Murderball

What is the main thesis of this film?

The way society divides people as able and disabled is fundamentally flawed. Simply being in a wheel chair doesn’t automatically make someone less abled then someone else, especially when it comes to achieving in athletics (which is typically insinuated that someone disabled cannot succeed in doing so). Indeed, there are many different levels of disability, yet we lump anyone outside of the societally defined ‘able group’ as disabled. Some people may not be able to use their legs, but being disabled in one area does not mean you’re disabled in all areas.

What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?

Murderball is a sport that is A) Very physically challenging and B) Not something which anyone can do. It would be unrealistic, especially after watching the movie, to think that I could simply jump into a wheelchair and make the US team, even though I’m in the ‘abled’ category in society. The sport murderball in of itself proves that physical ability is not limited to being able to walk; there are many areas in which someone can excel physically. For that matter, having a physical limitation of any kind does not necessarily mean that the person is unable to excel physically. Just like the Gallaudet basketball team (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/13/133715765/deaf-teams-standout-season-draws-cheers), the players on team USA’s athletic achievements are inspiring, not because of their limitations, but because of their terrific ability.

Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?

The movie made a point to note that a physical disability is more challenging mentally then it is physically on an individual. What was once normal in a person’s life is now completely turned on its head. The person recovering from the motorcycle accident will never be able to enjoy his life love of motorcycle racing again, and I imagine this was more difficult for him to accept then having to resort to using wheel chair accessible ramps (a physical limitation). Upon gaining the label of ‘disabled’ you now have all the negative connotations that come packaged with it. You are no longer seen as someone that is fully capable, people will feel sorry for you, and in a way, you’re seen as less of a person. I especially enjoyed the story one of the players shared, where he recounted how someone confused his sport with the “Special Olympics”. While this confusion may have been a harmless accident, it does tell us that people tend to associate physical and mental limitations into big category of “not us, them”, while completely disregarding the reality that there are significant differences.

Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

I understand that most people come to terms with their disability, and begin to stop daydreaming about being able to walk again. But I would find it unlikely, as the movie insinuates, that they really don’t care about being able to walk. If not the physical aspect of walking, I would at least imagine they would want to walk simply to fit in with society again. Shedding a master status of ‘disabled’ would probably be something that most of us would see as desirable, if only it allowed people to recognize the more diverse parts of you instead of them focusing in on one obvious aspect.

This is not to say that I believe walking again is something they consume their lives with. One of the main points of the film was to portray the athletes as real people, sans the typical ‘good behaved’ wheelchair stereotype. In the article “The good cripple” http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-transcontinental-disability-choir-disability-archetypes-the-good-cripple, they note that in most media cripples are portrayed as happy go lucky people that ‘just want to walk again’. So while I think that most probably would prefer to walk again, if only to better fit in with society, I don’t buy into the stereotype that walking again is something that is constantly on their mind, like we see portrayed in films/TV.

Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

I would love to see how people in the abled category of society are able to compete in murderball. I imagine some people watching this film would think they would be at an advantage being ‘abled’, but in my opinion that would not be the case. They have much stronger upper body strength, and have a lot more experience maneuvering around on the chairs. In my study I would take physically ‘abled’ and ‘disabled’ athletes and test to see how they perform on various physical skills. Speed, endurance, and power would be tested. On a sociological viewpoint, I would see how audiences react to people playing murderball by telling one group the players are disabled, and telling the other group the players are simply playing in chairs by choice (and not actually disabled). The way the audience rates each players performance, compared to the skills testing we did earlier, would tell me how much the label ‘disabled’ affects a person’s ability to judge athletic performance

FAT

The word ‘fat’ may feel, to many people, to be a harmless and appropriate word to use for describing someone who is overweight. For many of us that are overweight, being called fat is: #1 Obvious, I know I’m overweight, I don’t need you to remind me, and #2 is often associated with memories of being bullied or derided, something we’d rather not think about. Now, I’m not suggesting you try to replace this word with something more politically correct, such as ‘big boned’ or a scientifically appropriate, like the word ‘obese’. What word am I asking you to use then? How about you don’t use any word at all? Why does my body size have to define who I am? The use of fat, and it’s derivatives ‘fatty’ or ‘fatty fat fat’ (An expression that really drives home the point for the overweight person, as if saying it the first two times wasn’t enough), are dehumanizing to someone who doesn’t fit societies ideal body type.

