Hypochondriasis: the Illness of not having an Illness

Introduction

Picture By Brian Cronin for TIME

Two weeks ago during spring break, I thought for sure I was dying. It started with a simple chest pain, which gradually became worse as the days rolled on. Like many other average Americans, when faced with the threat of illness or disease, I turn to the internet for the “answers.” What I found (and diagnosed myself with) was Costochondritis, an inflammation of the junctions where the upper ribs join with the cartilage that holds them to the breastbone or sternum (emedicinehealth.com). I felt a little better knowing that Costochondritis goes away on its own, and that I had cracked the case on what was affecting me for the last three days.

On day four came the heart palpitations which stayed with me morning until night, and the realization that when I laid on the left side of my body,  my heart felt like it was going to explode out of my chest. Frantic and distressed, I rushed back to my computer see what these new symptoms might mean for me. And sure enough, after researching for twenty minutes on WebMD, I had found the REAL diagnosis to what was wrong with me, I have Coronary Heart Disease!

You might be asking yourself right now if this story has a point. Here it is, four days later all my symptoms had subsided into nothingness and I felt like my average self again. I never went to the doctor once during this event, and my diagnoses (real or not) had been determined based on a few lines of text. In the end, my friends and loved ones decided to diagnose me with Hypochondriasis a.k.a. Hypochondria.   While I know that I am NOT a hypochondriac, I don’t really know much about it. In this blog post, I will provide research and social analysis of Hypochondriasis, including a brief history of the illness, the attitudes and behaviors that label hypochondriacs as deviant (if any), who gains or loses from a diagnosis, both sides of the public perceptions of hypochondria, and finally the social constructions behind it.

History Review of Hypochondriasis

Before Hypochondriasis was camped in with mental illnesses or disorders, its roots could be found within the physical aspects of the body.  Originally, the word hypochondriac or hypochondria comes from the word Hypochondrium, the upper part of the abdomen dorsal to the lowest ribs of the thorax; this word derives from the Greek term hupochondros, meaning abdomen, or literally under cartilage (Avia & Ruiz, 2005). The use of Hypochondriasis to state a feeling of disease without evidence or cause reflects an ancient Greek belief that the internal organs of the hypochondrium was the seat of melancholy and the source of vapors that caused morbid feelings (Avia & Ruiz, 2005).

Research about the history of Hypochondriasis is scarce, but up until the seventeenth century, it was considered a physical condition (Noyes Jr., 2011). Over the next 150 years, the disorder was transformed from an affliction of abdominal organs to a disorder in the nervous system and brain, until it was finally considered a disorder of the mind (Noyes Jr., 2011). Two factors supposedly contributed to this change. One was a shift based on emerging medical knowledge, meaning illnesses that once involved the whole person were now diagnosed and targeted based upon the bodily organs. Because of this, Hypochondriasis became an illness without somatic (bodily) disease (Noyes Jr., 2011).  The other factor was the change in the disorder’s social significance. During the period of Enlightenment (time of reason and science) Hypochondriasis became on one hand, a distinction which conveyed ones class status; someone who was knowledgeable or well learned. On the other hand, Hypochondriasis was of social disapproval, considered something born out of ones own paranoia of disease or illness (Noyes Jr., 2011).

A Diagnosis of Hypochondriasis

Currently, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) states the following for Hypochondriasis:

“In Hypochondriasis patients come to believe, or at least to very strongly suspect, that they are sick with a serious, perhaps life-threatening disease. Minor symptoms or anomalies support and augment their concern. A muscle ache or perhaps an accidental bruise indicates the dreaded diagnosis. Their concerns persist despite the reassurances of their physicians. The preoccupation with illness may become all-consuming; some patients become invalids, bed-bound not by their symptoms, but by their fear of having a disabling illness. Hypochondriasis has a lifetime prevalence somewhere between 1 and 5%, and appears to be equally common in males and females” (Brown.edu).

In terms of ones process of medicalization, hypochondriacs generally visit doctors multiple times complaining of illnesses or ailments. During this time, a doctor may advise an individual that they should seek a mental health professional for a diagnosis of Hypochondriasis or some type of anxiety disorder.  Hypochondriasis may begin anywhere from adolescence to middle ages. The peak age of onset is generally in the twenties and thirties. There are no specific reasons why someone may suffer from Hypochondriasis, although some factors have been shown to have correlation with being diagnosed; witnessing someone else suffer or die of a disease seems at times to trigger Hypochondriasis, and in some cases a serious illness in the patient’s own life may act as a catalyst (Brown.edu). The most common treatment for Hypochondriasis is cognitive behavioral therapy, where patients are trained to focus their attention away from the symptoms (Brown.edu).

