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?

A Whore by Any Other Name

Miriam A Marvin

Deviant Blogging

Sociology 360

Professor Williams

A Whore by Any Other Name

There are quite a few words in the English language that have multiple meanings and connotations and some are being reclaimed by the group which they refer to. Whore is one of the words which has not been attempted to redefined or re-appropriated. In the available definitions, not once was a positive light placed upon whore or the person being described by it. Whore has always been used with the intent of belittling or shaming the person to whom it is being applied. Being a whore not only implies the exchange of sex for monetary gain, but also that the person is able to be bought and immoral. Always used as a demeaning word the intent in any context is intended to hurt or embarrass the recipient. Much like the word tra**y, this is a word that should be retired from every day usage. 

According to the Merriam Webster dictionary, whore is defined as: 1. A woman who engages in sexual acts for money; 2. A man who engages in sexual acts for money; 3. A venal or unscrupulous person (2012). Aside from the obvious of accepting monetary compensation for sexual acts, this also implies that the person performing the acts is immoral and lacking integrity. As the attributes of a whore are so negative, it would seem this word would not be likely used in today's society, because we (society as a whole) have progressed so far, right? Okay, sure. If you believe that, I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you, too. Perhaps this would be an opportune time to explore the history of the word. 

Whore first appears in the Bible, referencing the Whore of Babylon. According to Got Questions Ministries, she is "....the great harlot who sits on many waters , with whom the kings of the earth commit fornication.....made drunk with the wine of her fornication" (2002). This article describing the whore of Babylon sums it up as such: "The whore of Babylon is an evil world system, controlled by the Antichrist, during the last days before Jesus' return.... also has religious connotations - spiritual adultery with the beast being the focus of an ungodly, end-times religious system" (2002). If these interpretations are taken apart, the religious take on whores is that they are the root of evil and the undoing of men. To have the whore related to the Antichrist in such a direct manner was quite shocking. Vagina, apparently, is one of the main causes of the end of the world. A woman is capable of intoxicating the great kings or leaders of the world and distracting them from a holy path. As history progresses, the connotation stands still, seemingly in defiance of every movement to the contrary. 

The etymology of the word whore is quite interesting. In old English, the closest word was hore and only included persons who actually were trading sexual contact for money. The original base was qar, which was later used in old English to create carus or dear and used in Irish as cara or friend. German influence found its' way into the language, and the negative aspects of the word emerged encompassing any person engaging in what was deemed "loose" sex in its wake. The article Whore and Whoreson (2012) cited instances where the word whore was avidly avoided or forbidden to be used because of the offensive nature of the word as far back as the 1930's by the Motion Picture Association. This has been a loaded word with a negative meaning for quite some time. 

 

In other languages, the word whore has no positive meaning. In Spanish, for instance, the word puta is translated as prostitute or whore. The word puta does not only refer to a woman with allegedly loose morals. The website Language Realm states that in the Spanish language, it also becomes a common explicative used to say equivalencies of mother fu**er and son of a bi**h. Speaking Spanish myself, I know firsthand that this word can mean f**k and d**m just as easily as whore. While they may not have the same meaning all of the time, the feelings expressed with these words remain offensive much like the word of the day. 

 

In The Whore Mythology, a television show found on Showtime entitled Gigolos is mentioned. This show explores the various daily tasks and activities of the life of a male prostitute or gigolo. The author states ..."Image the popularity of such a show featuring female escorts and everyone thinking it starts to twitch." "...the word 'whore' breaks land-speed records in coming out of everyone's mouths" (Gwynn 2012). This is, unfortunately, all too true. It is socially acceptable for men to have as many sexual encounters with as many women as they see fit and this is commendable behavior. When a women engages in the same acts with the same number of people, she is seen as a dirty whore and the behavior is reprehensible. The most obvious difference is that in society, men are given a greater value and worth than women are. As discussed in class on Thursday February 23, 2012 this is in large part because women are the party being penetrated, thus their behaviors are dirtier and worse. Apparently penetration is such an important factor that it determines the value of the sexual acts. Being penetrated makes you the subordinate party and therefore the lesser party while being the penetratee makes you superior and immune to judgments over your sexual acts/conquests. 