The ideal body type is socially constructed and has changed throughout human history, which in turn has changed what size someone would be considered fat. Typically the person most likely to use the label fat, is someone that is included in the ‘thin’ segment of society, while those of us labeled fat are everyone outside of societies current standards of thinness. These labels have changed significantly through the years, and from culture to culture. Let us consider the renaissance, a point in history where being ‘voluptuous’ (a ‘fullness of beauty’) typically was associated with a women whose body size would today be considered largely overweight. At this time period these women’s figures ‘were considered the height of sexiness’. As an example, let us look at this painting by renaissance painter Peter Paul Rubens:

Venus at the mirror by Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640)

Venus, it is worth noting, was the Roman goddess of beauty, love, and fertility. Rubens idealized Venus as a much larger woman then would be considered the ideal body size of today. This is not to say that being overweight was not stigmatized during this time period, or any time period in human history, as stigmatization of being ‘fat’ is certainly something that has permeated nearly all cultures throughout history. However, by understanding that what is defined by society to be fat has changed dramatically, we gain perspective on what is really a relative system of labeling. If a women in 1600 could be considered the epitome of beauty, then what does it tell us about society today that this same women would be stigmatized as fat? What does this tell us about what is naturally the ideal standard other than, perhaps, there is no real ideal standard by which to judge. So by labeling someone fat, what you’re really doing is accepting and reaffirming society’s current definition of size, even though there is no empirical basis for doing so.

The word fat originates from the old English word ‘fǣtan’,which means to cram, load, or adorn. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fat). Expressions using the word fat include, ‘to live off the fat of the land’ (in this case fat refers to the best or richest part), as well as ‘a fat chance’ which is counterintuitive to an extent, since in this case ‘fat’ corresponds with ‘little’. Perhaps ‘a fat chance’ and a ‘fat lot’, both of which associate fat with little, are examples of how society has construed fat to be something less worthy than the alternative, otherwise why would an expression be so obviously counterintuitive? Being called fat also brings with it many negative connotations. Someone fat is regarded as “morally reprehensible” and a social disgrace” (Cahnman, 1968). People that are fat are seen to easily succumb to temptation, are hedonistic pleasure seekers, eat to excess, and deserve the stigma since they are alone are responsible for their size (Goode, 1996Unlike a lot of forms of stigma, being fat is seen as a personal choice, and therefore deserves all the negative connotations. Misguided as it may seem, some people think that deriding someone by pointing out their fatness, will actually get that person to lose weight. This makes it nearly impossible to prevent people in society from calling someone fat; after all, a lot of people believe the word is helpful precisely because of its negative connotations. But fat shamming doesn’t work, “shame is not a catalyst for change; it is a paralytic. Anyone who has ever carried extreme personal shame knows this. Shame doesn’t make you stronger, nor does it help you to grow, or to be healthy, or to be sane. It keeps you in one place, very, very still.” (http://www.xojane.com/issues/whats-wrong-fat-shaming).

Today there is a fat acceptance movement. The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance was founded in 1969, and the International Size Acceptance Association was founded in 1992, however both organizations struggle with mainstream acceptance today. The blogosphere as well is home to a fast growing size acceptance movement. At first I was surprised that most of the blogs I visited about body size had the word ‘fat’ in the title, but on later consideration I realized that using the word that shames them, they can remove some of its power and negativity. None of the bloggers seem very offput by using the word fat, in fact it’s typically one of more widely used words to describe a large body size. This is an example of ‘reappropriation’, where members of the stigmatized group take a word that is used to deride them, and use the term themselves in a more acceptable way. On ‘bigfatblog.com’ in a post called “The whacked narcissism of self-hatred”( http://www.xojane.com/issues/whats-wrong-fat-shaming) DeeLeigh argues that we all need to love our bodies. Society may not change the way it views overweight people, but overweight people don’t have to accept the negative connotations that comes with the word fat, they can embrace their body size and love it for what it is. If you accept your body size, and disassociate yourself with societies definition of what is acceptable, then being called ‘fat’ loses a lot of its shamming power. This is not to say that the bloggers would consider it socially acceptable to call someone fat, especially someone you don’t know. While they use the word with ease in their blog posts, context is everything. If you use the word in the context of it being a character flaw (You’re fat! Stop being lazy!), then it will almost certainly be interpreted as offensive. Calling someone fat is socially acceptable if you’re fat yourself (unless you’re just pointing out that they’re larger than you), but I wasn’t able to completely distinguish how the bloggers felt the word should be used by out-group members. If you’re able to maintain someone’s dignity and self-respect, by using fat in a non-persecutory context, then I imagine it would be considered acceptable by even out group members. Ironically enough calling someone thin when they’re obviously overweight is also unacceptable, on the blog Corpulent (http://corpulent.wordpress.com/), in the blog post “The corpulent declaration” the author went so far as to exclaim to people, I may not be as fat as some people, but don’t tell me I’m not.

It’s important that we take great care when using any word which has deep negative connotations associated with it. Fat seems to many people to be an innocent word, but in certain contexts using the word fat can be interpreted as an insult. Even though there has been a fat acceptance movement, and even though most bloggers freely use the word, do not believe that it’s now acceptable for all of us to call the next overweight person your run into fat. The LGBT community has reappropriated many negative words, including ‘fag’, but none of us would be silly enough to use the word without first considering the context in which it is used, who it is directed towards, and if you’re someone that should be saying it or

Cahnman, Werner J. 1968. The stigma of obesity. The sociological Quarterly, 9 (summer), 283-299.