Hypochondriasis in Society

While the history and current diagnosis of Hypochondriasis is important, the main area of discussion revolves around the social implications, limitations, and emotions regarding this illness. Within this section I will provide a brief overview of both sides of the argument in regards to the legitimacy and social constructions of Hypochondria.

If you are diagnosed or perceived to suffer from Hypochondriasis, there are a number of things to expect when living and dealing with this condition. For starters, be prepared to be ridiculed, or seen as deviant by society in general. Many individuals living with Hypochondriasis discuss the difficulties of dealing with the illness, along with trying to carry on with their normal lives and be seen as normal. Often, our imaginations take us to the far end of the spectrum, and we find ourselves thinking that hypochondriacs are individuals walking around with surgical masks on, a pair of latex gloves, and are constantly wishing to be sick. This Scrubs clip below (while funny) is an example of how some people may view hypochondria in their minds:

In fact, we as a society generally want to do anything BUT take responsibility and care for these individuals, specifically, because we believe that they do not need to be cared for in the first place. Some health care providers will cover treatment programs for individuals (the exact number or percentage I could not nail down.) Perhaps most surprising, is that many doctors and medical professionals also have a somewhat hostile attitude towards individuals with Hypochondriasis. An article in TIME Magazine titled How to Heal a Hypochondriac stated, “Most physicians tend to think of hypochondriacs as nuisances – patients they are just as happy to lose” (TIME, 2003). The stigma that follows individuals living with Hypochondriasis is similar to the stigmas people have about other mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety disorders. Despite Deeper Understanding Of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers

As stated previously, many individuals with Hypochondriasis are involved in the conversation. They have created blogs and youtube videos in an attempt to tell their stories, and to help others who have been diagnose to cope and live normal lives. The Happy Hypochondriac, Hypochondriac's Relief Blog, Random Confessions of a Former Self-Proclaimed Hypochondriac

A case has been made, not against Hypochondriasis, but against the individuals who often are diagnosed (or self-diagnosed) as hypochondriacs. Part of this case revolves around the cost that comes with this illness. The same TIME magazine article states, “Hypochondriacs don't harm just themselves; they clog the whole health-care system. Although they account for only about 6% of the patients who visit doctors every year, they tend to burden their physicians with frequent visits that take up inordinate amounts of time. According to one estimate, hypochondria racks up some $20 billion in wasted medical resources in the U.S. alone” (TIME, 2003). The other area people can be unsympathetic is with (stated previously) the over-diagnoses or self diagnosis of Hypochondriasis. The following clip is of comedian Dennis Miller giving a rant about Hypochondria. While viewing it, try and count the number of sympathetic comments Miller makes, against the number of insults or jokes that poke fun at a hypochondriac’s condition:

Discussion and Conclusion

In society, we tend to carry two different attitudes when we think about disease and illness. When it comes to somatic diseases or illnesses, we are often sympathetic towards the individual, and sometimes we put forth an extra effort to include them in all areas of society. On the other hand, individuals who suffer from mental issues such as anxiety disorders, depression, and Hypochondriasis, are not always met with the same love or compassion. In fact, they are often seen as deviant, and often labeled as simply “crazy.”

Yet, the evidence is clear that these are in fact real illness, and many individuals truly do suffer with such illnesses. So what is it about our culture that makes individuals with Hypochondriasis seem deviant? Is there an over-diagnosis of hypochondria? Are more people truly self-diagnosing themselves? And if this is so, is it there fault, or someone else’s?

When we look at the Scrubs clip from above, we see how hypochondriacs are represented in the media. They are seen as people who want to be sick, hope they are sick, and are nothing more than a waste of a doctor’s time and a waste of a hospital bed. Because of these media depictions, when we encounter a hypochondriac in the real world, we can be quick to think that they are crazy and label them as deviant minded individuals. We must remember that if someone is diagnosed with Hypochondriasis, then their illness should be viewed as the same as someone diagnosed with depression or autism.

