Final Project: Social Norms and Deviancy in Children's Television Shows

Note: The following is an extension of a previous blog post I wrote.

American society relies heavily on media sources to assert social norms. It is no surprise, then, that children’s shows constantly provide ideas about what is normal versus what is deviant. Gender norms in children’s programming are very common, often providing ideas about how a “girl” should act and how a “boy” should act. Social constructions regarding insanity, binge eating, and beauty ideals are moreover present in children’s television shows. These cliché images stick in children’s minds, teaching them how they should act versus how they should not act. These ideas aid in creating the never-ending cycle of deviancy and dehumanization in American society.

In May 1994, a “Rugrats” episode titled “No More Cookies” aired. The focus of the episode was Angelica’s binge-eating addiction to cookies. The show exhibits her addiction as Angelica reflects back on her life, thinking about the countless occasions on which she has devoured entire jars of cookies. In these flashbacks, Angelica is depicted as a persistent, crazed cookie eater. Back in the present-day, Angelica eats too many and it makes her sick. She remains determined, despite her illness, to eat cookies, so her cousin Tommy hides them from her.

Angelica devouring cookies in one episode of "Rugrats"
Angelica Pickles. Photograph. WeHeartIt. Web. 22 Jan. 2012 <http://data.whicdn.com/images/6350318/tumblr_leqb5vCN6Q1qzagdho1_500_thumb.jpg>.

Angelica’s cookie obsession plays on the social notion that binge eaters are manic and obsessive. Sara Lageson says in her article "Media Binge" that binge eating is often “framed as a lack of self-control that require[s] only greater personal discipline” and is not portrayed as a “real” eating disorder like anorexia or bulimia (despite its possible addition to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5) (Lageson par. 3). Angelica is lacking this self-discipline, which is presumably why Tommy feels he needs to step in and solve her binge eating by hiding the cookies; apparently if Angelica cannot stop on her own, she needs an outside force to make her stop.

Angelica’s crazed binge eating is portrayed as deviant in relation to the children around her. Neither Tommy nor the other children have issues with binge eating, so they are the norm. They are all able to control their eating habits in calm manners. On the other hand, Angelica is shown ravaging through cookies like animal. Her binge eating is shown as an out-of-control issue that calls her mental state and humanness into question. It is also interesting to note the binge eating in this instance is done by a female; U.S. social constructions around eating disorders assume that they are female, not male, issues. It is moreover socially appropriate that the outsider who attempts to help her binge eating (Tommy) is a male. American society has historically determined that men are meant to be leaders in society, including when it comes to determining mental health issues (i.e. Angelica’s binge eating) and courses of action to fix the health issue (i.e. Tommy hiding the cookies). It is impossible to say whether or not “Rugrats” writers intended to play on these social constructions. However, it is possible these constructions unconsciously played a role in their writing of the script.

All the children of"Rugrats"
Rugrats Photo. Photograph. Fanpop. Fanpop, Inc, Feb. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://www.fanpop.com/spots/rugrats/images/28819123/title/rugrats-photo>.

Tommy’s hiding the cookies is moreover portrayed in a positive light; he is seen as a loyal friend because he is not giving into her addiction. These depictions of Angelica’s binge eating and the other children’s apparent self-control around food demonstrate that over-eaters are deviant due to their personal lack of discipline. The episode furthermore reasserts social norms regarding males as leaders, females having eating disorders, and friendship loyalty.

The 2011 iCarly episode “iLost My Mind” portrays many acts and characteristics that are shown in a deviant manner. One of the main characters, Sam, checks herself into a mental hospital after she realizes she has a crush on her friend, Freddie. Cliché images of mentally-ill patients are predominant throughout the episode: One patient manically claims he is from the future. Another is shown with q-tip sticking out of his hair, while someone else speaks nonsense over and over to himself. These actions overtly feed into the archetype that mental patients are eccentric and unstable. Whitney Blair Wyckoff’s article “Despite DeeperUnderstanding of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers” explains a survey that indicates more people today understand the brain biology behind mental illness than ever before (Wyckoff par. 6-7). Stigmas surrounding these illnesses, however, remain; 62% of people in the same survey “indicated an unwillingness to work closely with someone with schizophrenia (par. 7). And 74 percent said the same for people with alcohol dependence” (par. 9). The survey’s researcher attributes these lasting stigmas to the permanence associated with mental illness, which she says makes mental illness patients seem less than human (par. 10). This survey relates to the iCarly episode because it depicts negative actions associated with the mental patients, who are perceived as deviant in relation to those in the episode who are not patients.

Freddy (left), Carly (right), and the mental patient who claims to be from the future
2011. Photograph. Nickutopia. Unrivaled Media Group, 23 July 2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.
<http://www.nickutopia.com/2011/07/23/ilost-my-mind-promo/>.

The presence of the mental institution itself in this episode reflects that asylums are the socially-acceptable place for mentally-ill people to live. Stephen Pfohl’s article “Images of Deviance” that it is common for societal deviants like schizophrenics and drug addicts to  to be subjected to the “social control” of a mental institution, separated as a precaution for the rest of society (Pfohl 13-14). The stereotypical ideas about mental patients portrayed in this iCarly episode reinforce their supposed instability and emphasize their deviancy compared to the healthy ideals of American society.

