More relationship truths

1. Couples fight. A lot of times, things get said that probably shouldn't. I am notorious for saying what has been on my mind for awhile but didn't say because I knew it would start an argument. If we are already arguing, why the hell not say it?

2. Cuddling is over rated. There are times when I want to be close to you; there are others when Siberia would not be far enough away.

3. Relationships are meant for two people. If you or your significant other are bringing other people's opinions (or physically bringing them) into it, don't be surprised when it doesn't end well.

4. Be aware of relationship advice. Consider which of your friends are giving it to you. No matter how well you think you know a person, you would be surprised how quickly things can change. The same bitch telling you "He's a loser, he's a bum you can do so much better.... blah blah blah.. fuck him" will be the same bitch calling his phone or actually, literally fucking him. Some girls are scandalous and have no lines which they will not cross.

5. If you are married or in a committed relationship, don't take relationship advice from any of the following sources:
- Single friends
- recently divorced/separated friends
- Slutty friends (we all have at least one)
 

The actual truth about parenting/relationships

I have read blog after blog and story after story from moms claiming to "tell the truth". The pure and simple fact is, most of you are not. If you are not admitting to locking yourself in the bathroom just to get ten minutes of peace, you are full of it. I love my daughter to death, but there are some things which really must be addressed.

1. I can only pretend to be interested in your games for so long. Eventually, I will simply find a great distraction.

2. I will never understand how you BEG me to watch a movie with you, and then decide to run and jump all over the damn place and ignore the movie

3. When you ask me for a happy meal, and I buy one, and then you don't eat it, that's really frustrating.

4. When you have a king size bed, tv in your room, dvd player, two different large toy boxes, and a gaming system, I do not EVER want to hear that you are bored.

5. Kids are assholes. They will call you fat, tell you they hate you, look right in your eyes while disobeying what you literally just said

6. They will inevitably either severely disrupt or completely obliterate your sex life

7. There will be moments which make it all worth it; there will be others where you swear it is just a moment of time until your significant other comes home and finds you rocking in a corner talking to the carpet, all of the fibers of which you have named.

8. I repeat myself more now than I ever thought possible. I am beginning to believe that children do not hear you until the frustration edges into your voice.

9. You will spend hours making an excellent, healthy dinner. They will spend the same amount of time complaining about how they don't like it. You will learn your lesson and make more macaroni and cheese and chicken nuggets.

10. No matter how many times you ask your child to do something calmly, your husband/wife never hears anything until you have raised your voice. Then  he/she will get their panties in a twist and tell you how mean you are.

11. Men/Women are complicated in general. Some days you will love them, others you will have planned their murder and where to hide the body.

That is all for now.

A Sin is a Sin, Unless You're A Christian

Miriam Marvin

Homosexuality and Christianity

Sociology 360

Professor Williams

A Sin is a Sin, Unless You Are a Christian 

      Religion has always filled me with a multitude of trepidations, stemming from being an unwed mother to being bisexual. After being kicked out of churches for not being married to my child's father and being in a relationship with him, I learned to ask questions first. After genuinely seeking information and answers to some of my questions, I was reminded of the hypocrisy of some people involved in religion. After being told that it is okay to be open and honest I shared some of my story. I was then told that I am going to hell because of my bisexuality. "A sin is a sin, and you know that homosexuality is a sin." No, I really cannot say that I know who I love is a sin. After this exchange, I opted not to return to that church. This is not, unfortunately, the only religious group which has made this outlook very clear. Many other churches covertly convey the message that you are only "pure" and "acceptable" if you follow their rules and ideals. Systematically, Christianity engages in sin as well as creates an environment predicated upon additional sin via its condemnation (within the congregation) of homosexuality and persecution (throughout society) of members of the LGBT community. 

      Many Christians argue that the Bible explicitly forbids homosexuality. One such reference is Genesis 19 4-8, which is the story of the two angels of God who came down to Sodom. These angels were in Lot's house, and the men of Sodom attempted to gain entry to rape the angels. This was not only horrible because it was rape, but because it was a blatant homosexual act. According to bible.org, "homosexuality is wickedness and must be recognized as such else there is no hope for the homosexual who is asking for help to be extricated from his perverted way of life" (Strauss 2004). Two men engaging in fornication is a sin and blocks those persons engaging in said acts from the Kingdom of Heaven. 

