drugs, go through the FDA where the conflicts of interest are obscenely evident, and get released for prescription to the doctors, where they receive a kickback. However, the film didn't mention anything about the schools in this equation, I would argue and research that it should. Take this for example, the federal government with No Child Left Behind mandated that schools reach certain learning goals and test requirements each year in order to get funding. So teachers have increased pressure from principals and vice principals, and they have pressure from the school districts, who have pressure from the states, who finally have pressure from the federal government. So what do you think the odds are that a teacher who has let's say 3 students out of a class of 30 that are disruptive and hyper and are therefore hard to control, decides to "medicate" them (apparently they are doctors now) in order to teach the rest of the children without disruption--in order to try and get the learning done to get those test scores up so the school can once again receive federal funding? I love the film, and think they did a great job, but I would love to see that scenario looked into and played out. Because it seems that it would be pretty obvious to me that teachers sending home letters to students "diagnosing" them of ADHD is a little of base and track within the lines of their profession, expertise, and business.
Once again all, thanks for reading my blog. I hope I made you think.
Brett Hoyt
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Film Review - Tough Guise
1.) The main thesis of the film "Tough Guise" was that men have been encouraged by society to be overtly masculine, and use a "Guise" in order to be considered a legitimate man in society. In doing so, its consequences are vast and far reaching: the film discusses the prevalence of acts of violence such as school shootings and gang violence that maybe wouldn't have happened or been as likely if we weren't so focused on being society's version of a "real man"
2.) The main arguments in support of the thesis were the G.I. Joe action figures over the past 4 decades. It was absolutely comical to see how massive the current G.I. Joe toys are compared to the 60's. Next, the film did a great job by showing scenes from movies in which the characters are telling another character that to be a real man they need to ....
3.) The thesis of the film relates strongly to this course because in this class one of the most important things to do is to evaluate and reconsider our preconceived notions about deviance... And this film correctly states that a man being perceived as a "fag", "pussy", or "bitch" is certainly deviant, and then it discusses why those terms are used--in turn making a gay person, female genitalia, or female dog (woman in this context) deviant.
4.) The argument I found most convincing was when they were pointing out countless examples of how the media portrays a "real man." The example of the original Batman compared to the current Batman was night and day. The film also touched on gang violence and masculinity which definitely have strong correlates.
5.)I don't believe there really was a point they brought up that was not relevant to their arguments in the film. However, I was disappointed that they omitted to discuss the advances in workouts and other muscle enhancing stimulants and technology. The fact is that consumers have a better vehicle to getting larger, muscular bodies. That is why the fitness industry is so prosperous and large. If they would have discussed this point they could have also discussed how society makes men without muscles a problem, which can be "cured" by buying a Bowflex, P90X, MuscleMilk, Gatorade, Steiroids, etc. Next, I would have enjoyed the film pointing out how many home runs there are in baseball now compared to 50 years ago.
6.)The point that still stands out to me in this movie were the G.I. Joe figures. I would love to see how much muscle a G.I. Joe would have if he were a real person, and look at how disproportionate his body is, and then proceed to laugh at consumers for buying into that laughstock. I would study the point by measuring and scaling the size to a 6 foot tall male.
2.) The main arguments in support of the thesis were the G.I. Joe action figures over the past 4 decades. It was absolutely comical to see how massive the current G.I. Joe toys are compared to the 60's. Next, the film did a great job by showing scenes from movies in which the characters are telling another character that to be a real man they need to ....
3.) The thesis of the film relates strongly to this course because in this class one of the most important things to do is to evaluate and reconsider our preconceived notions about deviance... And this film correctly states that a man being perceived as a "fag", "pussy", or "bitch" is certainly deviant, and then it discusses why those terms are used--in turn making a gay person, female genitalia, or female dog (woman in this context) deviant.
4.) The argument I found most convincing was when they were pointing out countless examples of how the media portrays a "real man." The example of the original Batman compared to the current Batman was night and day. The film also touched on gang violence and masculinity which definitely have strong correlates.