 

Currently, whore is used to describe a woman who exchanges sexual acts for monetary items as well as a person who over indulges in anything. Some examples of this would be a shoe whore, referring to a person who has an abundance of shoes, or an attention whore referring to a person who goes to extreme lengths to obtain the attention of all those around them. Using the word in these contexts makes little to no sense, as this would imply the person has given a part of themselves in exchange for the item. In this instance, a shoe whore would have to exchange sexual acts for the shoes which they possess. An attention whore would exchange sex for the attention, which arguably may happen but this is not the case for every person accused of being an attention whore. The word is being used today out of context with all of the negative implications being misdirected to draw attention to another type of behavior. 

The connotation of the word whore began negative and shame laden and remains essentially unchanged today. The word is only spoken or used to convey disapproval and cause the recipient to feel shameful of their actions or behaviors. As stated by Chloe in the article regarding reclaiming "slut", "One of the most effective ways to fight hate is to disarm the derogatory terms employed by haters, embracing them and giving them positive connotations" (2011). Slut has been utilized as a milder form of the word whore, meant to convey the person is sleeping around in a manner which is inappropriate and considered "slutty". While reclaiming the word slut is a wonderful movement, whore is a bit more complicated, as the first thought associated with this word is exchanging of sexual acts for some type of compensation. The movement to reclaim slut has made no mention whatsoever of the word whore, keeping them separate. It would seem that not only are those deemed whores undesirable to society, the word itself remains unclaimed and untouched like an abandoned rabid animal. 

 

Another type of words that should simply not be used outside of their intended context is called Ableist language. An article published by Bitch Media states that "... there is a plethora of words which rely on a shared assumption that to be disabled is inherently bad, inherently less than a person without a disability, inherently unworthy of attention, consideration or care" (2009). This is a very solid statement, as it clearly outlines how using this type of language is the dehumanization of the group affected. While whore (considered to be an achieved quality) is not related to an ascribed quality such as a disability, the negative connotations are very much the same. A whore is treated and seen as less than anyone without this label and they also inherit a large amount of assumptions which come with the label handed to them. 

 

These assumptions can be anything from all women and men deemed whores sell their bodies to all women and men deemed whores have an abundance of sexually transmitted diseases. Erich Goode quoted Erving Goffman as such: "the stigmatized are 'disqualified from full social acceptance.' They have been reduced 'from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one'"(1996). This is very true of any person who has received the stigma of a whore. Even if it is only within a subgroup of larger society, the person may be ostracized from the group with which they felt most comfortable in. Creating distance is the only way for the remainder of society to remain free of the negative stigmas of the "other" group. This is very similar to the way people as a whole deal with any individual or group labeled as different. By making them seem or feel as though they are less than, they will perhaps either change the behavior or simply hide it better. This shaming approach to behavior modification is doing more harm than good. Perhaps as time moves forward, society will catch up.

Word Count: 1584

Works Cited

Chloe(2011). A Few words about reclamining slut. Retrieved from http://feministing.com/2011/05/16/a-few-words-about-reclaiming-%E2%80%9Cslut %E2%80%9D/

Got Questions. (2002-2012). Retrieved from http://www.gotquestions.org/whore-Babylon

Gwynn, M. (2012). The "Whore" Mythology. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/sex-and- relationships-in-san-antonio/the-whore-mythology

Jean, A. (2009). The Transcontinental Disability Choir: What is Ableist Language and Why Should You Care?. Retrieved from http://bitchmagazine.org/post/the-transcontinental-disability-choir-what- is-ableist-language-and-why-should-you-care