      The aforementioned bible verse would seem to be stating that only homosexuals are bad and worthy of punishment. Perhaps it has been forgotten that the sodomy about to take place would have been forced by means of rape. The sin of sexual lust and desire would seem to be a far greater sin than a committed, loving relationship between two persons of the same sex. Adultery is another component to the sins of Sodom, as many of the men engaging in sex with other men were married as well. When religious arguments are made referencing this passage all of the other sins being committed simultaneously seem to be forgotten or simply not mentioned. 

      Leviticus 18: 22 states "You shall not lay with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (NKJ Bible). This verse makes it clear that two men engaging in intercourse are not only sinners, but are also an abomination. Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines abomination as "1. something abominable; 2. Extreme disgust and hatred (2012). Once this verse and the definition are connected, the verse could then be rewritten as "You shall not lay with a male as with a woman. It is extremely disgusting." This verse is very commonly used to reference the word of God forbidding homosexuality. Once the language is taken apart, it becomes apparent that hate and disgust are truly the root of evil. Hatred has destroyed nations and individuals alike, with no discrimination or regulations based upon religious beliefs or sexual orientation. According to Loren L. Johns (in regard to Leviticus 18), "The author is addressing the sin of having sex for its own sake (i.e., using another person, or animal, to meet one's own selfish sexual needs) (2009). This is another clear example of sins other than homosexuality being present and ignored and going unmentioned. 

     This would seem to be more than slightly correlated to the article written by John D'Emilio. In this article, the decline of the birth rate contributed to a lull in the numbers available to work. At this time, it was deemed necessary to utilize the children as viable members of the work force. During this process capitalism created the taboo of homosexuality, as non procreative sexual acts were demonized as it would not lend to the failing economy (1992). Had this never occurred, would the Christian community still argue against homosexuality? It would seem that were there no stigmas and negative views historically, there would be little to argue today.

Acts 10 references a vision which God gave to Peter, in which God stated "What God has made clean, you must not call profane". Johns summarized this passage as follows: "In this case, it took an "act of God" to get Peter to reconsider what he always knew to be true... That purity was central to God's concern...This passage is significant because it represents a Sprit-Inspired paradigm changing event that almost single-handedly reinterprets long-held convictions about will of God clearly expressed in the Bible" (2009). Anyone who has ever attended church has heard that we were all created in God's image, thus each and every person on the Earth is worthy of God's love. This author has personally been told by numerous pastors and priests that no man is without sin but all are worthy. If no man is without sin then the line was clearly drawn regarding which sins result in an eternity in hell and which can be forgiven. 

      Corinthians 6:9-10 states "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor the drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the Kingdom of God (NKJ Bible). It would seem rather clear that once you have engaged in a homosexual act, that is it. There is nothing left to say- you are doomed to rot in hell for eternity. Christianity has used this passage time and again to prove their point of homosexuality being a grave sin. What fails to be addressed is that this verse also covers a great deal of others, including drunkards or alcoholics. A Christian declares that being an alcoholic will land you in hell. Thieves and swindlers are in this same category, yet the church has yet to come together in arms over bank robbers and car salesman. Why is that? Because homosexuality has such a controversy surrounding it at all times, the church felt left out? According to Matt Slick, " The Bible does not support homosexuality". That was, unfortunately, the only clear opinion in this entire article. The general argument has not been whether or not the Bible supports homosexuality, only that the Bible does not outright condemn it either. It is unfair to make such a claim when there is no evidence to the contrary. The Biblical argument regarding homosexuality has always been about the inclusion of multitudes of verses demonizing and forbidding it. There has been little to no argument that there are bible verses which overtly support homosexuality. 

