I found Michelle's last chapter really interesting in relation to our conversation about institutions on Tuesday. On page 189, she describes the relationship Whitney-Palm has with the local government, saying, "...the company donated $765,000 last year to politicians...Whitney-Palm must give money to their campaigns so the politicians won't do anything that would be bad for companies that run nursing homes and IMDs" (Nussbaum 189). I thought that these last few pages were really interesting because it makes you think about all the institutions that must be paying off the government so that those problems aren't even talked about. 

I would like to discuss the passage about halfway down on page 102 where Joanne reflects on her experience with police at protests. This passage really interested me because I think it really connects to current events that have happened in the past year, especially surrounding police brutality in the US and at various protests. It was interesting to hear how police brutality affects many demographics of people including "crips." I also found this passage to be very interesting because of how she describes her friendship with Zora. She and Zora have very different perspectives on the importance of protesting and being an advocate in these protests. Because of their difference in opinion, they fall out of touch which is really sad, but also very relatable.

One passage I found really interesting was at the end of one of Yessenia's chapters. Cheri asks Yessenia, "Does she [Joanne] think we're crips?" and Yessenia replies, "Yeah, probably. I hope so."

I thought this was a really interesting quote, especially after Joanne's chapter where we hear her reasoning about why she prefers the term "crip" to "disabled" or "handicapped". I wonder what Yessenia means here – is her reasoning the same as Joanne's? Do they prefer the word for the same reason? Or is it just that Joanne acknowledges the importance of their crippled/disabled identity? Does it have to do with being in community with Joanne, or with each other? Those were just a few questions I thought of, but I think it would be an interesting quote to discuss more. 

Something I would like to really focus on in class is the way people perceive the ILCC institutions. I would like to compare the way each character percieves these places. We have seen how many of the patients hate the limits on their freedom and the specific reasons for their distaste. We have seen concern for the conditions of the facilities through adults like Joanne and Jimmie. We have even seen ideas from Michelle where she believes that the facilities are helpful. All of these characters have such different ideas over what these places represent. I think it would be really interesting to break down the beliefs of these characters. 

Were there physically disabled feminists in the 1800s who were pushing back against the assumption that it was lack of physical education that led to disabilities? As eugenics and the idea that physical weakness was an inborn unalterable characteristic took hold in the early 20th century, how did the push for physical education for women survive?

Before Jess' talk (and the audience questions that followed!), I hadn't really considered the way that ideas about physical education could be used to justify the roles that women were placed into during this time. Jess talked about how, for a long time, physical education wasn't marketed to women at all, but I found her discussion of the shift from the outright exclusion of women to the use of exercise to uphold societal structures to be so interesting. For example, white women were seen to have been "lacking the strength" to be educated to the same degree as men, and women were outright told that the best form of physical education for them was housework, keeping them squarely in a domestic role.

I never thought about the importance of physical education to the feminist movement before listening to Jess Libow's talk. It is fascinating that such a thing was just never promoted to women as much as it was during this 19th century movement, and the idea that physical education could be liberating for women feels so empowering. After listening to her talk, it honestly made me want to go work out, because I've never associated the female body with ideas like being able to train and control my own body with exercise. It was also really interesting to learn about the differences in the perception of white women's bodies vs indigenous women's bodies. It's awful that these racist ideas permeate through even something like physical education. 

One part of this talk that really struck me was the association of native bodies with slow decay, and how that connects to the larger idea of illness as a metaphor. I also didn't know a lot about the roots of physical education in America before this, and what I learned was really interesting. One question I had was how physical education has changed since around the time period Jess covered to now. How does Haverford show those changes, or how does it not? Should we have an atheltic requirment at all? Have other schools gotten rid of them?

The Student Body Is Deaf and Diverse. The School's Leadership Is Neither.

NYTimes, Oct. 26, 2021

I want to learn more about the linguistics and culture of ASL and how it is considered a language just as any other languages are. I never knew that ASL was classified as a language in the way that English and Spanish might be, and I also really had no idea how integrated ASL is with every part of your body. I would love to learn about the visual expressions in ASL and the linguistic identity of the language.