That being said, do I believe that individuals self-diagnose themselves, you bet I do. Do I think that individuals are being diagnosed with Hypochondriasis at a growing rate, absolutely. Do I think that individuals are specifically the ones to blame for this, no. I believe that this growing number of self-diagnoses and paranoia can be linked to two things, the internet and pharmaceutical companies.

The internet has given people the miracle of knowledge, providing us with an almost limitless amount of information at a rate we have never experienced in history. However, it has also opened up the door for individuals who are worried that their cough is the first sign of the lung cancer growing inside of them. ““They go on the Web,” says Dr. Arthur Barsky, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, “and learn about new diseases and new presentations of old diseases that they never even knew about before.” Doctors have taken to calling this phenomenon cyberchondria” (TIME, 2003). This new wave of information has caused an uproar of over-diagnoses and self-diagnosis in a number of mental health illness; The Autism Information Epidemic 

discusses a number of the same issues in its article.

Because media has such a direct affect on our lives, it is no surprise that pharmaceutical companies have taken a very strong interest in it. Every day we are bombarded with commercials, posters, and other advertisements that sell a very simple, very effective message: if you have these symptoms, you NEED this pill. In We're All Mad Here: Pharmaceutical Advertising and Messaging About Mental Illness 

we see how companies will shell out over a billion dollars, to advertise their products to you, and get you to think that there is something wrong with you that needs to be fixed or corrected. It is no surprise that when all is said and done, most doctors recommend cognitive therapy as the best medicine for dealing with Hypochondriasis.

I’m sure throughout the course of our lives we have truly thought we had a bad virus or disease, when really we had a pulled muscle or the flu. To be scared is to be human. But Hypochondriasis is a real illness, it affects people on a daily basis. What is important to remember is that the person who can best answer your medical questions is not WebMD, or the Prozac commercial, or even yourself. The best person who can diagnose you is a doctor or medical professional. If you are overly concerned about your medical condition, schedule an appointment or call a toll free nurses hotline. If you think you suffer from Hypochondriasis, schedule an appointment with a mental health professional, because if you truly think your sick, you can take the steps towards getting better.

Word Count: 2,111

http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI_278/Other/Clerkship/Didactics/Readings/Hypochondriasis.pdf

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,490690,00.html

http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/281.abstract

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriasis

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/costochondritis/article_em.htm

Generation Rx Film Review

If you listen to news media today, they will attempt to fill your fearful mind with the notion that there is a massive drug epidemic in the United States today. Truth is, there is a massive and dangerous drug epidemic living in America today, but it’s not the drugs the media is reporting. It’s not the drugs that are smoked, snorted or drunk by individuals. The drugs that are causing this epidemic in society are prescription drugs being dealt out to men, women, and even our children on a near daily basis.

Generation Rx is a 2008 documentary about the pharmaceutical prescription drugs that are being overly prescribed to individuals by doctors and physiologists. The documentary all describes how the pharmaceutical companies manufacture and market these drugs in order to make maximum profit. According to the film mind altering drugs are the fastest growing medicine in the world.

As the film progresses, we find that these disorders like ADHD, Autism and Depression (which are very real disorders and conditions) are often being misdiagnosed by doctors and psychologists for a number of reasons. It could be the fact that we have no real consensus on how to properly diagnose these disorders (What’s a Mental Disorder? Even Experts Can’t Agree) or the fact that pharmaceutical companies create incentives for doctors to diagnose individuals with these disorders. Or it could be because the marketing that is done make people believe that there is a pill that can solve all their problems so they actively seek it out. In reality, all of these are things that are causing the number of individuals taking prescription drugs to rise in the United States. Don’t think there is a problem? Think it’s not just a United States issue? Then consider the fact that America consumes 90% of the worlds Ritalin supply. Something needs to change.

The thesis of this film relates to this course in a number of ways, specifically, our discussions of deviant minds. According to the article The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal by Peter Conrad and Deborah Potter, “ADHD’s expansion was, primarily, accomplished by refocusing the diagnosis on inattention, rather than hyperactivity, and stretching the age criteria. This allowed for the inclusion of an entire population of people and their problems that were excluded by the original conception of hyperactive children” (Conrad & Potter, 2000). In Generation Rx we see the same thing being discussed, as pharmaceutical companies find that in order for the product to achieve maximum profit, they would have to expand their business to include children; this led to doctors giving more diagnosis to children for ADHD and Autism. According to the film, 1 in 30 kids between 5-19 are on mind-altering prescription drugs. (THE AUTISM INFORMATION EPIDEMIC).