      According to Adelle M. Banks, a study was conducted in which 91 percent of non-Christians, believe that Christians have an anti-gay image (2007). Even amongst active church members, 47 percent declared it hypocritical (Banks 2007). Kinniman, as quoted by Banks, stated "When Jesus perused people, he was much more critical of pride and much more critical of spiritual arrogance than he was of people who were sinful. And today's Christians, if you spend enough time looking at their attitudes and actions, really are not like Jesus when it comes to that" (2007). These numbers clearly show that not only do non-Christians find the church to be hypocritical but the members themselves do as well. Being able to see these discrepancies is an important step forward, as previously the church was blinded to their own faults. Perhaps because of all of the focus on others' sins. Perhaps there was another idea in the background all along: If we can just project our sins onto another group of people, no one will realize they actually originated with us. Well played Christians, well played. 

      Taylor and Rupp discussed another aspect of this argument which is often times forgotten; the people themselves. This article discussed the women performing at 801, a very well known drag show. One tourist was quoted as saying "I think that one of the beauties of attending a show like this is that you do realize that you ... shouldn't walk out and say, 'I only like men' and you shouldn't say 'I only like women,' and it all kind of blends together a lot more so than maybe what we want in our daily lives" (2006). This is a very import aspect which this author feels is all too often forgotten or briefly mentioned. Were it not for the people involved, this would not be an argument at all. If the victims of the church's persecution were not people with feelings and thoughts all their own, this would be a non issue. This is actually a large part of the problem with the church, as they have forgotten the human aspect during the picketing against homosexual soldier's funerals.

As has been discussed by professor Meredith Williams on numerous occasions, by setting one minority group apart as the "other" the majority can then demonize, stigmatize, objectify and dehumanize these people or groups. Howard Becker discussed deviance as well. According to Becker, "Society defines deviance as the failure to obey group rules. Once we have described the rules a group enforces on its members, we can say with some precision whether or not a person has violated them and is thus, on this view, deviant" (1963). This definition seems highly applicable to Christianity, as they are the majority in terms of religion in America. This majority has created and enforced a set of rules which they then use to govern and police the behavior of all others, including themselves. It is not only homosexuals who have received the wrath of the church, but this does seem to be a popular choice as of lately. What may be the reasons for this group to be further marginalized? How can the church possibly justify these behaviors? 

      As Allen Johnson discussed, the answer is surprisingly simple: Privilege. The majority are a privileged group who rarely realize they have these privileges. Take for instance the majority of persons who externally clearly represent their anatomical sex. This group of persons never once has a moment of hesitation when deciding which bathroom to use as they have never experienced harassment or cruelty because of their inability to represent the social constructions of masculinity and femininity. Those persons (not only homosexuals either) who are slightly different are often either covertly or occasionally overtly harassed and questioned in regards to their choice of bathroom. Christians are regularly engaging in this same behavior as they criticize homosexuals for whom they love. Homosexuals do not picket heterosexual love or gatherings for being different from them. What, then, allows for the church to do these things? The privilege they have as heterosexual persons who rarely if ever face persecution for their choices. 

      The marginalized groups struggle to fight for equal rights, but also to be left alone to live their lives without being attacked and harassed for them. Domenick Scudera provided a great example of this in "My Gay Lifestyle". His blog discusses his typical 'gay' day. While there are so many activities he participates in which are no different than any other persons, because he is gay everything he does is then seen through that filter. "Gay" has become his master status- gay is all that some members of society choose to see. The church is guilty of this as well. All they (Christians as a whole) choose to see is the alleged sin in their choice of husband, wife or partner. The other contributions made to society are irrelevant and ignored in their collective minds. 

       Yet another aspect that seems to be forgotten by the church is this: If homosexuals are choosing to be gay, at what point did Christians get together and decide collectively to be heterosexual? While all of the choices of homosexuals are being torn apart and carefully examined for damaging the entire religious system as well as expediting the second coming of Jesus, the church has failed to see their part in it all. Becuase the church has made so clear that being actively homosexual is an unforgivable sin, those persons who are active Christians as well are forced to tell lie upon lie to cover this up, as well as covet their lover(s) as they cannot simply be open. This process has created an environment predicated upon sinning as well as perpetuating the very sins which they are advocating abolition. 