Goode, Erich. 1996. The stigma of Obesity. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 332-340.

Film Review

What is the main thesis of this film?

The video "Reteaching Gender and Sexuality" tries to drive home the point that all of us must rethink sexuality. I believe the film attempted to emphasis this point as well. Throughout the world there is a significant amount of gender diversity, and unfortunately, there is an equal amount of diversity concerning how cultures define what gender is. Not only does a male/female definition of gender fail to represent a significant amount of people around the world, it also creates serious problems with people who don't fit into one category of the other. In order to understand someone with 'gender identity disorder' we must rethink what sexuality is, and in so doing we may grow to appreciate the colorful and vibrant diversity all around us.

What were the main arguments in support of this thesis?

The video gave us many evidences of why we must rethink sexuality, both anecdotal and generalizing. Over 50% of boys who grow up transgendered either end up killing themselves or are killed by someone else in America. This sheds light on how accepting and unwilling most Americas are with redefining gender. However, the video also points out that there is nothing inherent in gender that makes a male/female binary definition superior, or the most 'natural'. Cultures throughout the world, from India to Thailand, expand the definition of gender which is more inclusive to the general populace. In the video "Looking Back, Pushing Forward" Dr. Zuker treats kids in order to make them more accepting of their gender. But I think he misunderstands the situation, it's not about the kid becoming more accepting, it's about that particular culture which needs to be more accepting.

Later in the film they show us that a gender binary isn't even the only way to look at gender in the animal kingdom. All this points to the fact that traditional definitions of gender are in serious need of being critically looked at and rethought.

Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?

I thought the example of how Indian young men that dance with other men to be very interesting. It showed me that people who may define themselves as one gender or sexuality, may not necessarily be 100% one way or 100% the other. As Alfred Kinsey argued, sexuality is not black and white, there are gradients and degrees of sexuality. It also sheds light on the fact that we're all sexual beings, and being denied sexual stimulus from one gender, does not mean that sexual experiences with the other gender is impossible, even if you consider yourself 'hetero'.

Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

I didn't think that study with the homophobic men was very convincing. I certainly believe that it is likely homophobic men may have homosexual tendencies, but I would like to know more about how the study was conducted, what questions were asked, and if they took into account extraneous variables that may have effected the results (for example, penis size would greatly effect the outcome).

Choose one argument, point or question that most stands out for you from the film. How would you study this point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

I would like to study the idea of how sexuality and gender is not as black and white as many western cultures seem to think it is. To study this idea I would test people to see what gender they consider intersex people are. Are their answers different when looking at the same person when they intersexed individual identified as male or female? I would also give people the option of choosing outside of a binary definition of gender, in order to gauge how welcoming people are to the idea of wide spectrum of gender identities.

Itlmedia. 2009. “Looking Back, Pushing Forward.” YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0__63nNP1g&feature=player_embedded)

Putthisonthemap. 2010. “Reteaching Gender and Sexuality.” YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51kQQuVpKxQ&feature=player_embedded)

My hidden deviance

I am deviant; in fact I am part of the least trusted group in American society. Unlike most deviant subgroups, my deviance is easily hidden, partially by own doing (by not talking about my deviance with most people), and partially because my deviance is attitudinal, and not behavioral. What I mean to say is, my deviance has to do with something I believe, and has very little effect on how I act, what I wear, or anything else that would easily distinguish myself as an outsider. We can blend in with society covertly, and depending on how strong our connection is with this deviant group, we can sometimes maintain relationships for years without someone knowing. Have you guessed what it is yet? I’m an atheist.

Why are atheists considered deviant? We’re going to look at two theories that may help shed light on why atheists are not just a deviant group in American society, but why we are one of the most maligned and mistrusted of all subgroups. According to a poll conducted by University of Minnesota researchers in 2006, 47% of respondents said they would disapprove of their children marrying an atheist (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.Ty9NlsXwuHg) which was 14% higher than any other ‘religious preference’ group. Conflict theory, which was made famous by Karl Marx, is one such theory that may shed light on why atheists are considered deviant. According to conflict theory, what is considered deviant is decided upon by the dominant societal class. Deviant behavior is “is relative to the behavior and patterns of the class that formulates and applies definitions.” (Quinney, 1975), which means ‘normal behavior’ is typically behavior which the dominant class is more inclined to do. In terms of religion, you cannot be much more of an outsider then if you denounce the institution as a whole. While religious acceptance has certainly been increasingly progressive, seven US states still require their officials to take a religious test that would all but disqualify an atheist, and some states even require jury members to be religious (although this is largely outdated and not enforced)(West, 2006). Until 2009, not a single member of US congress in our entire history had come out as nonreligious (Peter Stark, D-California was the first). It is unsurprising, not because there had been no atheists elected to congress (there undoubtedly have been a number of them) but because coming out is essentially political suicide in America. Conflict theorists would point my previous examples as reason to believe that the dominant class in society (which consists of religious people) are able to manipulate laws, and definitions, in such a way as to force the nonreligious subgroup to either change our behavior (which is typically as simple as never saying anything to the effect that would out one self) or suffer the consequences of being labeled deviant.