5.)I don't believe there really was a point they brought up that was not relevant to their arguments in the film. However, I was disappointed that they omitted to discuss the advances in workouts and other muscle enhancing stimulants and technology. The fact is that consumers have a better vehicle to getting larger, muscular bodies. That is why the fitness industry is so prosperous and large. If they would have discussed this point they could have also discussed how society makes men without muscles a problem, which can be "cured" by buying a Bowflex, P90X, MuscleMilk, Gatorade, Steiroids, etc. Next, I would have enjoyed the film pointing out how many home runs there are in baseball now compared to 50 years ago.
6.)The point that still stands out to me in this movie were the G.I. Joe figures. I would love to see how much muscle a G.I. Joe would have if he were a real person, and look at how disproportionate his body is, and then proceed to laugh at consumers for buying into that laughstock. I would study the point by measuring and scaling the size to a 6 foot tall male.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Reappropriation of Bastard
Hello all, and once again thank you for coming to my blog.
This week we are seeking to look at reappropriation of words, and essentially how words and meanings evolve and change over time. Because of this reality, there are consequences that are associated with saying a word that once meant one thing--maybe not negative--but recently or contemporarily the word has a different connotation that may be offensive to certain people. For this week I am choosing the word Bastard. As we will find out though, this is a fun word to study and analyze because there is a rich history of the term, as well as multiple meanings.
I chose to use bastard for a number of different reason. First of all, I was shocked to see how old it was and how it has changed meaning over time. Especially in modern culture, bastard is definitely a derogatory term and I know it was overused by friends and individuals I have met in my lifetime.
Let's first start with entomology, that is the history, of the term bastard. According the entomology dictionary, the word bastard comes from the 11th century. As the dictionary states its original meaning was an "'acknowledged child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife,' probably from fils de bast 'packsaddle son,' meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling)" (Online Etymology Dictionary) As we move to the 13th century It meant "illegitimate child." While these differences are subtle, they totally change the meaning of at least part and correct application of the word. However, we could go even farther and say that a bastard is not a human being. In fact, that's what it is considered outside the politically correct urban centers throughout the world. In Australia it means male dog. Now we can begin to see all of the loaded assumptions that could go with this word if it were used.
Figuratively speaking, bastard has always meant "not pure or genuine" which is already a harsh word when speaking to a person. So the previous connotations of the word were deviant in the sense that back in history bloodlines and lineage was incredibly important to how you were viewed and your status in society, so to be called illegitimate or birthed from an arrangement outside the traditional husband and wife arrangement.
As we look at modern culture today, one could argue that the word hasn't really changed for centuries. While that may be true when discovering how dictionaries, academic authorities, etc. define and view the word, it is certainly not how members of society view the word. I remember when I was in middle school kids would call each other bastards all the time, when really they just meant he/she was being an asshole, smart ass, or deceptive individual. However, this is key to note because as we grow up around our peers, we are socialized by them and we help socialize them. This socializing influence dictates how people will view language, morals, rights, and wrongs until and if they choose to liberate their minds through education and knowledge.
For example, this individual's video has absolutely no purpose, but he begins by asking the question, "what exactly is a bastard" the video proceeds and he makes modern, incorrect applications to the word bastard.
However, the underlying social constructions of using the word bastard as an insult, which is primarily the case are huge. Although the one insulting may not know it, he is calling the insultee a fatherless, illegitimate, impure, ingenuine, or lastly a male dog--if you take all of the meanings I have discussed in this post. Next, very few terms can mean something human and not.
According to Duhaime.org, a bastard is "An illegitimate child, born in a relationship between two persons that are not married (ie. not in wedlock) or who are not married at the time of the child’s birth." Originally speaking that was a huge deal, since being born out of wedlock was the quickest way to lose your inheritance, and it was often the only way to get land (Duhaime.org). That being said, "Bastards were of such a lower caste in medieval England that Latin expressions were developed just for them, labelling them "son of nobody, sons of the people" (Duhaime.org). As you can see, back then they took a much more literal meaning to the word. Even though modern society sees a lot more births before marriage--it is still certainly considered deviant by society to "do it in the wrong order" as I once heard a mother say to her daughter. Society likes graduating, then college, then marriage, and then children. Based on that, people who are defined as bastards can still be ostracized if it is known by his/her peers. The benefit to this label vs. other labels is that it is not worn on their sleeve like other deviant labels have to be.