This iCarly episode also presents cliché depictions of overweight people and a cross-dresser. Gibby, one of the main characters, is slightly chubby in comparison to the other characters on the show. He is eating something nearly every time he is shown on the screen, often asking for food and getting overly excited when someone gives him food. Gibby is exhibiting the expected actions of someone who is overweight in American society by making it seem like his entire existence relies on food. By making Gibby’s master status about his weight, iCarly is demonstrating that it is okay to poke fun at overweight people. This humor dehumanizes and deviates overweight people.

Later in the same episode, Carly asks her older brother Spencer to dress up as a woman so that he can pose as Sam’s mom and get her out of the mental institution. Spencer excitedly agrees, saying “I’ll get my boots!” and running upstairs as a laugh-track plays in the background. Once he is dressed up as a woman, Spencer talks in an over-the-top manner which calls for more laugh-tracks. The humor towards Spencer’s cross-dressing exhibits a negative, teasing attitude towards all cross-dressers which makes it seem like cross-dressers should not be taken seriously. The humor exhibited towards mental patients, overweight people, and cross-dressing proves that each of these traits is deviant in American society.

Spencer dressed as a woman in this episode of "iCarly"
Spencer Dressed as Pam. 2011. Photograph. Wikia. Wikipedia, 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://icarly.wikia.com/wiki/File:Spencer_dressed_as_Pam.jpg>.

In the 2010 “Good Luck Charlie” episode titled “Boys Meet Girls”, pre-teen Gabe comes home with a black eye. When his sister Teddy goes to school to investigate his bully, she is shocked when she sees a girl has been bullying her little brother. “You’re the kid that’s been pounding my brother? But you’re a girl!” she says. Teddy’s surprise at the bully (named “Jo”) being a girl proves that American society expects girls to act in a passive, polite manner. This statement moreover shows that Teddy expected the bully to be a boy, overtly reflecting the social construction that boys are naturally aggressive. The film “Tough Guise”, however, points out that the idea that men are naturally tough is a culturally-created idea which has evolved over time in order to retain male dominance over the rest of society. As narrator Jackson Katz points out, “the media help to construct violent masculinity as a cultural norm.” Katz says that it is not considered deviant for a male to take on these traits, but a female acting masculine (such as Jo in this episode) is deviant because toughness is a trait associated with men (and specifically not women) in media. The expected violence from men explains why Teddy was surprised to see his brother’s bully was a girl, and also explains why Jo is perceived as deviant for having a tough attitude.

Jo’s deviance is proven in relation to the other women on the show. Teddy’s mom, for example, is seen doing yoga and being afraid of breaking a nail. Teddy acts nurturing towards her siblings and tries to fix the hostility between Jo and Gabe. In contrast, Jo is rude, sarcastic, and physically rough. The play between feminine and masculine traits demonstrates the emphasized femininity in American society is a woman who is polite, composed, and quiet (Williams). Jo’s aggression falls outside of this realm, making her a deviant in the episode and in society overall.

Jo beating up on Gabe in this episode of "Good Luck Charlie"
Bradley Steven Perry and G. Hannelius on Good Luck Charlie from the Episode 'Boys Meet Girls'. 2010.
Photograph. TV.com. CBS Interactive Inc., 10 Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.
<http://www.tv.com/shows/good-luck-charlie/viewer/?flag=1&i=36&gri=77559&grti=101>.

A 1996 episode of “Hey Arnold”, titled “Helga’s Makeover”, similarly brings up the topic of gender deviance. The school’s female bully Helga is purposely excluded from a make-up sleepover, which is hosted by another girl at school. Arnold asks his friend Gerald why he thinks Helga wasn’t invited. “She’s a girl? Oh, yeah,” Gerald replies plainly, as if he forgot she was a girl because she routinely acts masculine by burping and beating people up. His response indicates that he thinks Helga’s lack of femininity makes her no longer a girl, emphasizing the courteous nature that females are expected to have in American society.

Helga’s female classmates covertly define the gender norms in this show: They all enjoy make-up, sleepovers, and are mild mannered, which contrasts greatly with Helga’s spitting and burping habits. “The Male Privilege Checklist” points out that men can be aggressive without being questioned about their motives. But when a girl takes on that characteristic, she is informally sanctioned by being excluded from all-female events like sleepovers.

Helga is known for being a bully on "Hey Arnold"
Photograph. Aiming Low. 13 Oct. 2011. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.
              <http://aiminglow.com/2011/10/up-childrens-television-unibrows/>.

Helga receives informal sanctions from her male classmates, as well. Helga attempts to play baseball with a group of boys. They all mock her as soon as she approaches their game, saying “You weren’t invited [to the sleepover] ‘cause you’re not girl enough!” Soon, all the boys begin to chant “Helga’s not a girl! Helga’s not a girl!” In the article “Outsiders – Defining Deviance”, sociologist Howard Becker writes that all social groups create circumstances which include behaviors that are “right” and then forbidden behaviors that are “wrong” (Becker 1). In this television show, Helga’s classmates see her acting in the “wrong” way, which make her, in Becker’s words, an “outsider” (1-3). She is excluded from both male and female events because she does not fit fully into either of their gender norms. The legitimacy of Helga as a person is doubted overall as a result, which accounts for the bullying she receives from the boys.

