Tessa Fontaine’s Reading on “The Electric Woman”

By Amanda Smith

The book trailer of The Electric Woman

On April 5, 2019, Tessa Fontaine created a wild and crowded audience in the William Street Mansion. Tessa Fontaine is an internationally published author who wrote a nonfiction book about her life on the road with America’s last travelling circus and the parallels of fear and horror that her mother faced when becoming paralyzed from massive strokes. On this evening Tessa would be making a quick stop on her national book tour, a year after being apart of the circus.

Her book is titled, “The Electric Woman”. Mrs Fontaine had come to UMW to read a few of her favorite sections of her book. Her first reading was the book’s prologue. When reading this section, Tessa drew in her audience with her with the tone of her voice. At first, her words were playful and humorous while telling the audience that she had googled sideshow acts and lied to her boss about what she could do acts such as fire eating, sword swallowing, and snake charming.

She went on to explain later in her next reading section that she would learn how to one of the things she told her boss she knew how to do, fire eating. When telling this compelling story she said that during the days leading up to her fire eating class she was hoping that fire-eating was just an illusion, that you didn’t really have to put fire into your mouth. After taking the audience through a vivid experience of learning how to smother a fire burning on human legs and arms to the burning, charcoal taste of fire burning her tongue as she put out the flame in her mouth. Tessa suddenly deepened and darken her tone as she placed emphasis on the line “the trick is that there is no trick…you eat fire by eating fire.” I do believe that by saying this she had told the audience the central theme of her book. That she really meant to say, there are no shortcuts or easy streets in life, you just need to go through life and do it. Circulating around this idea, Tessa had introduced the character of her mother and how she went through a series of massive strokes which left her paralyzed, speechless and left her with symptoms of short term memory loss. Her mom would become dependent solely on her and husband, Davey.

Tessa explained that Davey and her mom would set out for a trip to Italy that they have been waiting a long time to do. Tessa had thought the worst, that her mom was taking an extreme risk with her health and that she would facing death right in the face. Which to Tessa had influenced her decision to join the circus. Tessa answered an audience member’s compelling question, “Why the circus? Why not something else?” to where Tessa would explain that she joined the circus because it would be dangerous. Then she would be facing her fears, just like her mom was or as Tessa put it briefly, “I was building intimacy with something that I feared” Another audience member had asked, “how did you deal with your mom?” Tessa replied hesitantly, “It was devastating. Having a wonderful humans body fail and not be able to do what its suppose to takes its toll, especially since you’ve seen the vibrant person they used to be.” Tessa went onto a more light-hearted section of how her co-workers taught her how to swallow a sword and that, just like eating fire, “you just had to untrain your bodies natural instincts to chose and hurl, and just shove a knife down your throat.” as she put it.

I believe her reading highlighted the most important idea of her novel. That you need to go through life with every intention of knowing how dangerous it is, and also learn that you’ll need to endure with some amount of pain along the way. There is no trick to life. But the best way to live through it is to just do it.

Kenzie Ward’s response to Tessa Fontaine’s extra credit book reading

Last Friday, I attended Tessa Fontaine’s book reading in the Mansion. As she read from her prologue, I was mesmerized by her ability to suck me in with her words. The way she nonchalantly talked about lying to get into the carnival sideshow, which led her to eat fire, swallow swords, and charm snakes. This led her into talking about her Mom’s strokes, her time in the hospital, and how it changed her both physically and mentally. She compared the fire she let dance on her arms to her own Mother’s paralyzed one. I thought that the juxtaposition between her adventures in the carnival and the stories about her Mom was very interesting. She then went on to say, “Life extends in all directions outside of that”. I thought that this was an interesting point because even though her Mom’s illness was a very difficult part of Fontaine’s life, she still wanted to make it clear that she still remembered the times when she wasn’t sick or paralyzed in the hospital. She wanted to look beyond her disability but at the same time acknowledge it.

She then went to talk about her experiences with learning how to eat fire and swallow swords, which amazingly she was able to do. She talked about how in order to do these things you need to “untrain your instincts” and “unlearn your self-preservation”. This ability to just let go and do the unexpected allowed her to go on this amazing journey where she learned about herself and the extent of her limits. When asked why she did what she did, Fontaine could only say that there’s no exact reason why we do the things we do. She was interested in it for a long time, but the reason why she went out and actually did it is something she’s still trying to figure out for herself. Her Mother’s bravery and adventurous nature might have pushed her in that direction but choosing the path she did was for a multitude of reasons still unknown to this day.