The thing I found most interesting in Generation Rx was the discussion about children, and what these drugs do to them, and the consequences others endure because of it. For example, 8 out 13 school shooters were taking mind-changing prescription drugs at the time of their crimes. Also, we are dosing children more frequently and earlier in life than ever before. Because of this, their brains do not develop in a normal natural way and therefore, they are more likely to have problems that may require them to seek medical help. Furthermore, what we find is that the individuals responsible for raising a child (i.e. parents, teachers) either do not have the time or the patience to handle kids when they behave “irrationally.” When these children do not fit neatly in the box we socially construct for them, we end up medicating them until they take our orders and fit nice and snug in the box. Articles and blogs such as Are Some ADHD-Labeled Kids Just Young for Their Age and RSA Animate: Changing Education Paradigms discuss the issue of social constructions for children even further than the film does (which is something I would have liked to see the film go into a bit more.)

Finally, a study I would like to see conducted has to do with the education of our children in correlation with how many children are diagnosed with ADHD or Autism. My study would involve looking at children who attend liberal-private schools for their entire education (K-12) and see what percentages of them are diagnosed with ADHD or Autism. My hypothesis is that children, who are not forced to adhere to a hard, specific structure of learning and instead, have a progressive education that moves at their own pace, will have fewer reports of ADHD and Autism.

Tough Guise Film Review

Every guy when they’re growing up has had someone tell them to “step up and be a man,” or “stop whining and be a man.” Yet, few of us ever bother to stop and ask ourselves what does it really mean to be a man? In the documentary film Tough Guise, through testimonials and achieve footage of films and television, creator and commentator Jackson Katz shows the viewer the social constructions of masculine culture (particularly in western civilization) and how being a “man” comes with much conflict and consequences.

Tough Guise stands as one of the best films to use continues examples and evidence to support ones theory. The film surveys men and what they think makes a man, as well as calling upon the image of men in media, specifically, how men are often over-masculine and muscular, and tend to lack emotions that one would attribute as feminine. The film also examines crime data and compares it to the gender that commits the crime the most. Overwhelmingly, violent crimes are mainly committed and targeted towards other men; such crimes include murder and assault, as well as crimes involving weapons or firearms.

Overall, what Tough Guise teaches the viewer is that we have created harsh social constructions about what it means to be a man, it means not being a woman. When we compare the roles and rules society sets for men and women, we find just how polarizing the are; men need to be hulky and buff while women need to be small and petite, men need to keep their emotions inside (or not have any) while women are told to express how they are feeling, and at an early age boys are subjected to a violent culture while women are subjected to feminine “flowery” one.

As stated previously this masculine role or “tough guise” that men put on comes with difficult consequences. James Gilligan’s article Shame, Guilt, and Violence explains that when a male fails to meet the gender role society has placed for him, he is usually identified by others (and himself) as a “pussy” or “bitch” or “fag.” These are terms that share a relationship with the female gender roles of society. This creates a sense of shame for a male, which also is considered an emotion of weakness for a male. Because of being socially and emotionally labeled female, a male (could) act out in violence, because the social constructions and media have shown that this is how men deal with their problems. By practicing violence, one hopes to regain the label of being “a real man.”

The points that I, along with other students, found most convincing was how the social constructions of gender behavior exist within the media we all consume. For example, throughout time the idea of being a masculine or powerful man has GROWN rapidly. Not only are our heroes now buffer and well defined, our children’s toys have also increased in definition. Also, the way crimes are reported today, the media only makes a big deal out of murders or rapes when women are committing these crimes against someone else, especially a man. Once again, there are is almost nothing about this film that does not have credibility when we discuss the issue of gender roles and equality.

It is clear that these social constructions about being over-masculine have a directed correlation with violence in society. It is important to remember that when we discuss violence and violent crimes, it IS in fact a male issue. I think an interesting study would be to find men who have grown up in a more feminine environment and survey and study the crime rates for these males. We often think that all men will snap and fight when their testosterone gets to high. But I doubt it is true for men who have learned to discuss and deal with their emotions in a healthy way.

A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall (Not Class Related)

I'm a huge fan of Bob Dylan, and just wanted to put a song I love out there for anyone interested.