A 2012 episode of the show “Jessie”, titled “The World Wide Web of Lies”, asserts gender and beauty norms. Seven-year-old Zuri stands up to a bully after she gets picked on at the park. The bully runs to his nanny, Agatha, to complain about Zuri. Agatha then gets mad at Zuri’s nanny Jessie, so she posts cruel things online about Jessie. Zuri and Jessie stand up to Agatha by making fun of her looks. For example, when Agatha says “Wait until you see my bad side”, Zuri replies: “I thought we were already looking at it.” Soon after, Zuri threatens Agatha by saying “I’m gonna knock out that snaggle tooth!” Laugh tracks are played after each of these verbal exchanges. This sheds humor and a positive light on making fun of people who do not fit into society’s beauty norms. It is significant that Agatha replies only with additional threats to post more humiliating things online about Jessie, instead of making fun of their appearances, also; after all, Jessie and Zuri fit into society’s ideal females by being thin and having clear skin and flowing hair. Agatha’s threats are perceived in a negative way, while Jessie and Zuri’s bullying is seen only as humorous, even though they are being just as cruel as Agatha. This situation personifies society’s distaste for people who do not fight into ideal beauty norms. As a result, it is far more acceptable for Zuri and Jessie to bully Agatha by making fun of her looks than it is for Agatha to bully Jessie by spreading rumors about her. This instance moreover shows the social notion that people who are “ugly” by society’s standards are often shown as less kind than people who are attractive. On the other hand, people who meet society’s “pretty” expectations are seen in a positive light, even when they are being cruel.

Zuri and Jessie (left) make fun of Agatha (center) for the way she looks
Disney Channel/Dean Hendler. 2012. Photograph. Teen.com. Alloy Media, LLC, 9 Mar. 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2012. <http://www.teen.com/2012/03/09/celebrities/jennifer-veal-jessie-exclusive-interview/>.

Gender norms are highlighted later in the episode when Zuri and her brother Luke compete against each other in a wrestling match. Even though they about the same size, Luke expects to beat her since she is a girl. A laugh-track plays when Zuri effortlessly beats her brother in the match. The ironic humor here indicates two sets of social constructions about gender. First, Luke was expected to beat his sister because American society perceives boys as naturally aggressive and tougher than females, like “Tough Guise” and “The Male Privilege Checklist” point out. Second, it is anticipated that Zuri has no chance to beat her brother, even though they are the same size, because she is a girl and American society assumes that females are incapable of being physically tough. The show’s writers created humor by playing on these societal expectations by creating an ironic situation which reverses gender norms.

Children’s shows repeatedly present humorous, cliché, and ironic situations which highlight social norms and, as a result, deviancy. By presenting social constructions about gender, insanity, binge eating, and beauty, these shows reassert expectations about how to act and how not to act. The plotlines in children’s shows help establish the dehumanization of people who are deviant in society’s eyes. 

Word Count: 2325

Works Cited

• Becker, Howard. "Outsiders - Defining Deviance." Angel. Washington Sate University. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.
• Lageson, Sarah. "Media Binge." Contexts. American Sociological Association, 22 Nov. 2010. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.
• Pfohl, Stephen. "Defining Deviance." Readings in Deviant Behavior. By Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2010. Print.
• "The Male Privilege Checklist." Web log post. Amptoons. WordPress. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.
• "Proposed Revision -- Binge Eating Disorder." DSM-5 Development. American Psychiatric Association, 17 Apr. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012.
• Tough Guise. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Jackson Katz. Media Education Foundation, 1999. DVD.
• Williams, Meredith. Sociology 360. Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver. 19 Jan. 2012. Lecture.
• Wyckoff, Whitney Blair. "Despite Deeper Understanding Of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers."NPR. NPR, 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 4 Mar. 2012. <http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/09/17/129937437/still-a-stigma-for-mental-illness>.

Film Review: "Live Nude Girls Unite!"

The main purpose of the film Live Nude Girls Unite! is to show that sex work is a legitimate line of work despite its stigmatization in American society. The film effectively proves its thesis by showing the unionization efforts of women at The Lusty Lady peep show in San Francisco, California. Overall, the movie serves to humanize women who are usually looked down upon for working in the sex industry.

One convincing way that Live Nude Girls Unite! humanizes sex workers is by showing that The Lusty Lady strippers face difficulties with management like other lines of work face. Prior to unionization, management at The Lusty Lady actually appears to be harsher than supervisors in other lines of work. At the time, the girls were knocked down several dollars in pay if they were a few minutes late to work or missed a meeting. They did not have any sick days, and if they had to miss a shift, it was their duty to find someone else to take work for them. The woman filling in had to have hair like theirs or lighter, breasts their size or bigger, and the same color skin. These requirements make the girls feel discriminated against if they do not have large breasts and light hair. The requirements moreover provide systemic difficulties to women of color in the industry, who have to often work when they are sick because few women have dark skin in their industry so there is no one to take their shift. The women are also pressured to meet quotas, or else they may be fired. The anxieties that women at the Lusty Lady go through with management aim to humanize the stigmatized strippers by showing they have emotions and rights like anyone else. Revealing these issues additionally shows that stripping shares similarities to other lines of work, because having issues with management is common in many modes of work.