As I was browsing online I really wasn't able to find communities where people who identify as bastards try and reclaim the correct use of the word. Once again though, this is no surprise to me, although it is considered deviant, there is no quick way to tell if someone is a bastard so it largely goes unrecognized. Next, since it was not their choice to be born a bastard, they likely identify to much different labels, if any at all, that were at least chosen by them. As we discussed in class the second week of the semester, a large part of being deviant or labeled deviant comes from the ability of others to spot your "deviant stamp" - or "A" in the case of the Scarlet Letter.
wordcount: 897
Citations:
"Bastard Definition:." Duhaime Legal Dictionary. Duhaime. Web. 26 Feb. 2012..
"Online Etymology Dictionary." Online Etymology Dictionary. Web. 26 Feb. 2012..
Google images: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=667&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=DCvkVrpxagw5AM:&imgrefurl=http://garynuke.homestead.com/lostpets.html&docid=cD1PxgvgAgE3GM&imgurl=http://garynuke.homestead.com/lostpets/A_Red_Male_Dog.jpg&w=800&h=679&ei=lKZKT_DrDeajiALgqojbDQ&zoom=1
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=OJfomsaVvXaq7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.webwonks.org/Marathon/BastardChild.html&docid=Vx-zQKXG4ouiEM&imgurl=http://www.webwonks.org/Marathon/Images/BastardChild.jpg&w=409&h=276&ei=uaZKT-e8IufViAL8gZmeAg&zoom=1
Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
This week we are seeking to look at reappropriation of words, and essentially how words and meanings evolve and change over time. Because of this reality, there are consequences that are associated with saying a word that once meant one thing--maybe not negative--but recently or contemporarily the word has a different connotation that may be offensive to certain people. For this week I am choosing the word Bastard. As we will find out though, this is a fun word to study and analyze because there is a rich history of the term, as well as multiple meanings.
I chose to use bastard for a number of different reason. First of all, I was shocked to see how old it was and how it has changed meaning over time. Especially in modern culture, bastard is definitely a derogatory term and I know it was overused by friends and individuals I have met in my lifetime.
Let's first start with entomology, that is the history, of the term bastard. According the entomology dictionary, the word bastard comes from the 11th century. As the dictionary states its original meaning was an "'acknowledged child of a nobleman by a woman other than his wife,' probably from fils de bast 'packsaddle son,' meaning a child conceived on an improvised bed (saddles often doubled as beds while traveling)" (Online Etymology Dictionary) As we move to the 13th century It meant "illegitimate child." While these differences are subtle, they totally change the meaning of at least part and correct application of the word. However, we could go even farther and say that a bastard is not a human being. In fact, that's what it is considered outside the politically correct urban centers throughout the world. In Australia it means male dog. Now we can begin to see all of the loaded assumptions that could go with this word if it were used.
Figuratively speaking, bastard has always meant "not pure or genuine" which is already a harsh word when speaking to a person. So the previous connotations of the word were deviant in the sense that back in history bloodlines and lineage was incredibly important to how you were viewed and your status in society, so to be called illegitimate or birthed from an arrangement outside the traditional husband and wife arrangement.
As we look at modern culture today, one could argue that the word hasn't really changed for centuries. While that may be true when discovering how dictionaries, academic authorities, etc. define and view the word, it is certainly not how members of society view the word. I remember when I was in middle school kids would call each other bastards all the time, when really they just meant he/she was being an asshole, smart ass, or deceptive individual. However, this is key to note because as we grow up around our peers, we are socialized by them and we help socialize them. This socializing influence dictates how people will view language, morals, rights, and wrongs until and if they choose to liberate their minds through education and knowledge.
For example, this individual's video has absolutely no purpose, but he begins by asking the question, "what exactly is a bastard" the video proceeds and he makes modern, incorrect applications to the word bastard.
