While looking at different topics for this week's entry, one of the things I came across was a pageant exclusively with those for disabilities called "Miss Amazing."
Now that we're getting towards the end of the course, I wanted to revisit the question of how to define justice.
Radical Self-Love as a political discourse against the negative imagery of societally disenfranchised identities.
I wanted to reflect on today's lecture and our discussion on ableism and how disability is a social construct. I'm actually focusing my paper on eugenics and how we still have a prejudice against those who are unlike us, essentially those who are "unfit" for society. We discussed how disabilities are a social construct and I agree with this message 100%. I was reading a paper on how many of the challenges of having a disability stem from the social arrangements themselves, and not the disability in itself. The argument is that there's a discriminatory arrangement towards those with a disability and that is why there are problems with having a disability. This can be compared to women and gay people and the social agenda and challenges that these "other" groups had to face. We can start to change the way we see disability when we begin to challenge the social practices and policies that are rampant in our society today.
I would just like to reflect on our discussion/lecture from class today. It reminded me a lot of elementary school. I attended Frost Lake Elementary in St. Paul. It was a great school, but when I attended there was a wing for children with learning disabilities, mental disabilities, and physical ones too. As young children right away we were given the idea that that was not where we wanted to be, or something was 'wrong' with those kids. They weren't 'normal'. Being separated from them, gave us the wrong ideas. We didn't get interact with he children on that side of the school much, so we didn't get the chance to relate to them.
In my biology lecture recently, we watched a video about child wives in India as a result of the imbalanced sex ratio from the sex-specific termination of female pregnancies. Doing more research, I found that a third of the child brides are from India. I've been trying to ponder this topic considering both our discussions on trafficking and third world feminism. The typically portrayed model for how young girls get married to men in these countries definitely fits the criteria for trafficking; it's illegal, forcible, and migratory. In many circumstances the girl is being "trafficked" by her family as well as the husband and maybe an intermediate party who conducts the wedding. They all receive some kind of benefit from taking her autonomy. There are obviously tragic stories about these kinds of circumstances: an 8 year old who is "too young to divorce", girls under the age of 15 having one or more children, one-month wives as thinly veiled child prostitution.
Before this course I had not read "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh. Since reading the essay and doing the paper clip exercise in class, the concept of white privilege has been at the forefront of my mind in my daily public interactions.
After talking in such depth about sex trafficking around the world, this weekend I decided to re-watch a movie dealing with just that issue...or so I thought. Taken is a film about former CIA agent Bryan Mills, and his daughter. In this movie, Mills' daughter, Kim, a young, naïve seventeen year old girl desires to go to Paris on vacation with one of her friends.
I know we have moved on from the topic of human trafficking but in the Chicano Studies course I am taking we were recently discussing immigration and labor and how closely related they are. In this discussion we discussed how coercion tactics were used by companies to lure laborers across the border for with false promises about wages and housing. From what I have gathered from this course coercion is part of the definition of human trafficking.