The management difficulties that the women went through caused them to fight for unionization to secure their rights at work. This dispute was another strong argument to show that sex work is a legitimate line of work that deserves a personal face like any other. The women felt compelled to fight for racial equality, sick pay, health insurance, contracts for wages, and to protect them from being fired unjustly because of the harsh climate at The Lusty Lady. The unionization process proved to be lengthy and exhaustive for the women, who spent several hours each week (outside of their normal work day) to work on various union contracts. They worked for over six months to write a fair contract that both the strippers and the club’s management would agree to. This process resulted in a week-long strike between the strippers and the management, because it was difficult for the parties to each feel satisfied with the proposed contracts; the management felt the proposed contracts were too protective for the dancers, while the women feared the contracts were not protective enough. The strippers’ unionization process was effective in showing a human side to the women and showing similarities to other jobs, because it is common for employees to feel they have to fight for their rights.

The strippers’ fight for unionization reminded me of TristanTaormino’s work in feminist porn. Taormino creates porn that aims to empower women and men in the industry. She establishes ethical, consensual working conditions for all actors, where workers set their own pay and activities (Taormino par. 10). I find similarities between this work and the strippers’ unionization because the strippers in the film were also aiming to improve their working conditions, ethics, and pay. Taormino aspires to empower viewers and actors in the porn industry, which is what the women in Live Nude Girls Unite! likewise did through writing their union contract.

The film moreover reminded me of blogger Margo DeMello’s article “Humanizing Sex Workers?”  In the article, DeMello writes about an ad campaign called “Stepping Stone” in Canada, which advocates for the humanization of prostitutes by providing advertisements that show that prostitutes are not just prostitutes; they are mothers, daughters, brothers, and sons, too  (DeMello par. 2). DeMello explains that dehumanizing sex workers is dangerous, as well. Their stigmatization in Canada results in a “mortality rate 40 times higher than the Canadian national average” (par. 3). Furthermore, it is not uncommon for prostitutes’ murders to go unsolved because of the societal expectation that their work will lead to “grisly deaths” and being “buried like trash” (par. 4). DeMello’s article exposes the fatal dangers of dehumanizing sex workers, which moreover shows why it was so vital that the Lusty Lady workers fought for unionization. Their union contracts hopefully made them seem more like individuals instead of just sexual beings without a brain or rights. This should help them in not being exploited in the future, like many sex workers typically are.

There were no arguments or points of the film that felt unconvincing towards the overall argument about humanizing sex work. I felt that the women in Live Nude Girls Unite! adequately showed that they are people outside of their job at the club, despite the stigmatization of their work.

 Live Nude Girls Unite! made me think about similarities between sex workers and other “mainstream” workers. I could plan a research project around this point by comparing and contrasting how sex workers and mainstream workers view themselves as employees. I would split interviewees into two categories: sex workers (strippers and porn stars who are stigmatized in society) and mainstream workers (retail, teachers, waiters, etcetera who are accepted as legitimate jobs in society). I would interview two equal-sized groups of each category and ask them questions about how they see themselves as people and employees. This would show if there is any relationship between how a sex worker views him/herself and their job versus how a mainstream worker perceives him/herself and their job.

The movie Live Nude Girls Unite! is highly relatable to a sociological deviance course. Like most other deviant acts, sex work is incredibly stigmatized in American society. People often believe that dancers work with their bodies and sexuality instead of with their brain. This idea dehumanizes strippers and may explain why management at The Lusty Lady treated their workers so poorly. The negative social constructions and master statuses surrounding sex workers show that society dislikes an open showing of women’s sexuality and prefers work that involves mental strain instead of physical.

Works Cited

DeMello, Margo. "Humanizing Sex Workers?" The Society Pages. W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2012.

Live Nude Girls Unite! Dir. Vicky Funari and Julia Query. YouTube. YouTube LLC, 10 Oct. 2010. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Taormino, Tristan. "What Is Feminist Porn?" Pucker Up. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2012.

Blog Post Four: Diagnosis

Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD) is a medical term for a disorder which causes people to be hyperactive, impulsive, and inattentive (ADHD Support). Medical institutions have generally had the greatest impact on the study, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD. ADHD symptoms have historically referred to inattentiveness and hyperactivity in children (“History of ADHD”). Peter Conrad and Deborah Potter’s article “The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal” points out, however, that ADHD began to be more commonly diagnosed in adults in the 1990s. They believe social factors caused this change in adult diagnoses, including the rise in behavioral medications, genetics, and an increase in psychiatric therapy (Conrad and Potter 142-143).

Hippocrates noted ADHD-like symptoms as early as 350 B.C. (“History of ADHD”). Sir Alexander Crichton gave out a diagnosis called “The Fidgets” in the late 1800s for patients who were incapable of concentrating on tasks (“History of ADHD”). Sir Andrew Still is regarded in the medical community for his studies on ADHD in the early 1900s and for providing this information to the British medical community (ADHD Support). He noted that children who lacked “moral control” had cognitive issues that prohibited them from concentrating (ADHD Support). Dr. Still did not, however, give these symptoms a formal name.

It was not until the 1920s that ADHD received its first scientific name: “Post-Encephalitic Behavior Disorder” (“History of ADHD”). In the 1930s, stimulant prescriptions became the treatment for restless children and adults, which have calming effects on hyperactivity (“History of ADHD”). Ritalin was quickly approved by the FDA in 1956 as a prescriptive treatment for ADHD, which became increasingly popular as a treatment over the next several decades (“History of ADHD”). ADHD was formally added to the The Diagnostic Manual for Psychiatric Disorders (“DSM”) in 1980, called Attention Deficit Disorder then (“History of ADHD”). It was in 1994 that ADD was changed to its current name of ADHD, and created three subgroups of the disorder: hyperactive/impulsive, inattentive, or both hyperactive and inattentive (Kearl). These subgroups may go away completely in the 2013 DSM, because people with ADHD can exhibit different subgroups over time instead of sticking purely to their diagnosed one (Kearl).