      It is this authors personal opinion that the church cannot claim absolution and Christ like attributes while tearing apart any person who is openly homosexual. Love is love, regardless of what anatomical sex the two persons happen to be. Would the church be against two persons born with physical defects loving each other? This too is a condition which both parties were born into. Would the church be against two people who were once married and wanted a divorce? The bible has many verses which clearly state divorce is not sanctioned by God. None of these groups are as widely persecuted by society as homosexuals, which seems to only validate the church arguing against them. Until Christians are willing to repent their sins, then they are doomed to the same fate they are using to persecute the homosexual community.

References:

Banks, Adelle M. "Study: Youth see Christians as judgmental, anti-gay". (October 2007). USA Today.

Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-10-christians-young_N.htm

Becker, Howard "The Outsiders". Pp 5. Reprinted from "The Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance". 1963. Copyright the Free Press. 

D'Emilio, John. "Capitalism and Gay Identity". Pp. 3-16 in "Making Trouble: Essays on Gay History, Politics, and The University. (1992).

Johns, Loren L. "Homosexuality and the Bible: A Case Study in the Use of the Bible for Ethics". September 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ambs.edu/LJohns/Homosexuality.html

Johnson, Allen. "Privilege, Power, Difference and Us". In M. Konty, Boundaries: Readings In Deviance, Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 1-18). Pearson Custom Publishing. 

Scudera, Domenick. "My Gay Lifestyle". (2012). Huffpost Gay Voices. Retrieved from:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/domenick-scudera/my-gay-lifestyle_b_1063570.html

Slick, Matt. "Christianity and Homosexuality". (ND). Retrieved from:

http://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality

Strauss, Lehman. "Homosexuality: The Christian Perspective". June 2004. Retrieved from:

http://bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective

Taylor, Verta and Rupp, Leila J. "Learning From Drag Queens". (Summer 2006). Contexts Magazine.

Vol. 5 Issue 3, Pp. 12-17. American Psychological Association. 

Webster, Merriam. "Definition of abomination". Retrieved from:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abomination

King James Version Bible

Film Review: Live Nude Girls Unite

1. The main thesis of this film was the work performed by sex workers is valid word and those persons involved in sex work are people and should be treated as such.

2. Main arguments in support of this thesis:
- All women are very educated and intelligent, despite stereotypes of "dumb strippers"
- Being nude and dancing as a job description does not make them less of a person, nor their work any less relevant than any other job in today's market.
- Girls forced to come in sick, unless they could find someone who was the same ethnicity and breast size to cover their assigned shift
- Girls given shifts based upon race and breast size
- One way glass in 3 of 13 windows - Dancers were being exploited and taken advantage of, as customers were taking pictures and/or video recordings of the girls. The girls never knew where the pictures and videos were going to show up
- When the women decided to unionize management fought back by firing one of the dancers. The women danced without opening up their legs in a protest. Management responded by locking out the dancers for three days.

3. The most convincing arguments:
- All segments which showed their lives outside of peep show, such as Julie coming out to her mother as being a sex worker.
-The aspects of their lives which lended to their decision to work at the Lusty Lady and later to unionize such as their education and life experience.
-One of the women stated "sex work is work, the sex industry is an industry". This is very true, but sometimes a forgotten fact when society is lumping these girls into a category of "not really work".
-Classified by one woman as a "healthy, sexual, spiritual service" which goes against the idea that exotic dancers are all sluts and whores

5. The only argument I did not find convincing were the segments in which the male patrons of the Lusty Lady voiced their support during the picketing. In my experience as a dancer, many men would, of course, say they supported the woman's fight for these rights. Had this support come before the lockout protest, it would have carried more weight. This is not to say the argument and support are invalid, only that the timing is questionable.

6. Question: Do the clubs which have attempted to and/or successfully unionized have improved or worsened working conditions?

- This would be studied by observing the clubs/businesses which had unionized or had active attempts to do so without disclosing the purpose for being present in the club. The main complaints are well known and could be observed with little interference.
- Once initial observations were noted, the owner could be asked as to his opinion of the conditions prior to and post unionization success or attempts. The workers would be asked the same questions. Any discrepancies between the owner and workers would be compared to observation notes and readdressed with both groups. 