The second theory we’re going to look at is labeling theory. Labeling theory is very relevant to atheism because it points out that deviance exists only when society notices, and then labels the behavior as deviant. Unlike most types of deviance, atheists and other nonreligious people can coexist within society without shedding light on their deviance. This is one reason why atheists are typically not discriminated against with the same frequency that other deviant groups are, it is after all, not easy to tell us apart from our religious counterparts. Furthermore, being atheist typically results in behaviors that exclude us from social settings(like not going to church), rather than inclusion in social settings that would shed light on our deviance (which most other deviant groups partake of). In labeling theory, deviance is a transaction between the rule-breaker and the social group (Becker, 1963). But when the social group is unaware, then the behavior cannot be labeled deviant. Which is highly convenient; I can easily hide my deviance from most social settings, thereby avoiding the label when I feel it would produce negative consequences. However, there are times when I unknowingly out myself, which can then lead me to being cut off from participation in some social groups, “even though the specific consequences of the particular deviant activity might never of themselves have caused the isolation had there not also been the public knowledge and reaction to it” (Becker, 1963). While I personally have not experienced anything other than minor inconveniences, I have friends who have been kicked out of their homes for outing themselves as atheist, despite the fact their behavior before coming out was consistent with them being an atheist the entire time (which drives home the main point of labeling theory: the behavior need not be inherently or obviously deviant, it only must be labeled as such).

When I considered what deviant behavior I should do, I came to one logical and obvious conclusion: I’ll let people know I’m deviant. I figured something as simple as wearing a T-Shirt that said, “I’m an atheist” would suffice. In the past I’ve worn my Darwin T-Shirt, and haven’t experienced anything too hostile, but that is probably too main-stream, especially on a college campus. For this study, I decided I would walk around the mall for an hour in a t-shirt that labeled me as an atheist. Getting up the courage to come clean about my deviance to a lot of people I don’t know was not very easy. After all, I was self-conscious about the Darwin T-shirt, this one was more direct and less ambiguous. The first thing I noticed about being outwardly deviant is that I started to analyze and question why people were looking at me. The odd thing about this is that people probably look at me all the time, but I’ve never really paid much attention to it before. It’s different when you know that there is something inherently flawed about yourself (at least in the eyes of the people judging you), and this led me to be overly critical of even slight glances. Is that a look of condemnation? Are they labeling me deviant the moment they read my T-Shirt? Or perhaps their eyes are just wandering like they do in everyday life, but only now am I’m conscientiously noticing it. I was surprised at myself with the level of embarrassment I displayed, because usually I’m very comfortable with my lack of belief (atheism). It was as if I wanted to tell each person that looked at me queerly, “I’m sorry you think I’m different, but I’m not!” I think for deviant groups that are unable to hide their identity, disparaging looks are eventually relegated back into the subconscious, and I would guess that the more I displayed my deviance, the more confident I would become. As it was, I was relieved that nothing too exciting happened. Other than looks of disapproval from a few select people, I didn’t feel entirely unwelcome during my hour stay. I’m positive that at some social settings this outcome would be unlikely (like going to church with the same t-shirt), but I’m not exactly rushing to up the ante.

When you can avoid being deviant I think most people would choose avoidance over the alternative. As Merton said in his writings on strain theory, society exerts a pressure upon people to engage in conforming conduct (Merton 1957), and for most of us that regulates how we behave. In my case, taking the path of least resistance is typically the choice I tend to make. There is little reason to wear my deviance on my sleeve if it means I will face unnecessary social conflict, and therefore I typically choose not to engage in behavior that would ‘out’ myself with most of my casual acquaintances. However, I believe that people should be true to themselves, and proud of what they do or do not believe. After all, choosing to be an atheist was not a decision I came to lightly. It was a decision I was proud I was able to make, since it required myself to take the more difficult path when there was nothing forcing me to do so. If that makes me deviant, then so be it.

WC: 1,350

West, Ellis M. "Religious Tests of Office-Holding". In Finkelman, Paul. Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties. CRC Press. (2006) pp. 1314–5

Merton, Robert “Social Theory and Social Structure”. (The Free Press, 1957)

Becker, Howard S. “Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance”. (The Free Press, 1963)

Quinney, Richard, Criminology (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975), pp. 37-41