ADHD is fairly controversial, with some people doubting its existence all together. Its diagnosis assumes societal expectations of productivity and mild temperaments. A lack of these norms, along with the presence of prolonged hyperactivity and inattentiveness, can result in an ADHD diagnosis. This is where some of the controversy with ADHD comes from; do these people really have a medical disorder, or are they merely bored? Isn’t it normal for children to day dream, have a lot of energy, and not finish what they start (ADHD Support)?  

One side of the ADHD argument insists that the diagnosis in children may merely be immaturity, which will even itself out over time. Katharine Harmon’s  article “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?” points out that two recent studies have shown that “students whose birthdays fell just before their school’s age enrollment cutoff date—and thus were among the youngest in their class—had a substantially higher rate of ADHD diagnoses” than their peers (Harmon par. 3). These younger children are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD as children older than them within their grade, but the diagnosis could simply be linked lower “emotional or intellectual immaturity” dependent on their younger age (par. 7). These studies imply that society may be too quickly to diagnosis children and give them prescriptions to help their inattentiveness, when their symptoms may actually subside as they get older.

The prescriptions given to treat ADHD are controversial, as well. The documentary Generation RX cites a 2006 Oregon State University study which examined over 2000 studies on ADHD and Ritalin. The study concluded that there was no quality research proving peoples’ lives improved by being prescribed Ritalin for their ADHD. In fact, the film suggested that Ritalin may cause more harm than help because of links to drug addiction, suicide, and additional lifetime diagnoses in patients (Generation RX).

Controversy also surrounds ADHD because of a lack of concrete tests to diagnosis the disorder. In fact, an ADHD diagnosis can potentially mask other difficulties in people, like anxiety, depression, lack of sleep, or a learning disability (“Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder”). Children diagnosed with ADHD may actually have a lack of education support at home which causes their academic inefficiencies instead of the disorder causing them; perhaps the child’s family has not emphasized the value of education, so they simply do not care to learn.

The controversy surrounding ADHD implies that mislabeling a person with ADHD could have negative effects on the rest of their life. There are, however, many people who believe ADHD is a very real disorder that should be recognized in order to help people who have it. Emily Willingham, a parent of a child with ADHD and academic with a P.h.D in Biology, wrote the article “ADHD: Backlash to the Backlash” to counteract doubts about ADHD. Willingham insists that hyperactivity-controlling medications can prevent the symptoms that cause other children to stigmatize and bully kids with ADHD (Willingham par. 7). Although Willingham does acknowledge studies that link suicidal thoughts with ADHD medications, she cites another study that shows these medications can actually reduce the possibility of suicide in teenagers taking ADHD prescriptions (par. 10).

Willingham moreover brings a personal ethos to the story of ADHD when she insists that ADHD is not the result of poor parenting (par. 10). She says her own experiences in teaching show that ADHD is a label which “refers to a set of behavioral excess that go beyond developmental norms” (par. 2). This implies that ADHD is caused by individual traits (such as genes) instead of poor parenting, like some people believe causes ADHD. Willingham’s extensive research in her article proves that ADHD is a complex issue that has positive reasons for being properly diagnosed:
     a). to prevent bullying and harm to children with ADHD (par. 7)
     b.) so that families can decide the proper treatment for a child’s symptoms (par. 9-13).

The symptoms of ADHD (mainly being inattentiveness and hyperactivity) rest on the social notions of norms and deviances, as well as expectations. People are expected to pay attention, complete assignments on time, and stay on task. Those who are able to complete meet these expectations are regarded positively because they met the social norms.  Those who cannot do these things and instead act unruly are the ones who are typically given the ADHD label. A video by The RSA claims that expectations about children’s intellectual capabilities stem from capitalistic goals that require productive and attentive workers to keep the economy moving forward. This could be where the stigmatization of ADHD symptoms comes from: people who cannot fully concentrate or complete tasks are seen as deviant and possibly harmful to society because they (supposedly) cannot contribute in the same way that non-ADHD people can.

The diagnosis of ADHD is truly a complex issue with positives and negatives for people who are diagnosed. Some people doubt its existence and believe it is a way to mask underlying issues in a child’s home, or that it could conceal undiagnosed learning disabilities. On the other hand, an ADHD diagnosis can result in medications and therapy that help people learn to concentrate, which will then help them be more successful in school and work. Whether or not this disorder does truly “exist,” its current symptoms are rooted in the societal expectations of mild temperaments and attentiveness. As long as these social norms exist, it is likely that inattentive and hyperactive children will continue to be stigmatized for their deviances.

Word Count: 1,243

Works Cited

ADHD Support. Shire US Inc. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. 

"Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." PubMed Health. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Conrad, Peter and Deborah Potter. "The Emergence of Hyperactive Adults as Abnormal." Readings in Deviant Behavior. By Alex Thio, Thomas C. Calhoun, and Addrain Conyers. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2010. Print.

Generation Rx: Reading, Writing, and Ritalin. Dir. Kevin P. Miller. A&E Networks, 2008.
Harmon, Katherine. "Are Some ADHD-labeled Kids Just Young for Their Grade?"Scientific American Blog Network. Nature America, Inc., 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2012.