Puta. (n.d.). In Language Realm. Retrieved from http://www.languagerealm.com/spanish/puta/php

Thio, A., Calhoun, T. C., & Conyers, A. (2010). Readings in Deviant Behavior (6th ed.). Pg. 163. Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Whore. (2001-2012). In Online Etymoogy Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.etymologyonline.com/index.php?term=whore

Whore. (2012). In Merriam Webster. Retrieved from

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

Whore and Shoreson. (n.d.). In JRank Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/842/Whore-and-Whoreson.html

Film Review Two- Murderball

1. The main thesis of this film was that being in a wheel chair or having a physical impairment does not automatically make you disabled by definition.

2. The main arguments in support of this thesis were examples of the lives of the men in the video. They were able to dress themselves, go to the grocery store, have sex, and all other types of activities. The only thing which was unattainable was the ability to walk. The sport of Quad-Rugby, deemed Murderball in its' origination, requires a great deal of skill, agility, and psychical ability. The sport itself seems to be the exact opposite of the term/label "disabled".

3. The thesis of the film relates to the course as it completely obliterated many of the stereotypes and beliefs regarding persons in wheel chairs. It challenged the very definition of able bodied, as there are many allegedly able bodied persons who would find Quad-Rugby very challenging. Also, there is the assumption that all persons in a wheel chair wish that they could walk. This may be the case for the first few years, but in time a certain level of acceptance sets in. Not every person who cannot do something wishes that they could.

4. The arguments I found most convincing were the stories the men themselves had to tell. There are so many stigmatized beliefs about those who have been deemed "disabled" and this film was constantly showing why this belief is inaccurate. In the very beginning of the film, Mark Zupan was shown fully dressing himself. This is something even I had not thought plausible by a person in a wheel chair. The movie also allows for your own beliefs and assumptions to be addressed.

5. There was not any one point of this film which was not interesting or relevant to the thesis.

6. If I were to conduct a research study, it would have to be in regards to adjusting to live in a wheel chair within the first year. I would want to learn what made the process easier, and which factors hindered it. Did large amounts of moral support play a role? If someone was left to their own devices and coping mechanisms, would they have a favorable outcome? How did the reason for their needing a wheel chair factor into their initial recovery?

Film Review One

Miriam A Marvin

Film Review 1 – Middle Sexes Redefining 'he' and 'she'

Soc 360

Professor Williams

1. The thesis of the film was that all people, regardless of their gender identification, were human beings and deserved to be treated and regarded as such.

2. The main arguments in support of the thesis all showed examples of acceptance or of fear leading behaviors. Noah was a good example, as his parents only wanted him to have a good life. Noah's mother contradicted all of the religious arguments with one simple statement: “ I can't believe in a God that doesn't have love for Noah”.

Judy, who later became Max, is another good example. Max's intersex identity was kept from him while growing up, which led to many complications. Once he requested medical records from his doctor and discovered he was intersex, a lot of things became more clear. Has this condition not been dehumanized, Max would have known sooner and could have received the gender identification he chose, not one which was given to him in an attempt to make things easier.

In each and every situation and country which the film visited, there was the reoccurring theme that regardless of why someone is a transgender man or woman, that they are still deserving of respect. Western Culture is very strict and rigid in their beliefs and concepts of right and wrong. The only to country which remained untouched by western ideals was the only country which was accepting of variations- Bangkok, Thailand.

3. The thesis of this film relates to the course quite well as it addressed quite a few of the topics and discussions we have had in class. It all comes down to the fact that deviant people make other, non deviant people uncomfortable and thus must be made to feel badly about themselves. Society expects everyone to fit inside of their box, and when you don't it bothers them. This all points very clearly back to the fact that deviations are socially constructed, as are the consequences.

4. The arguments I found most convincing were:

- The findings of the Dutch Institute of Brain Research; the discovery that the central brain can have a gender identification separate from that of the external genitalia.