Deviant Minds

Miriam A Marvin

Deviant Minds

Sociology 360

Professor Williams

     Borderline personality disorder: the name itself insinuates that the personality of the patient diagnosed is somehow flawed. This disorder has been laden with sever gender bias from the very first study around the 1970's. This disease carries a package of assumptions which are taken as the absolute truth, when in all actuality they are nothing more than skewed half truths perpetuated by societal misconceptions and disdain of the unknown and different. All mental health disorders carry a different level of stigma as they are focusing on the mind, and any deviance of the mind can not be trusted and those damn "crazy people" must be kept at a safe distance from all of us "normal" people. Borderline personality is a grossly misunderstood disease, one which has symptoms/manifestations which are only amplified by societies negative reactions. It would be idealistic for the stigma surrounding this disease to decrease over time, but this has yet to occur. While there are various treatments for this disorder and the prognosis for those diagnosed has become much more positive over time, the only real winner in this situation is the pharmaceutical companies raising their quarterly profits. 

 

    The first published theory of borderline personality disorder (BPD) was written by Mahler in 1971, and was quoted as follows by Nadine Nehls PHD: "the disorder was a developmental arrest that occurred during the process of separation and individuation." This implies that BPD somehow impedes upon the individuals maturation process and they are then an incomplete person. Just a few years later, Masterson (as quoted by Nehls) stated "....the mother of a person with borderline personality disorder was herself a borderline." With the assumption that BPD is based upon the genetic make up of the mother, it also stands to reason that more women would then be diagnosed with this disorder. This disorder first appeared in the 1994 DSM-IV, and since it's publication there was a noticeable rise in diagnoses of this disorder across all data compiled and available. 

 

    The symptoms of this disorder are best described by the DSM, as quoted by Hall-Flavin, MD:

- Intense fears of abandonment

- A pattern of unstable relationships

- Unstable self image

- Impulsive and self-destructive behaviors

- Suicidal behavior or self injury

- Wide mood swings

- Chronic feelings of emptiness

- Inappropriate anger

- Periods of paranoia and loss of contact with reality

This author went on to state that "A diagnosis of BPD is usually made in adults, not children or adolescents. That's because what appear to be signs and symptoms of BPD may go away with maturity" (Hall-Flavin 2012). Just glancing at the list of symptoms it becomes quite clear why this disease has been considered so deviant. All of the behaviors which make up the disease are already considered deviant by main stream society. These symptoms are also more commonly feminine personality traits, which by societal standards makes the males diagnosed with this disorder that much more deviant. 

 

     Information about this disease is spread by the medical community and the internet. Just using Google, millions of articles, blogs, and research documents are available expressing a variety of view points. The medical professionals making the diagnoses are the main source of information on this disease as it is their statistics which are later used to form numbers and data used for polls. In this way, the medical profession has a great deal of influence over the process of information gathering on BPD. While some researchers for a pool of various persons diagnosed with BPD, those persons are still operating under the belief of their practitioners beliefs about their disease. How the information is given to them and what they are told can greatly impact how the patients view themselves. Think for a moment, if they were treated by a psychologist who firmly believed BPD was caused by a childhood trauma. The patient would then begin searching their past for any event which would validate their psychologist's beliefs as this would be necessary in order to progress in therapy/treatment. When this patient then participates in a study, they are still perpetuating their doctors beliefs and opinions more than their own. In this way, the medical field as a whole maintains a choke hold on the mental illness data, as well as the ebb and flow of information. 

 

     Stone (1990) as quoted by Nehls (1997) stated "... nearly one third of the population of people with borderline personality disorder reports a serious dysfunctions over a long period of time." Because the characteristics of this disease are quite severe, the sick label seems to go hand-in-hand. Throughout all of the various sources, there was a lack of any which did not assume that all persons diagnosed with BPD are sick as well. The number of inpatient cases which are considered severe are not helping this in any way. The mental hospitals and treatment facilities maintain the perception that those with BPD are sick, as well as the diagnosticians asserting the criteria for the disease itself. There is an entire system of various persons and health care facilities devoted to maintaining that those with BPD are sick. 