"History Of ADHD." ADHD Brain. Web. 25 Mar. 2012. 

Kearl, Mary. "No More ADHD? New Changes to the Guidelines for Diagnosing Children and Adults." ADDitutde. New Hope Media LLC, 12 Feb. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Willingham, Emily. "ADHD: Backlash to the Backlash." Scientific American. Nature America, Inc., 23 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

Film review: "Generation RX"

The thesis of the 2008 documentary Generation RX is that prescription medications for youth do more harm than good for their well-being. The film presented interesting information, but its over-the-top scare tactics (like some information that was given without evidence) made it sometimes feel cheesy and unconvincing. 

Generation RX provided countless examples to support its thesis. One of their strongest points was that mind and mood drugs are given to children even though they were not designed for them. These pills were instead made for adults whose brains have already developed fully. Parents and scientists fear that this will hurt the child’s brain development and alter the person that they were supposed to be; after all, if a child has been on a hormone-changing prescription all of his/her life, how does one know who the child is beneath these medications? This lack of research can also have detrimental and currently unknown consequences, like future problems with kidney disease, diabetes, weight gain, violent thoughts, and suicide.

Another strong point made in Generation RX was that there is a general lack of biological research that supports the notion that prescriptions like these re-balance the chemicals and hormones in the brain. In fact, some scientists think the drugs may actually imbalance the brain further. The film similarly cites a 2006 Oregon State University study about the lack of supportive research for children on the ADHD medication Ritalin. This academic project examined over 2000 studies regarding prescription usage in youth. The study concluded that there is no quality research to show that young people on Ritalin have improved their lives because of the drug. In fact, it may cause more harm than good by possibly resulting in more lifetime diagnoses, drug addiction, and suicide.

Points like these helped the film demonstrate that behavior-changing prescriptions can have serious consequences for youth. Not all of the film, however, was this convincing. The first 20 minutes of the film felt fairly over-the-top and consequently unpersuasive. At one point, when talking about the negative effects of prescriptions on youth, big words flashed on the screen: Diabetes, suicide, weight gain, and violence were among them. Similar dramatic effects were used throughout the movie, where “scary” words would come onto the screen but without any further explanation at the time. These parts of Generation RX felt too focused on scare tactics to actually convince a single point.

Generation RX relates to sociological deviance because it shows that what a society “knows” about science is socially constructed. Expected behaviors about children, like their manners and school abilities, are based off of societal values about education and politeness. When a child does not fit into the expected norms related to these values, they are put on medication to “fix” them, even though their behavior may be adequate in another society or home environment. Katherine Harmon’s article “Are some ADHD-labeled kids just young for their grade?” also brings up the idea that society sees some children in need of “fixing” because of their age; younger children within a grade may be diagnosed with ADHD not because they actually have a disorder, but because their fidgeting and disruptive habits are seen as a brain problem, not the fact that they have had less time to mature than their classmates. This shows again that societal expectations of children affect how they are viewed in a society and whether or not they will be given mind and mood changing drugs.

The apparent need to “control” disruptive students is moreover related to the socially-constructed importance of a thriving economy. The charity RSA made a video about how “education is modeled on the interests industrialization.” This means that expectations about children’s ability to pay attention in school is believed to relate to their ability to contribute to the economy later in life. When it is perceived that children may not value education and may consequently not contribute to this economy, they are put on medication to “fix” them so that they will fit into these expectations.

I found it particularly interesting that there is a lack of biological research to support the notion that mind and mood drugs actually fix brain imbalances that cause ADHD or depression. I would research this point but taking chemical and/or hormonal samples of adults before they begin a mind or mood medication. I would then take the same sample every three months afterward to assess any changes. This would show if the medications do rebalance hormones and bodily chemicals like they are expected.

Word count: 739

Works Cited

Generation Rx: Reading, Writing, and Ritalin. Dir. Kevin P. Miller. A&E Networks, 2008.

Harmon, Katherine. "Are Some ADHD-labeled Kids Just Young for Their Grade?" Scientific American Blog Network. Nature America, Inc., 17 Aug. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2012.

Film Review: "Tough Guise"

Part one of the 1999 film “Tough Guise” aims to prove that masculinity is male trait highly associated with media perceptions. This masculinity is projected to hide vulnerability, retain male power, and emphasize toughness, which then leads to violence.

To prove that violence is primarily a male problem, narrator Jackson Katz first provides statistics on aggressive crimes in America. For instance, 95% of domestic violence is committed by men. One out four men will abuse a spouse at some point in their lives. Furthermore, 85% of murders are done by men, and most murders committed by women are done in defense. Katz presents these statistics to demonstrate that within American society, violent crimes are highly a male issue.

Katz finds issue with the way media talks about this violence, because the discourse does not echo the fact that violence is male-driven. When the news talks about school shootings, for example, they call it “kids killing kids,” instead of mentioning that school shootings are typically committed by males. Of the 28 school shootings in America from 1982-2001, all but two were committed by white boys (Kimmel and Mahler 78). The news continues to address school shootings generally though, instead of as a gendered problem. When females commit violence, however, the focus is on their gender because it is unusual. Thus, male and female violence is talked about differently is because male violence is expected due to media portrayals of men; violence is not addressed as a gender issue until women are the offenders, because it is unexpected of them.