However, the underlying social constructions of using the word bastard as an insult, which is primarily the case are huge. Although the one insulting may not know it, he is calling the insultee a fatherless, illegitimate, impure, ingenuine, or lastly a male dog--if you take all of the meanings I have discussed in this post. Next, very few terms can mean something human and not.
According to Duhaime.org, a bastard is "An illegitimate child, born in a relationship between two persons that are not married (ie. not in wedlock) or who are not married at the time of the child’s birth." Originally speaking that was a huge deal, since being born out of wedlock was the quickest way to lose your inheritance, and it was often the only way to get land (Duhaime.org). That being said, "Bastards were of such a lower caste in medieval England that Latin expressions were developed just for them, labelling them "son of nobody, sons of the people" (Duhaime.org). As you can see, back then they took a much more literal meaning to the word. Even though modern society sees a lot more births before marriage--it is still certainly considered deviant by society to "do it in the wrong order" as I once heard a mother say to her daughter. Society likes graduating, then college, then marriage, and then children. Based on that, people who are defined as bastards can still be ostracized if it is known by his/her peers. The benefit to this label vs. other labels is that it is not worn on their sleeve like other deviant labels have to be.
As I was browsing online I really wasn't able to find communities where people who identify as bastards try and reclaim the correct use of the word. Once again though, this is no surprise to me, although it is considered deviant, there is no quick way to tell if someone is a bastard so it largely goes unrecognized. Next, since it was not their choice to be born a bastard, they likely identify to much different labels, if any at all, that were at least chosen by them. As we discussed in class the second week of the semester, a large part of being deviant or labeled deviant comes from the ability of others to spot your "deviant stamp" - or "A" in the case of the Scarlet Letter.
wordcount: 897
Citations:
"Bastard Definition:." Duhaime Legal Dictionary. Duhaime. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.
"Online Etymology Dictionary." Online Etymology Dictionary. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.
Google images: http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&biw=1366&bih=667&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=DCvkVrpxagw5AM:&imgrefurl=http://garynuke.homestead.com/lostpets.html&docid=cD1PxgvgAgE3GM&imgurl=http://garynuke.homestead.com/lostpets/A_Red_Male_Dog.jpg&w=800&h=679&ei=lKZKT_DrDeajiALgqojbDQ&zoom=1
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=OJfomsaVvXaq7M:&imgrefurl=http://www.webwonks.org/Marathon/BastardChild.html&docid=Vx-zQKXG4ouiEM&imgurl=http://www.webwonks.org/Marathon/Images/BastardChild.jpg&w=409&h=276&ei=uaZKT-e8IufViAL8gZmeAg&zoom=1
Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Film Review 2 - Murderball
1.) The main thesis of the movie murderball seemed to be that although society largely believes people who are "handicapped," the film demonstrates through the sport of wheelchair rugby--a very dangerous and intense sport--that society's preconceived notions about people with disabilities are absolutely false. In many cases, they can do just as much or more than "non-disabled" individuals.
2.)The main arguments toward this thesis is demonstrated at the beginning of the film when Zupan talks about being in a bar and almost getting into a fight with a guy, the guy feels bad and Zupan yells "fucking hit me, I'll hit you back" (Murderball, 2005). This is just one of the many statements Zupan and his wheelchair rugby team say that leads us to rethink our preconceived notions about people in wheelchairs. The next example is when the film goes in depth to how people in wheelchairs can have intercourse. Another argument that fortifies the thesis is the intensity of the wheelchair rugby games, these $3000 dollar gladiator wheel chairs are amazingly built. This allows the sport to be even harder contact than one would think is safe.
3.)The thesis aligns with the course goals and the discussions and thoughts we are intended to think and question in our Deviance class. For the past couple of weeks we have had ongoing debates and discussions as to how society views individuals you aren't able bodied. This film does a great job at debunking preconceptions that able bodied people think are correct. Next, the film helps kill the myth that all people in wheel chairs just really want their legs again, when the way it is portrayed by the pararugby community in the movie, that is just not the case and in many ways is offensive. They have become accustomed to who they are and many wouldn't change it.
