Week 9--reimagining disability

To be a woman, is to be disabled? And to be a disabled woman, is doubly disabling?

So, I guess, I struggled with these "feminist disabilty politics. I am a diehard feminist and will be forever, however, I struggle with feminist ideas that seem to neglect a discourse of trust. If a woman has to get a mastectomy, does that mean automatically that if she wants reconstructive surgery to re form her chest, she is conforming to a pressure to look a certain way for the "male gaze"? Althoguh it seems important to me to always question why someone wants to do something for themselves that involves drastic change, why do we push so hard on the women who have made certain choices for themselves? Also, isn't passing up on reconstructive surgery a choice as well?

Disabilty politics/feminism is also even more complicated as we look at disabilities that are visible vs. invisable. There are many people that are not recognized as disabled. That just goes to show you how dependent we are on what we rely on our eyes for.

So, do we change society to fit our needs, or do we change ourselves to fit society's needs? So, of course I think society needs to do much more work on finding that passion to become les obsessed with the "norm" and do things that cater to communities that have been subjugated as a result of their impediments. However, I take issue I suppose with trying to cancel the problem, it almost does seem like a eugenics movement to develope implants for the hearing impaired. Maybe it should be up to the hearing impaired community, or maybe it's good that we have ear implants, but a people should be able to choose for themselves as to whether or not they are interested in that sort of change.

Lastly, the selfish thing.

I apologize for not having posted earlier, especially on this one, but it's been a really rough time for me.

So, having a child is selfish. (and honestly, it's not that I'm against having a baby, well....i will never birth a child, however, on a very basic level...i guess....i feel this way)

1) there are so many children that need homes, and we are so concerned with having children that (look like us, have our manerisms, and are extensions with ourselves) that we forget about how privileged we are to even be thinking about having a child

2) When we are deciding to have a baby, (well this may be a confidence thing as opposed to a selfish thing)..however, we are seeing ourselves as fit to be parents (and yes....i am sure that we are fit to be parents...well....maybe not now, or maybe yes!) But, the idea is that we are selfish enough to want a child so badly, we may have a higher sense of ourselves

3) Why do we have babies? So we can have a legacy? So we can raise a child to be just like us? So we can have the experience of raising a child? Doesn't it seem like these are all reasons that have to do with us, more than they do, the actual baby?

..........................

Class summary : Novemer 8, 2007

- Lakshmi Discussion: emphasis on flesh and muscle, vs. bones and scientific structural anatomy (which is more powerful)

- Demonizing of the Norm? Is the norm wrong for trying to keep us a certain way? (Is it us, our culture, our parents, our doctors?)--is Lakshmi's surgery imposing western values?

- Importance of cultural contexts:

-biological anomaly

- important to be aware of normative presumptions

Tamarinda:
"To be a woman is to be disabled in our normalizing culture. Is this society's attempt to 'disable women'? Or, are women being promoted by this idea?"

(I really loved when you said this in class)

-Why is there something wrong with having and living with our disabilities?

-When are categories useful? When are they dangerous?

- Society's mold = dangerous, we must steer clear of our own notions and others' notions of normalized individuals.

-We are obsessed in society with this culture of "mistake, error, abnormality, and fix it"

- Are we ever really acknowledging our differences and/or our privileges?

- Temporary vs. Perpetual Disability

- Visible vs. Invisible disabilty

- Can we function in scoiety if we tailored our environments to cater to everyone?

2)

Garland-Thompson seemed to be introducing disability studies as a field that introduces knew ways of thinking the body, and specifically the recent development of an ability/mandate to change the body we were given to satisfy the "normalcy" requirements of whichever society we happen to be born into.  She seemed to make much of the notion of societal expectations as arbirtrary standards, or if not arbitrary certainly not the only way or the "natural" way.  In class, we jumped right on her band-wagon.  There were allusions to the nefarious medical community, which unthinkingly pushes for "normalizing" surgery on disabled or deformed patients.  I understand the worries of those who felt this was wrong becuase doctors assume that the disabled person cannot live a life that is rich and happy as the "abled" person.  I agree that the exceptional examples of poets, runway, playboy models even, that we encountered were inspiring, but I guess I'm not sure I see what is so terrible about favoring normalizing surgeries when the disabled do now typically have a more difficult situation than those who are not.  To say nothing of legitimate health issues, having some visible deformity and attracting The Stare is not the same thing as being a woman and attracting The Gaze.  The Gaze contains cultural attitudes and dangers that must be addressed and done away with.  People stare at things that are different.  Sometimes gawk.  Sometimes it's very impolite, but the unusual does attract attention.  This does not mean unusual has to be good or bad, but I think this is something undeniable that should give pause to those make blanket statements about the unfortunate situation of the disabled being culturally constructed. 

As someone who has traveled to many countries studying their cultures, I am pleased that you have raised the issue of cultural relativism.  It is critical for all of us to recognize that we perceive and judge according to our own background.  In addition to the examples you provided, I can attest to the fact that people with seizures often take on the role of a revered shamman, particularly in Latin American countries where the seizure activity is viewed as a trancelike state in which the person has extraordinary powers.

   Barbara  '57

After today's class and our conversations on disability and surgery, I found it ironic yet fitting when my friend showed me the link to a particular article this afternoon. It is an article about a 2 year old girl who is undergoing surgery to remove 4 of her 8 limbs. I will attach the link below.

But this article really got me thinking about our conversation in class today and I was struck by how our conversation about disabilities was completely contained within the western context. Not once did we stop to consider that what western cultures consider a "disability", another culture could consider a blessing. Little two year old Lakshmi is a perfect example. Lakshmi, aptly named after the hindu godess of prosperity, is being worshiped as a godess in her hometown. Yes, she is an oddity, but it is a positive oddity rather than a negative. Similarly, if I am not mistaken, in China being born with a sixth digit (6th finger or toe) is considered a sign of good luck and fortune.
Not all "disabilities" are taken negatively. We need to remember that what one culture consideres a disability, another culture may consider a blessing. We should be aware that our conversations about Feminist Disability Studies may certainly fit into the western context but may not apply to other cultural traditions. 
 
On top of it all, I cannot help but wonder whether the parent's decision to have their child undergo surgery has more to do with their desire for their daughter to live a "normal" life or the desire of enthusiastic doctors eager for experimental and scientifically renowned surgery. Who, if anybody, pushed the decision to 'normalize' Lakshmi?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21652326/