Another convincing argument about male violence relating to media comes from media personalities. Men who degrade and/or make jokes about women are particularly popular in American society. When men like Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern get attention for their misogyny, it is because they are relating to something that is already present in the male-dominated society. These jokes moreover reinforce the contrasting “weakness” of women and justify why they should have less power than men.

Katz’s strongest argument is that as rights and awareness come to women and gay communities, the masculine discourse heightens in response to retain their societal control. He claims that men appear more muscular and women are skinnier over time in movies and TV as a response to women’s rights increasing; men are dominating the screen (physically and metaphorically) while women are literally taking up less space on the same screen. When women take up less space, they are perceived as less important and therefore it is justifiable to not take them seriously. Katz says that this increase in male physicality began in response to the feminist, anti-war, civil rights, and student social movements of the 1960s. Increasing male masculinity in media was a backlash by the heterosexual, white, adult male population in order to reassert their dominance.

There were no points in particular that I found unconvincing in “Tough Guise”. I would have liked, however, more analysis regarding his argument about men of color being portrayed as “hyperviolent” in comparison to white males. Katz claimed that this projection occurs because the American structure systematically denies people of color the opportunity to get a good education or job, so all they have left is their masculinity. James Gilligan makes a similar point in his article, “Shame, Guilt, and Violence”. Gilligan writes that “racial discrimination” and “economic inequality” can alienate a colored man and make him think that owning a gun is “like a bank card – an equalizer” (Gilligan 12). I felt Katz could have expanded this point with further explanation and examples to get his point across.

“Tough Guise” relates to Sociology 360 because it focuses on social constructions and ideals in American society. According to the film, the ideal male is socially constructed by media to appear strong and violent to hide vulnerability and retain authority. This is similar to the “tough” ideal male that we have discussed in class. It also relates to our class discussions on male dominance over women and people within the gay community, because of their supposed “threat” to male power.

One point that stood out to me was the idea that violence is a learned behavior that is not necessarily natural to males. If I were to plan a research study around this point, I would ask boys between the ages of four and ten to use one word to define a man. I would then ask them where they learned that a man should be whatever word they said. This would determine if young boys really do learn ideas about violence from the media, like Katz suggests.

Word Count: 755

Works Cited

Gilligan, James. "Shame, Guilt, Violence." Social Research Winter (2003): 1149-180. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.

Kimmel, Michael S., and Matthew Mahler. "What Triggers School Shootings?" Readings in Deviant Behavior. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2010. 76-82. Print.

Tough Guise. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Jackson Katz. Media Education Foundation, 1999. DVD.

Blog Post Three: Etymology of "Queer"

The history of the word "queer"  is slightly uncertain, though it has been traced to German descent in the 16^th century (Harper). At the time, it referred to things that were “oblique, off-center” or “odd” (Harper). “Queer” is used today sometimes in this descriptive sense, but also as gender, sexual, and/or political labels.

While the history of the word “queer” is slightly uncertain, its literal adjective meanings are consistent in referring to something negative. The word is often meant to describe something “strange,” “eccentric,” “suspicious,” “shady,” or “queasy” (“Queer”).  Many texts previous to the 19^th century use the word with these negative connotations to indicate something different than the norm.

It wasn’t until 1922 that “queer” was recorded in reference to homosexuality (Harper). From then until the 1980s, the word “was used solely as a derogatory name for gays and lesbians” (“Queer”). The underlying connotations of calling gays “queer” was to signify them as differing from the norms; it reinforced social connotations that gay people were “shady” and “eccentric,” like the meanings of the word itself (“Queer”).  

It was during the gay rights movement of the 1980s that the term was taken by “gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification” (“Queer”). The word eventually took on its current umbrella term to cover gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people (“Queer”). Some people within this community still consider it offensive. There’s at least one Facebook page dedicated to getting people to stop using the word in the gay community. It has over 500 "likes." A post by James Kirchick on the blog Independent Gay Forum insists that because “queer” implies that someone is odd, it is impractical to describe oneself as “queer” when there is a need to fight for gay rights (Kirchick). He believes that the connotations of “queer” as an adjective are too negative and only segregate the gay community from mainstream society more (Kirchick).

Other people in the gay community are okay with the word “queer.” Some even prefer the word “queer” instead of “gay.” The website Critpath, for example, works in conjunction with Parents and Friends Lesbians for Gays (“PLFLAG”) on AIDS projects. The site features an interview between a mother and son in which the son explains why he prefers the term “queer” as his identification (Siegel). He claims that “queer” in a modern sense is tied to the politics of gay community. He goes on to say that “[q]ueers are more politically conscious” than people who identify only as gay; they are the activists of the gay community (Siegel).

http://www.hercampus.com/love/what-does-queer-mean-queer-101-labels-explanations-identifications

Some people use this label instead of conforming to the binary gender labels; they do not label themselves as male or female, but instead gender-queer (Friedman). Anne Fausto-Sterling’s article “The Five Sexes” explains the biological basis of “intersexuality,” which can mean a person has conflicting genitalia or chromosomes that differ from the typical male (XY) female (XX) (Fausto-Sterling 21-22). The article “AliceDreger, Gender Bender” points out that people born with “ambiguous genitalia” are also included in the “intersex” label (Magnuson). To avoid labels associated with their biological status, some intersex prefer the label “gender queer” for themselves (Friedman).