- Indian Weddings are a way for men to meet up and release tensions- male male sexual encounters are normal

- The Hizra of India- a subculture devoted to allowing transgender women to live peacefully amongst themselves.

- The Katoi of Bangkok- not only socially accepted, but revered as well.

5. I did not find any of the arguments presented in the film to be non convincing or relevant to the discussion.

6. The argument which stood out the most to me was everything the Katoi send and everything that societal acceptance represents. I would study this by examining the social constructs which make the intersex individuals of Bangkok acceptable in Thailand, but not in America and other Western influenced countries. I would want to determine how this is currently viewed in America and what the attitudes surrounding it are.

It would also require obtaining uninfluenced opinions of the intersex community, as well as if the popularization/infamy of the Katoi had any effect on the level of acceptance demonstrated.

I could not BELIVE this

While looking through you tube, I found a video which is completely appalling. This clearly shows that racism is alive and well in America today, perhaps even more than ever now. As much as what was said makes me physically ill, I felt the subject matter was appropriate to our discussions thus far in class.

Am I a Deviant?

Miriam A Marvin

Blog Post 2

Soc 360

Professor Williams

Part One: Am I a Deviant?

I have always known I was deviant, since I was quite young. In elementary school, my deviance was based largely upon my economic status. I knew that because my clothes came from Wal-Mart opposed to the mall and because my mom gave me a rat tail hair cut I was seen as less than or apart from my peers. My mother did not have a pleasant upbringing and this shaped how she raised me. The unorthodox means by which I was raised later led to my being placed in foster care. It took me quite awhile to realize that I do not have to be what was expected or become what I was labeled. There is academic proof that our upbringing and conceptual reality do not have to shape our future but they play an important role.

Howard Becker's labeling theory(1963), which states that the labels we are given in life can become self fulfilling prophecies, very easily applies to my situation. As soon as I was placed in foster care, I was treated differently. There were some who pitied me and acted as though I had a debilitating disease and others who acted as though the reasons which led to my being placed in foster care were contagious. The general consensus was, however, that I was a freak and unwanted by my own parents thus I must be a bad person. I acted this out by skipping school, fighting and other mischievous activities.

This fits well with the theory that anyone has the potential to become their label. This was clearly shown in Howard Becker's The Outsiders (1963) in which the Saints came from the right part of town and obtained jobs and acted out the labels they were given. The Roughnecks, similarly, acted the part of their “bad boy” label. Both groups were participating in the same criminal/deviant behaviors as adolescents, but because of the labels they were assigned, the groups were treated very differently by the public and law enforcement as well. The Saints could easily talk or buy their way out of trouble, while the Roughnecks were generally punished for their misdeeds. This shaped their adult lives as well, as the majority of the Saints went on to achieve middle and upper class jobs, while many of the Roughnecks ended up in prison or addicted to substances. Clearly, the labels given by society can define who you are and who you will become, if you let them.

The second theory which best explains my deviance is Differential Association, as explained by Sutherland & Cressey. This theory implies that our behaviors and value systems are learned from those persons closest to us. We can learn how to think, behave, and interpret the world around us. This can be beneficial or harmful, depending upon the persons from which the behaviors are learned. In my case, I learned from the girls in the foster care system who had already been in the system for awhile and learned various coping mechanisms, or means of dealing with their situation and the feelings associated with it. These girls taught me how to run away, and how to survive effectively as possible while on the run. It took quite awhile for me to realize that these girls were significant in my life as they had already learned to deal with the feelings and situation in which I had found myself. I looked to them for advice on how to cope with canceled visitations with my mother or with abusive foster parents. The lessons taught were all to my detriment, but at the time it seemed like the most valuable information available to me. It all goes back to the age old cliché, “If only I knew then what I know now”.