4.) The point I found most convincing in the film wasn't ever explicitly said, but was eluded to time and time again in the movie. When people get into wheel chairs after their accident, they are incredibly hopeless for the first couple of years, but they are reinvigorated when they discover that they can still do so many things that able-bodied individuals can do; intercourse and sports to name a couple. Not to mention being entirely self sufficient.
5.) I really was awe-struck when I watched this film, and wasn't really skeptical to the points being made. I feel like the audience was getting exclusive interviews discussing their trials, journeys, and accomplishments since being labeled disabled. However, based on their responses and actions in the movie, I do disagree with labeling theory as being applicable to the film. Labeling theory states that "Treating a person as though he were generally rather than specifically deviant produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. It sets in motion several mechanisms which conspire to shape the person in the image people have of him" (Thio, Calhoun, & Conyers). While I know the book wasn't imagining disabled people as part of this equation, but people who are disabled are still viewed as deviant. Despite their cases being ascribed vs. achieved. From the movie we saw a lot of people such as Zupan, where everywhere he went people began rethinking their notions about people in wheelchairs.
6.) If I had to research one point about the film I would love to look further into the various levels of disability paraplegics have as discussed at the beginning of the film. I understand there are distinctions based on arm mobility, but it would be intriguing to delve deeper into it and see if more or less classifications are necessary for other paraplegic sports.
Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
Rubin, Henry, writ. Murderball. Writ. Dana Shapiro, Jeff Mandel, and Keith Cavill. Thinkfilm, 2005. Film.
2.)The main arguments toward this thesis is demonstrated at the beginning of the film when Zupan talks about being in a bar and almost getting into a fight with a guy, the guy feels bad and Zupan yells "fucking hit me, I'll hit you back" (Murderball, 2005). This is just one of the many statements Zupan and his wheelchair rugby team say that leads us to rethink our preconceived notions about people in wheelchairs. The next example is when the film goes in depth to how people in wheelchairs can have intercourse. Another argument that fortifies the thesis is the intensity of the wheelchair rugby games, these $3000 dollar gladiator wheel chairs are amazingly built. This allows the sport to be even harder contact than one would think is safe.
3.)The thesis aligns with the course goals and the discussions and thoughts we are intended to think and question in our Deviance class. For the past couple of weeks we have had ongoing debates and discussions as to how society views individuals you aren't able bodied. This film does a great job at debunking preconceptions that able bodied people think are correct. Next, the film helps kill the myth that all people in wheel chairs just really want their legs again, when the way it is portrayed by the pararugby community in the movie, that is just not the case and in many ways is offensive. They have become accustomed to who they are and many wouldn't change it.
4.) The point I found most convincing in the film wasn't ever explicitly said, but was eluded to time and time again in the movie. When people get into wheel chairs after their accident, they are incredibly hopeless for the first couple of years, but they are reinvigorated when they discover that they can still do so many things that able-bodied individuals can do; intercourse and sports to name a couple. Not to mention being entirely self sufficient.
5.) I really was awe-struck when I watched this film, and wasn't really skeptical to the points being made. I feel like the audience was getting exclusive interviews discussing their trials, journeys, and accomplishments since being labeled disabled. However, based on their responses and actions in the movie, I do disagree with labeling theory as being applicable to the film. Labeling theory states that "Treating a person as though he were generally rather than specifically deviant produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. It sets in motion several mechanisms which conspire to shape the person in the image people have of him" (Thio, Calhoun, & Conyers). While I know the book wasn't imagining disabled people as part of this equation, but people who are disabled are still viewed as deviant. Despite their cases being ascribed vs. achieved. From the movie we saw a lot of people such as Zupan, where everywhere he went people began rethinking their notions about people in wheelchairs.
6.) If I had to research one point about the film I would love to look further into the various levels of disability paraplegics have as discussed at the beginning of the film. I understand there are distinctions based on arm mobility, but it would be intriguing to delve deeper into it and see if more or less classifications are necessary for other paraplegic sports.
Thio, Alex, and Thomas C. Calhoun. Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001. Print.
Rubin, Henry, writ. Murderball. Writ. Dana Shapiro, Jeff Mandel, and Keith Cavill. Thinkfilm, 2005. Film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)