Some people use the label “queer” to signal that they are sexually attracted to men and women, as well as trans people (Friedman). Leslie Feinberg’s article “Transgender Warriors” defines a “transgender” person as someone who does not identify with their assigned gender, but also doesn't necessarily identify with the other sex (Feinberg 199). Transsexuals identify with the opposite sex which they were assigned at birth (199). Thus, in a sexual sense, "queer" can mean someone is attracted to men, women, and trans persons.

“Queer” remains today to be used in a negative sense when describing something as “strange” or “eccentric.” Some individuals have reclaimed the word to refer to their political, sexual, or gender identity. In general, it appears that calling oneself “queer” is an “intensely personal” choice; one that only an individual can choose on their own (Friedman).

Word Count: 673

Works Cited

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. "The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough." The Sciences March/April (1993). Web. 5 Feb. 2012.

Feinberg, Leslie. Transgender Warrior. Beacon, 1997. Print.

Friedman, Vanessa. "What Does "Queer" Mean? Queer 101: Labels, Explanations, Identifications." Her Campus. Her Campus Media, 9 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Harper, Douglas. "Queer." Online Etymology Dictionary. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

Kirchick, James. "Young, Out, and Gay—Not Queer." Independent Gay Forum. 14 Feb. 2006. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

Magnuson, Danielle. "Alice Dreger, Gender Bender." Ms Magazine Blog. WordPress, 8 Nov. 2011. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.

"Queer." The Free Dictionary. Farlex, 2000. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

Siegel, Laura. "An Interview With My "Queer" Son." Critical Path AIDS Project. Youth Guard Services, 19 Aug. 2002. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

"Murderball" review: The Ability in Disability

Ableism is the “devaluation of disability” and the resultant “societal attitudes that uncritically assert that it is better for a child to walk than roll, speak than sign, read print than read Braille, spell independently than use a spell-check, and hang out with nondisabled kids as opposed to other disabled kids” (Thomas Hehir qtd. in abbyjean). Ideas about disability are so engrained into society that the English language reflect them: calling someone “lame,” for example, implies they are uncool, but the original definition of “lame” regarded someone unable to move at least one body part (abbyjean). The 2005 documentary Murderball works to prove these stereotypes about disabled people wrong by showing that quadriplegics are capable of the same actions and emotions as walking people. They can even be intense Olympic athletes in quadriplegic rugby.

The film demonstrates its thesis by showing quadriplegics going through their lives on a daily basis. The beginning of the film, for instance, shows one of the rugby players putting groceries into the back of his car, then getting in it and driving away. This beats the stereotype of how “disabled” quadriplegics are; they are not incapable of simple tasks like people often assume. Quadriplegics are later shown in the movie dancing, flirting with women, swimming, and getting dressed. All of these actions beat the American stereotype that people in wheelchairs are dependent upon others to get around.

Another main part of the film’s thesis is that quadriplegics have the same emotions as everyone else. The film shows the players in a variety of emotions: angry, sad, ecstatic, prideful, passionate, content. Typical media stereotypes of disabled people assume they are all kind, stoic, inspiring people (Smith). But crude sexual talk, angry outbursts, and slide remarks by players prove this stereotype wrong. Quad rugby coach Joe is a good example of how incorrect this stereotype is. He is very hard on his 12-year-old son Robert, who happens to be unathletic. Robert prefers studious activities like schoolwork and classical music instead of playing sports. Joe picks on his son throughout the movie, saying that he needs the “tough love” in his life. Joe’s jerky attitude demonstrates how quadriplegics are capable of being intense and rude, just like walking people. It proves the stoic stereotype of disabled people wrong, while showing in a larger sense that they are just as humanly emotional as walking people.

 There was nothing in this film I felt was unconvincing, although there were a couple things I found uncomfortable to watch in general. It was hard to see the team lose in the end, because the film shows their passion for the sport, which gives viewers an emotional stake. It was moreover hard to witness how tough Joe is on Robert. At times, Joe seemed more emotionally invested in rugby than he was towards his son. I didn’t find this uncomfortable because specifically he is a quadriplegic, but because I disagree with his parenting style. Overall, I found the film to be incredibly convincing in showing that quadriplegics are capable by society’s standards of the word.

One point that stood out in the film was the idea that up to the first four years after an accident that leaves someone quadriplegic, the person can be very depressed. After that time, however, they seem to embrace their situation. This could be studied by asking people to rate on a scale of 1-10 to rate their mood after the first week of their accident, up to six years later. This question should be asked every two weeks on the same day each week to ensure consistency. Ideally, it would be asked by a variety of newly quadriplegic people across the country and of all ages. For a comparison, the same question set-up should be done to walking people. This format would show if attitudes do improve over time, like one of the quadriplegics in the film said.

Word count: 659

Works Cited

Abbyjean. "The Transcontinental Disability Choir: What Is Ableist Language and Why Should You Care?" Web log post. Bitchmedia. Bitch Magazine, 11 Nov. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.

Murderball. Dir. Henry A. Rubin and Dana A. Shapiro. Perf. Mark Zupan and Joe Soares. Paramount Pictures, 2005. DVD.

Smith, S.e. "The Transcontinental Disability Choir: Disability Archetypes: The Good Cripple." Weblog post. Bitchmedia. Bitch Magazine, 7 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 Feb. 2012.