A Man and His Cunt: Analyzing the Worst Word in the English Language

Introduction

Before reading this, please be advised that the word cunt is used uncensored throughout this blog post. It is not intended to insult or offend anyone, but to serve as a subject for academic analysis and understanding.

There is only one word in the English language my mother would smack me for saying, that word is cunt. The word cunt is considered by most to be the worst word one can say, particularly in the Untied States. Because of how offensive and taboo it is, it is consequentially one of my favorite words to use (don’t tell my mom!). And although I and probably most of you have a baseline understanding of what cunt means, I do not know how it originated or why it is the Mount Rushmore of curse words.

In this blog post, I will be analyzing the word cunt, and how it is used in today’s U.S. culture to insult or demean a target population or group of individuals. In order to provide an accurate understanding of the word and its usage, I will provide a brief historical investigation of the word cunt, determining the word’s previous connotations and comparing them to modern day connotations. Based upon this analysis, I will be able to make a prediction of who is more likely to use the word cunt, and determine the underlying social constructions that fuel the word’s continuous use. Throughout this analysis I will examine how members of this deviant group feel about the word cunt; whether they wish for the word’s retirement from society, or whether they feel they should own it and embrace it.

A Brief History of Cunt

To begin, it is important to define what exactly the word cunt means. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, cunt is defined as an obscene reference to the female genital organs; it is also loosely defined as a disparaging and obscene term for a woman (Merriam-webster.com). Now I will explore the history of the word cunt to determine if this definition shares any correlation with past definitions or connotations.

An interesting place to start when looking at the history of the word cunt is that there is basically no consensus as to when or where the word itself actually originated. However, the word cunt has been used in its anatomical meaning since the early 13th century (matthewhunt.com). Also throughout the pre-twentieth century, the word cunt was already making its mark in societies, but throughout time the word was not always as taboo as it is now. For example, in Francis Grose’s 1785 book, A Classical Dictionary of The Vulgar Tongue, he defined the word as, “a nasty name for a nasty thing” (matthewhunt.com).

Its first appearance in the Oxford English Dictionary was in 1972; it cites cunt as having been in use since 1230 in what was supposedly a London street name of "Gropecunte Lane". Gropecunte Lane was originally a street of prostitution, similar to a Red Light District today (matthewhunt.com). But back around 1390, Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, the word cunt is used several times quite openly, without public outcry as the word did not carry a negative connotation at that time (Chaucer).

By Shakespeare’s time (late 1500s – early 1600s) cunt was an obscene word; however, Shakespeare still used the word cunt in a number of his plays, including Hamlet, Henry V, and Twelfth Night (matthewhunt.com). As time progresses, the word keeps its taboo meanings and is used in literature and art that is then quickly considered controversial by the elites, or ruling class of society; such work includes, James Joyce’s Ulysses, D.H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Henry Millar’s Tropic of Cancer, and Ian McEwan’s Atonement (Wikipedia.org).

Overall, it seems the word cunt is a taboo reference to the female genitals, and therefore, a taboo curse word to describe a woman. We will dive into the social constructions behind this later in the post, as well as cunts use in the world today and how individuals, particularly women, feel about it. In the meantime, here is an interesting and accurate video describing the historic origins of cunt. This can be viewed below:



What’s the Matter with Cunts today?

Now that we have a brief history of the word cunt and how it has been perceived throughout time, we can zero-in on how the word fits into 21st century America. For starters, the main definition of cunt is still a females genital organs, but it is also used as a derogatory term that can refer to anyone today. This usage is relatively recent, dating from the late nineteenth century and defines someone as an unpleasant or stupid person (Oxford English Dictionary).

Today, the word is considered within U.S. culture the worst word one could use (although others have argued that within U.S. culture the word nigger is the most taboo considering America’s history in regards to slavery.) Also, the word generally stirs up much anger, frustration, and debate from women across the country. There are several blogs like this one here, http://jennieblog.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/the-c-word.html, and articles like this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/the-infamous-c-word_n_1231543.html, that are written by women about their feelings, and often their dislike of the word cunt.

The Cunt Wars

Interestingly, there seems to be throughout the United States of America, a silent war between three camps. A war that divides those that we previously discussed that dislike the word cunt, those who do not find the word cunt offensive, and women who wish to reclaim the word cunt in order to change its meaning from something negative to something positive. These three factions engage and debate, they blog and they broadcast, they strive to achieve victory in what can only be described as, a cunt war. Obviously, it is not as dramatic as I have made it out to be, but make no mistake people have their line in the sand. Take a look at the mixed views about cunt shown below.