Rebecca Young’s Response to Tessa Fontaine’s Extra Credit Talk

Yesterday evening, I attended Tessa Fontaine’s presentation in the Creative Writing Mansion, where she read from and discussed her book The Electric Woman. While she did not spend much of her talk explicitly focusing on disability, I felt that her story was applicable to our class discussions regardless. One of the most common conundrums I’ve seen in disability’s representation in literature is what qualifies as a positive or negative representation of the disabled community. This is something I believe many of our theory pieces this semester have been grappling with as well. As this is clearly not an easily answered question, I do not believe we can come to a satisfactory conclusion about it in many cases; Fontaine’s book, however, acts as a good example of this dilemma in real literature.

The most direct mention of disability in her book and her discussion with us was when Fontaine addressed her mother’s debilitating strokes. After having severe strokes late in life, her mother was paralyzed on half her body, and faced incredible barriers in communication and mobility. Despite being rendered disabled, her mother apparently maintained an incredible sense of adventure and continued to travel the world with her husband. This story is interesting, because it represents disability in a way our society typically deems impossible or exceptional–while she was considered disabled, Fontaine’s mother still continued to live her life without the barriers placed on most disabled people. This story then has the potential to leave a positive impact on the disabled community, by showing that individuals are still capable of fully experiencing life while living with a disability.

On the flip side of this argument, however, remains the potential for this to negatively impact the disabled community. This comes from Fontaine’s mother being presented as an exceptionality, rather than the norm. This is further emphasized by Fontaine’s reaction to this disability–she felt that her mother showed remarkable bravery by living a full life despite being disabled. Fontaine, then, joined a traveling side show, which she directly associated with exceptional fearlessness, as her personal method of coping with her mother’s disability. This then circles back to the fine line we have seen and discussed already throughout Dis/Lit, regarding the various ways in which disability can be presented. When living a full life regardless of a disability is seen as normal, the pain and suffering often associated with debilitating illnesses or injuries is diminished; when it is seen as exceptional, however, negative stereotypes are perpetuated, showing disabled individuals as completely incapable of independence or satisfaction.

In Fontaine’s discussion and book reading last night, her mother’s disability played a relatively minor role; instead, it was simply the inspiration for Fontaine’s decision to join the traveling side show. I still believe, however, that this point might contain the most critical connection to our course. As I mentioned earlier, and as we’ve discussed numerous times throughout this course, it is incredibly difficult to pin down exactly what kind of positive or negative representation disability has in certain situations. In this literary example, disability does not even play a direct role in the story itself; nevertheless, The Electric Woman presents an interesting dilemma regarding disability representation.

Extra Credit Event (Friday, Apr. 5)

Sorry for the last-minute announcement, but I am offering extra credit to anybody who attends Tessa Fontaine’s talk tomorrow, Friday, April 5, at 5:00 pm in the Mansion (1201 William St).  Fontaine is a creative writer whose work intersects with disability, but even if her reading/talk doesn’t explicitly address disability, you can post or turn in a one-page response and earn a full class’s worth of participation points.

Smith’s Notes on 4/4 Readings

Notes on Airless Spaces

p.4 “When critics dismiss these friendships as symptoms of illness rather than a legitimate attempt at community building, they deny the personhood of those who cannot “recover,” people who end up getting left behind has Esther moves toward normalization.”

This sounds like intentional dehumanization, potentially even rooted in misogyny. The dismissal and denial of community is also a method of control. Isolation can make and/or keep people “mad” and thus keep them in requirement of “care” (a case could be made for this scenario in “The Yellow Wallpaper”). Control under the guise of healing is also a plot point in many a modern horror story and psychological thriller – Grady Hendrix’s “IKEA” horror comedy Horrorstör comes to mind, since it plays with Foucault’s idea of discipline and punishment and the iconic panopticon.

p.8 “Graphic novels and comics, Gross argues, are important modes of communicating trauma: they can present experiences of disability in images when words fail. This is especially important when dealing with mental illnesses which have symptoms that may be impossible to express in words and are also often invisible to others.”