This realization hit again while I was reading Mary E Gilfus' study From Victims to Survivors to Offenders (1992). In the study, Gilfus interviewed 20 women of varying race and offenses which landed them in prison. Of these women, Gilfus found that all of the women came from homes in which abuse was prevalent in all forms. The women in the study stole, sold themselves and other criminal activities to support themselves while on the run. In time, most of the women turned to drugs to cope. Another commonality between the women was their tendency to turn towards abusive relationships and stay in them out of a distorted sense of loyalty and love. The men to which they formed such strong attachments would beat them and belittle them, but they stayed because they felt it was true love. This tended to come from a lifetime of abuse, running away, and being brought back.

This study was difficult for me to read, as these points hit home. I watched my mother stay in relationships which were verbally and physically abusive. As I began to date, I walked right into the same types of relationships. My mother had relayed the message that love was shown by physical violence, and I took that lesson and ran with it. While this is not a pleasant example of Differential Association, it is a strong example. My mother was who I looked to for an example of how to live, love and interact with people. Even a bad message can be relayed just as quickly and strong as a positive one.

Another example of Differential Association was shown by Julian Sher (2010), when she discussed the epidemic of young girls being forced, coerced and generally tricked into sexual slavery. These young girls run away from home to escape the horrors they have encountered there, and run right into a pimp who gives them a false sense of security and belonging. These men then convinced or sometimes forced the girls into selling their bodies to support the “family”. This alleged family was the group of other girls and the pimps themselves. As horrifying and ugly as these acts are, the pimps become the most significant person in the girl's lives, and these men are teaching them all of the wrong things. Similar to my example, it clearly shows the damage the wrong lessons can do to a young girl.

Part Two: My Deviant Act

For my deviant act, I wore pajama bottoms (fuzzy white ones with pink polka dots), tennis shoes, and a white, fuzzy bathrobe. I wore this outfit to school, as it has been instilled that we should dress for school as we would for work. To further the deviation from societal norms, I made a point to fix my hair very well and apply my make-up as though I was wearing a dress. I did not want there to be any misunderstanding that my outfit was an accident, to simply be chalked up to lack of time. In short, I was a hot mess.

When I first arrived at school, I received quite a few funny looks and people who stared and laughed. The hardest part of this activity was trying to keep a straight face when people would literally stop in their tracks. I went to both of my classes dressed the same way, and received quite a few odd looks. My psychology professor kept looking at me as though I was in the middle of a psychotic episode. It was a lot of fun, as the reactions were so varied.

Some students/faculty tried to act as though they did not see me, or to stare covertly. I saw a lot of the back side of text books, to say the least. Overall, though, the most fun I had was in the cafeteria. The students eating their lunches seemed confused and bemused by my outfit. This is where one student asked me why in the world I was wearing pajamas. I simply replied I wanted to be comfortable and able to take a good nap in my car between classes.

There was no benefit or harm to my outfit, other than being very comfortable all day. Being deviant so overtly was quite funny, and I found myself laughing all throughout the day. The reactions of other students and faculty were not rude, just very confused. It was interesting to me that social norms prohibited people from asking me why I decided to wear my pajamas to school. The one student who did seemed very nervous during our conversation, as though I may just lose my mind and curse them out for asking. While this would never have happened, I realized there are some situations in which addressing someone's differences can make the person addressing them just as uncomfortable as the perceived deviant.

This was a concept I had not considered, that the reason deviants are segregated and demonized are because we make people uncomfortable. Society as a whole does not know how to act, what should or shouldn't be said in our presence, and what our reaction to them will be. I have always known I was deviant, but I never even briefly entertained the idea that I make others unsure of themselves. This makes me wonder how much everything could change if people just took the time to get to know each other, on both ends of the spectrum.

Word Count: 1,544

References

Gilfus, M. E. (1992). From Victims to Survivors to Offenders: Women's Routes of Entry and Immersion into Street Crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4(), 63-89. Retrieved From:

http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/gilfus.pd

Sher, Julian. (2010). What It's Like to Be 17 and Having Sex for Money. Chicago Review Press.