Since cunt is generally used and defined as an insult to women, I may not be the most qualified to give input on how the female population is truly effected by the word. However, there are a number of articles like these, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/08/28/why-the-c-word-is-losing-its-bite.html, http://thegloss.com/sex-and-dating/girl-vs-guy-the-c-word/, that are written by females explaining how cunt is losing its harshness or bite within U.S. culture.

Furthermore, as stated above there are those women who are trying to reclaim the word cunt for themselves, in order for to change the connotation from something negative and taboo, to something positive that can be expressed openly. One of the best examples of this is Inga Muscio’s book, Cunt: A Declaration of Independence. In it, she examines the word cunt along with the meaning of the word vagina, explaining that cunt is a powerful, strong word that refers to the whole package of womanhood; as opposed to the vagina which is only a specific part of the female genitalia. Other advocates that try to reclaim the word cunt are Germaine Greer and Eve Ensler from The Vagina Monologues; both of whom can be seen in these videos below.





Discussion and Conclusion

Words are quite simply, a combination of letters with meaning attached to them. It is this meaning which can make a word welcome and useful to us, or make a word taboo and dreadful to our ears. So what is the meaning of cunt? What does it mean to be a cunt or be called a cunt? In today’s society the word cunt means a female’s genitals or someone who irritates or annoys you. Howard Becker’s Labeling Theory states that, “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders…the deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied.”

When we apply this to the analysis of cunt, it becomes clear that we as a society believe that women are deviant members of society. Therefore, we can make the prediction that males would be more likely to use the term against a female. When this is done, one is stating that the female individual is nothing more than a set of sexual organs.
You may be saying to yourself, “Well it’s not my problem.” In Allan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, Difference, and Us he discusses the danger of individualism, the idea that everything is somebody else’s fault. For example, if you subscribe to the belief that all men are sexist, or that “well I’m not sexist, it’s those other guys,” then we can never have a serious discussion about the problem of sexism, and therefore never be able to solve it. When we apply this rationale to the usage of the word cunt, it can be easy to think, “well I don’t use that word,” or “well when I use that word I’m not referring specifically to women,” but in doing this, we are choosing to pass the blame to someone else or another group of individuals instead of coming together to discuss why these social constructions or labels exist in the first place? What is it about our society that finds the symbolic representation of female empowerment so threatening or disgusting?

In Howard Becker’s article, Outsiders: Defining Deviance, he explains that outsiders are those that fail to meet or follow a specified rule created by ones society, or ones who end up breaking a rule when they were previously individuals who enforced it. When we apply this way of thinking, it becomes important to ask ourselves why we keep these words around in the first place. After all, if cunt really is the most terrible word we have at our disposal, then why don’t we dispose of it? We as a society choose to keep the word cunt in circulation, punishing not just women but also punishing anyone who has used the word cunt. It’s easy to think that sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can never hurt you; sadly the reality is that everyone is hurt by certain words. What’s important is that we learn to recognize that the words we use not only affect an individual directly, but helps support the foundation of the social norms that are put in place to label some as deviant.

In other words, like my mother used to say, “Watch your mouth!”

Word Count: 1,718 words

Film Review: Murderball

I want you to imagine a physically fit and masculine individual. Now put them into a wheelchair. Now I want you to imagine that you’re holding a ball in your hands, and that fit guy in the wheelchair is rolling at you at tremendous velocity in order to knock the ball out of your hands, even if he has to kill you in the process. Now when you think about that situation, are you thinking to yourself, “Oh poor man, I hope one day he walks again,” or are you thinking “Holy f*%king $h^t!”

The film Murderball follows a group of men on the United States Paralympics quad rugby team. The film explores the stigmatisms of quadriplegics and individuals confined to wheelchairs, along with others that society labels as “disabled.” 

The film’s main message or thesis is to show that individuals in wheelchairs or ones who have some impairment are not weak, struggling or depressed individuals, but are individuals who can be as equally able, capable, or tough (if not tougher) as you or me. Because of this, the film does not follow or adhere to the typical depiction of disabled people, unlike the blog Good Cripple, which describes a disabled person as being a sweet, happy person who can overcome any odds. This film shows gritty, rude, and unapologetic men competing, criticizing, and smashing each other to pieces.