Visual media representation (that is accurate and empathic) is so important, especially nowadays when more people are reading comics and watching TV/movies rather than reading novels or short stories. I also admit there have been several instances in my own life when I wished I had the artistic skill to visually express what I was feeling with regard to my anxiety & depression, and my executive dysfunction because my words were failing me or generally getting jumbled up/not making any sense, and other people just weren’t understanding what I was trying to say. Visual art and media can be so incredibly powerful and sometimes people just have no idea just how much power a poster or a TV appearance can be.

Overall, this reading interested me because of the diversity involved with the project. It made me interested in writing the whole book to see a diverse set of writers talking about a diverse set of issues and topics within the larger discussion of disability studies.

Notes on The Snake Pit

p.113 “If people think you’re crazy, they don’t listen to you.”

Coupled with a line on p.109 about the importance of patient experience, it’s very hard to get successful treatment when your doctors don’t listen to you. I had a psychiatrist I had to quit seeing because he wasn’t listening to what I was really saying, and it was like all he heard was “insomnia” and “depression” so he essentially just threw Welbutrin and trazodone at me and called it a day. He barely even talked to me, and I was only ever in his office for like 15 minutes at a time. It was frustrating, and I hated going every month, since he wasn’t listening, and the medications weren’t working, and I told him they weren’t working. I finally found a therapist who, though she can’t prescribe medication, listens to me and talks to me. She’s been more help than any meds have ever been. It’s fortunate that I’ve been in a situation where I can choose to quit an unhelpful doctor and find another. Many people aren’t so lucky.

p.116 “Sometimes a sick animal knows more about how another sick animal should be treated.”

Sometimes the best help comes from someone who’s been where you are and understands. Sometimes doctors only have a theoretical, superficial understanding and not an experiential one, and therefore don’t know what it’s actually like being ill. That lack of understanding can lead to frustration on both ends at best and gross mistreatment (both medically and socially) at worst.

p.118 “They reached out to their patients. […] Some suggestions were as radical as simply calling the patients by their names.”

This really shouldn’t be so radical! The fact that people don’t seem to grasp basic human decency is appalling. Utterly astounding that basic courtesy can lead to vast improvements in interpersonal relationships does unrecognized. Talk to people. Use their names. Listen to what they’re saying – they typically know their own lives better than you do. They live them after all. They live with their minds/bodies every day. You don’t.

In general, I think it’s important that this chapter emphasizes in several places that recovery is rarely linear. Relapses happen. Something can trigger an anxiety attack or a nervous breakdown. The important fact is that we’re trying to recover and working toward recovery, and a little support from our supposed professionals and a sense of community can go a long way.

Notes on The Yellow Wallpaper

The whole “doctor knows best” trop really needs to be modified. The doctor may know how to treat maladies, but they don’t know what the patient actually lives through. They need to listen to their patients to have any hope of success. The patient knows their own body/mind. They live with it. Every day. The doctor doesn’t. Even in the case of The Yellow Wallpaper, the doctor husband and doctor brother don’t live with the patient day in and day out. The husband is away during the days and sometimes even away overnight. So he’s not there day in and day out.

There are several instances where it reads like the narrator’s husband is keeping her ill as a means to keep her close and controlled, since he’s often away from the house. He has her completely isolated, and even though this was supposedly a common treatment of “nervous disorders” back in the day, the fact that the narrator isn’t allowed to see any friends or family at all, and if she weren’t in a beautiful ancestral home (in need of renovations), she might as well just be locked up in an asylum. She, the narrator, is absolutely convinced that she would do better if she just got to see some friends and family, had a little bit of stimulation, but her husband, “the doctor” keeps her isolated and “controlled.” Keeps her insane. After all, I think we’ve established this semester that isolation can cause insanity. Human beings are social/pack animals.

The fact that the doctor-husband clearly “knows best” and won’t even listen to his wife is telling. The level of control there is alarming. A case can be argued that the doctor-husband fainted in the end of the story because either he realized he couldn’t control her anymore, as the narrator explicitly states, or he was utterly astonished to be incorrect in his treatment/diagnosis, because obviously he knows best, and she was improving physically (and wouldn’t even listen to the possibility that her mind was deteriorating).