December 16. Retrieved from: http://www.alternet.org/story/149228/what_it %27s_like_to_be_17_and_sex_for_money

Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders-Defining Deviance. In M. Konty, Boundaries: Readings In Deviance, Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 1-18). Pearson Custom Publishing.

How do you spot a deviant?

Miriam A Marvin

Blog Post One

Sociology 360

Professor Williams

        Deviance within United States culture is a rather fluid concept, as it is subject to the perception and bias of the individuals within that culture. While there are many varying concepts and ideals which contribute to any definition available, the basic understanding is anything which varies from societal norms, or the basic ideals which are generally indicative of normalcy. Howard Becker states : “The simplest view of deviance is essentially statistacal, defining as deviant anything which varies too widely from the average.”(3) If you want to know who is considered deviant, listen and pay attention to the groups or individuals who are joked about, rallied for or against, put into a negative light or examined microscopically.

       The population selected for the purposes of this post was the wonderfully traditional Mexican family I have found myself a part of. My daughter's father has an incredibly large family, all of the elder members of which (anyone over 25) were either born in or grew up just outside Oaxaca, Mexico. The fundamentals of even the most basic social processes are vastly different than those in America. This has caused some awkward situations, as some aspects of our culture are brand new to them, while others are seen in varying degrees of negativity.

      The worst taboo became quite clear. While watching a soap opera, a Latina woman was dating a black man. This led to a conversation about women who turned their backs on their culture. As far as they were concerned, any Latina who did not marry and procreate with another Latino was a traitor and a whore. Just being with a person from another race was bad enough, but to many Mexicans black people are seen as less than them. This concept reminded me of the discussion we had in class about how race can be someone's master status, just as dating someone from another race does in my family. Interestingly enough, dating a White man was tolerable, as it was seen as an upgrade, or as more socially acceptable than even dating a Latino.

When I say "traditional Mexican woman" most of you think of something like this:

superstock.com


While dating someone not necessarily normal, this is how everyone starts to see you:





Eva Longoria

     

       There were quite a few other groups or behaviors which were discussed, such as being Mexican-American and not speaking Spanish. This is viewed as a deviation for the Culture itself; it is about equivalent to not knowing where Mexico is on a map. To the family, learning Spanish or teaching it to our children is as important as breathing. It is assumed that if someone of Hispanic heritage does not speak Spanish, they have no respect and/or appreciation for the culture,struggles or accomplishments of the Hispanic people.

Even for those Mexican-Americans who do speak Spanish, once we return to Mexico, all bets are off. Because the family originated from small towns, it is well known who lives there full time and who just visits occasionally. Those of us who just visit are seen and treated as outsiders. It is generally believed that we have sold out, or are somehow less than Mexican. It is almost as though our race changed while we weren't looking- and we showed up naked.

      Those who are, for all intents and purposes, “normal” in my family and my culture, seem to police our behaviors and actions very closely. Even one indication that we don't speak fluent Spanish, and you can see and feel their reception and treatment of you change. In my culture, you want to stay far away from those who have deviated too far from traditions, as you may be seen as “one of those” Mexicans. Once you are discovered, you will never be able to change the stigma surrounding your status.

      It wouldn't matter if you spoke perfect formal and informal Spanish, tattooed the Virgin Mary on your back as big as you could, only ate and cooked traditional meals and married the most traditional Mexican you could find. You would still be abnormal, unacceptable and weird. This scenario is quite similar to the conclusions Chambliss drew, stating that “ It is more likely that their noticeable deviance will have been so reinforced by police and community that their lives will be effectively channeled into careers consistent with their adolescent background.” (31) While the deviance from Mexican traditions may not be criminal in the sense that it cannot be prosecuted, it can feel like a crime when you are defined by the attributes of non traditionalist Mexican living. This distinction can become a part of your life, and change how you live. 

Word Count: 748