  

    The group who benefits the most from this disease are the pharmaceutical companies. For every person diagnosed with BPD, there are generally a great deal of various psychotropic medications prescribed to treat the disorder. These various companies are greatly invested in making a profit from various mental illnesses. According to Bitch Media, "...the pharmaceutical industry ... spends an estimated 2.5 billion annually on reaching the public through advertising "(2011). If this industry is willing to spend billions on advertising alone, consider how high of a profit margin is required to just such an expenditure. Another group who stands to gain from this disease are the scientists investigating and studying the disease. Each discovery lends a great deal of notoriety and respect to the scientist. This can lead to greater advancement in the field as well as their employment outlook/prospects. The patients may benefit some, if they are able to obtain disability benefits and insurance coverage for treatment. 

 

     The group who stands to lose the most in these diagnoses are the patients themselves. There are many social stigma surrounding all mental illness, but BPD has received an especially bad reputation. This may be in part to the severity of the diagnostic criteria used, as well as the symptoms being deviant themselves. Those persons also have to try and sort out the affects of having the disease. If a newly diagnosed patient were to try to obtain information about the disease, there is an overwhelming amount of information and opinions. Just imagining the effect of a misdiagnosis lends a very uncomfortable feeling. Allen Frances was quoted as saying "Anticipate the worst. If something can be misused, it will be misused. If diagnosis can lead to misdiagnosis and over-treatment, that will happen" (2010). This would seem to indicate that there are many people with a diagnosis of BPD who do not actually have the disease. Because there is such a small margin of positive aspects to having this diagnosis, it would seem that there are many persons who have been handed a plate of struggles and difficulties and then expected to fix the problem they were given. 

 

     There is one group who is the most heavily represented in having BPD: Women. Across multiple research, the number remains approximately 77% (Bjorklund Ph.C 2006). Because many of the symptoms of this disease are typically female characteristics, it is not surprising that this disease is more prevalent in females. Horsfall, as quoted by Bjorklund, stated " gendered assumptions are embedded in psychiatric knowledge and that BPD is essentially a gendered construct arising from a psychiatric classification system that is itself a social construction." This speaks volumes, as there is no way state that even the diseases themselves are a result of the socially constructed beliefs and practices shaping society. 

 

     The stigmatization of BPD is no different from any other mental illness. As Wyckoff stated, "...Some research has suggested that emphasizing the science behind mental illness- that it's a brain disorder and not a defect in character- could be powerful enough to help shake the stigma of the condition. But a study just published online by the American Journal of Psychiatry found that isn't paying off all that well"(2010). Despite efforts to enlighten society to the facts of mental illness, very few are willing to acknowledge the validity of the argument. It would seem that because changing and challenging the deep set beliefs of society is such a great challenge, many chose to simply believe the assumption that all mentally ill persons are dangerous, deviant, and less than the default group. There is also a lot of assumptions that the person who is sick is simply faking it. 

 

     BPD is a very complex mental illness, with just as many opinions regarding best treatment practices as there are patients. The social constructs and stigmas surrounding this illness make things that much more difficult, as there is very little social tolerance for this illness. There are many factors which play a role in the over diagnosis of this disease, the most prevalent of these being the greed of pharmaceutical companies. This disease has been made out to be scary and horrible, when in actuality it is only scary and horrible for the person dealing with the disease. It leads to the question: If there was no corporate gain to be had from this illness, how different would the disease and the patients with this disease be treated?

Word Count: 1594

References

Bjorklund, Ph.C., RN, CS, PMHNP-BC, P. (2006). No Man's Land: Gender Bias and Social Constructivism in the Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 27(), 3-23.

Wyckoff, W. B. (2010, September). Despite Deeper Understanding of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers. NPR Blogs, (), . Retrieved from  http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/09/17/129937437/still-a-stigma-for-mental-illness

Nehls, PhD, RN, N. (1997, January). Borderline Personality Disorder: Gender Stereotypes, Stigma, and Limited System of Care. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 19(), 97-112.

Hall-Flavin, Daniel K. (2012, January). Borderline Personality Disorder - A Clinical Perspective.