This view of labeling anyone in a wheelchair “disabled” ties right into our classroom discussion about deviant bodies. Those in a wheelchair or those who are paraplegic are considered deviant because they cannot walk; they receive pity and sympathy when they would rather receive equality and understanding.

Some of the points that I found most was based on their overall attitudes (as described above) and on how they rank each other in terms of athleticism or “fitness.” Depending on how much movement they have, as well as other physical ailments determines the points they are worth on the field. This was surprising as it shows us that there is more than one way to label or rank an individuals fitness or “ability.” This is a system that could rate everyone’s ability, and could show that while some people may be able to walk or not appear to have any physical handicaps, they are not as physically capable as those we classify as “handicapped.”

A good topic to research is how infusing athletic programs or training into physical therapy or recovery affects an individuals overall transition, recovery and state of mind. Overall, Murderball is an excellent documentary which shows how individuals, who are confined to a chair, are not confined to a set philosophy or personality. Many can be sweet and have a loving heart, and some can be real sons-of-bitches. In the end you are left questioning the idea of the “master status” and how the surface of an individual is just that, the surface. Underneath ones damaged arms or lifeless legs can burn an animosity for athletic achievement, or simply a desperate need to level another dude.

Murderball.

Word Count: 508

"Middle Sexes" Film Review

"Middle Sexes: Redefining He and She" is the personal documentation of intersex individuals whom have both male and/or female sex organs from birth, as well as individuals who simply do not subscribe to the classical gender roles society has set for them. In the film we see the challenges of intersex and transgender persons, as well as how views about transgenders or Intersex individuals vary across the globe. According to Dr. Cary Gabriel Costello in her blog "The Intersex Roadshow" she states, "While it is common to believe that sex is binary—that is, that all people are born either male or female—in fact, sexual characteristics exist as a spectrum. There is a great deal of variation in chromosomes (XX, XY, XXY, XYY, etc.), hormones (relative levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone), secondary sexual characteristics (breasts, hair distribution, etc.) genital configurations, and gonads (ovaries, ovotestes, testes). Intersex people are individuals whose sexual characteristics fall toward the middle of the spectrum. Approximately 1 in 200 people are intersexed according to medical diagnostic criteria. Most are very private about this status, though some are public about it." (https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D)

Some of the arguments in support for the general thesis of the film come from the personal accounts of many transgender and intersex individuals throughout the world. Many of the individuals outside the Christian, Western Civilizations do not look upon transgender or intersex individuals nearly as negative or strongly as European nations do. Also, many individuals who are intersex or transgender have faced challenges, even among family and friends. Some parents fear greatly for their children, whom they love, but know that society does not or would not classify them as "normal."

You can see how this film relates to this course through the story of Noah in the film. Noah is a young boy who identifies and is raised as a female. He lives a happy life, but his parents are often concerned for Noah, and what might await for him in his future. Noah is often asked by other classmates if he is wearing girl clothes, but his parents often fear that as he grows older that the harassement may worsen. Noah, being someone outside the normal gender indentity, also runs the risk of being murdered or committing suicide at some point in his life.

An Argument or point I found to be most convincing was when the film visited a number of other countries that were not Western European societies. What they found was that while intersex and transgender individuals still have challenges and problems in their life, they are not demonized by society and in fact are glorified and respected in many areas of the world. I will admit my own iggnorance and state that I felt that intersex or transgender individuals were demonized almost everywhere in the world. I am happy to report that this is not completely the case.

An argument or point I would take issue with was this that this film does very little to address why western society has the anamosity it does towards transgenders or intersex individuals? I would have liked to see a bit more on the history we have hear, any policies or legislaton that has been put forth, and what we as individiauls can do to break down the social barriers.

The story that stuck with me the most after viewing the film was Noah's.  In Emily Manuel's "Why does the media show transgender children more sympathetically?" she notes that the media, as well as individuals look at transgender children sympathetically, and that they can't help who they are. She continues by stating that people like to call this type of behavior a phase, and that the child will just grow out of it. They feel like it is their job to protect children from being something not normal. When I look at it, it sounds like adults are really saying, "We have to find a way to help you...before you grow up and we hate you!"https://lms.wsu.edu/section/content/default.asp?WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1E37BB054E3C46C2A62E056B3753C45D


Or to put it another way...