Facing The Facts. Mayo Clinic. Retrieved from:

http://bpdfamily.com/bpdresources/nk_a103.htm

Smith, s.e. (August 2011). We're All Mad Here: Pharmaceutical Advertising and Messaging About

Mental Illness. Bitch Magize.org. Retrived from:

http://bitchmagazine.org/post/were-all-mad-here-pharmaceutical-advertising-and-messaging- about-mental-illness

Spiegel, Alex (December 2010). What's A Mental Disorder? Even Experts Can't Agree. Retrieved from:

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/29/13407384/whats-a-mental-disorder-even-experts-cant-agree

Generation RX Film Review

1. What is the main thesis of this film?

The main thesis was that the greed and corruption of pharmaceutical companies extends to over diagnosis of children and continuing to market drugs with known fatal side effects.

2.  What were the main arguments in support of the thesis?

- 1990's; 10 million children diagnosed with mental illnesses
- Pharmaceutical company made 69 billion dollars in drugs for children.
- Coloring books describing common situations which would make young children sad were pushed to diagnosis depression such as a friend moving away
- 400% increase in 2000 anti-psychotic prescriptions to kids and teens
- Pushing Prozac, Ritalin and Zoloft despite multiple cases of suicidal attempts or successes while on the medication
- Approximately 2000 suicides related to Zoloft alone
- Many more cases of severe and harmful personality changes, suicide attempts, random acts of violence, and other related behaviors
- Many of the most violent attacks on the public such as Columbine and Virginia Tech, the perpetrators were taken SSRI medications.

3. How does the thesis of the film relate to the course?

The theis of the film relates to the course because these diagnoses greatly change the lives of those children/people who have been diagnosed with them. We have discussed on numerous occasions that while some diagnoses can be a good/positive thing for medical or treatment purposes there is an incredibly large amount of negative stigmatization which accompanies these diagnoses even in school.

4. Which arguments/points did you find the most convincing?

- Everything covered under the arguments supporting the thesis.
- The personal stories shared in the meetings with the FDA from both those who attempted suicide themselves or those who lost someone because of the drug(s) being discussed.
- OSU Concluded that the prescriptions being taken were doing more harm than good for the diagnosed conditions
- Ritalin is prescribed for children just being children
- There is a clear relationship between the people determinig the criteria for various diseases listed in the DSM and those who stand to make a profit from those diagnoses

5. Which arguments/points did you find the least convincing?

None.

6. Choose one argument, point, or question that stands out for you. How would you study that point? Briefly design a research study around that point.

The most interesting point was the adverse effects of Ritalin. In order to further study this, I would conduct an unbiased study of children who were completely free of the drug (throughout their entire life) to be given  nothing and attempt to correct the target behaviors through positive and negative reinforcement. Another group of children would be given a placebo and the same type of reinforcement. The third group would receive Ritalin and no type of reinforcement.

Tough Guise Film Review

Miriam Marvin

Tough Guise Film Review

Sociology 360

Professor Williams

1. The thesis of the film is that mainstream society has linked masculinity and overt aggression and/or violence.

2. The main arguments in support of this thesis were:

-This ideology is one which was learned from three main sources: family, media, and peers.

-Minorities are shown as/given primarily violent roles in the me.

-The statistics regarding perpetrators of violent crimes; 85% of murders were committed by men, 92% of physical assaults were men, 95% of domestic violence was men, 95% of dating violence was men, 85-95% of sexual abuse was men, 99.8% of rape was men.

-cases and examples in which men's violence was simply swept under the rug as "men being men"
Men have a set of expectations regarding their behavior, and they are policed by other men as well as society in general.

3. The thesis relates to the course quite well, because masculinity is yet another social construction which changes by context, time, location and from person to person. The media would have men as violent types who will fight to defend themselves or their loved ones. If the only basis men and young men have for their behavior is the men portrayed in movies very few men actually met the criteria.

4. The arguments I found the most convincing were the comparisons regarding toys years ago and today and how they have changed. GI Joe from the 70's had a much smaller musculature than the toys today. Even the toys show how societies comprehension of masculinity has changed over the years.

5. There were no arguments I found useless or unnecessary.

6. If I were to design a research study around masculinity it would be to determine where the ideals of what makes someone manly stem from and how they can change within various groups. For instance, is this concept the same in other countries? What constitutes the differences and what is the best explanation of them?