It could even be said that it wasn’t the wallpaper itself that drove the narrator mad. It was the isolation, the lack of stimulation and any real companionship outside of her illness. The wallpaper was the only stimulating thing available to her that she could focus on, since she wasn’t allowed the creative outlet of writing – hiding her writing had exhausted her to the point where she couldn’t even do that anymore. She was essentially completely alone with no companionship, no stimulation, and a semi-checked out husband. That would drive anyone mad, even the healthiest person in the world.

Notes on Tulips

I’m not really sure what to say about this poem. Part of it reads like the poetic speaker is being treated without being listened to at all. Like the poetic speaker is just being loaded up on sedatives to keep her compliant and “happy.”

I’m not even sure what the tulips are supposed to mean, since traditionally red tulips are indicative of pure/true/eternal love, which seems incongruous with the rest of the narrative. Plath has always been difficult for me to parse out, but especially here, since I’m not sure what’s really going on outside of the sedatives and hospital bed.

Smith’s Response to Hirshberg’s “Crazy Wisdom? Enlightened Iconoclasm in Tibet, Guru Sex Scandals in the West”

While this was an absolutely fascinating lecture on Tibetan Buddhism and iconoclasm, there wasn’t much in it that I would truly consider “crazy” even though one of the Awakened Buddhists himself (Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche) coined the phrase “crazy wisdom” in the West. Much of the “crazy” parts simply sounded to me like a cultural disconnect between East and West.

Perhaps it’s because I’m pretty liberal and into philosophy, and had to read a lot of Nietzsche in the past, but a lot of the ideas behind Buddhism in the lecture given made sense to me, and didn’t seem crazy at all (e.g. that the “self doesn’t exist the way it appears” – that nothing really exists simply as it appears on the surface, and that everything, even negative/harmful emotions can be harnessed for the benefit of others and transmuted into a positive/constructive force if done correctly and one has the knowledge and skill to do such a thing. Anger for the sake of anger doesn’t get anything done, and only leads to more anger, for example).

There were one or two individuals that were eyebrow raising in their level of inappropriate behavior and general “craziness” (probably because of near perpetual intoxication, since most “), but for most of the lecture I felt that the “Crazy Wisdom” aspect of the lecture was more of a cultural disconnect than anything else. To Westerners, a lot of East/Southeast Asian cultural norms seem “crazy” and “weird” but mostly because their cultural norms aren’t Western cultural norms and most everyday people’s kneejerk reaction is to go “That’s so crazy/weird” when encountering something from another culture that’s different than our own. If you were to take a step back and think about it, consider it from another person’s perspective/culture, then perhaps you wouldn’t think it so crazy at all.

Outside of only a handful of individual practitioners/leaders, who seemed to be outliers and eccentrics, they seemed very not-crazy at all. Normal by their own culture’s standards. Trying to normalize them Western standards would be ignorant at best and racist at worst – eccentric outliers not considered. Hirshberg’s lecture was fascinating and enlightening – and I don’t think I could consider practitioners of the iconoclastic Tibetan Buddhism as crazy. It’s simply a different religious culture than I’m used to seeing, and while I’m ignorant on a great many things, I’m not ignorant enough to write them off as certifiably insane.

Kyelin’s Response to Jonathan Mack”s “The Right Way to be Crippled and Naked”

In Jonathan Mack’s “The Right Way to be Crippled and Naked,” the main character is announcing to his family and friends that he has fully made up his mind to live as a naked Jain monk. He later expresses his reasons in doing so and adds, more than once, that his decision is final and he cannot be convinced otherwise. Mack, a 40 year old queer, disabled man is obviously making his transition to be a Jain monk so that he can finally “let go” (Mack, 49). He describes himself in a self-deprecating way in which he only sees his disability as a setback for himself, so his new revelation to be naked for eternity is a way for him to reclaim his body and his confidence.

Mack discusses, in extreme detail, his days at the gay baths where he would sometimes be selected as a suitable sex partner. This atmosphere in itself is demeaning and only furthered Mack’s self hatred as he saw men not choosing to sleep with him as a direct correlation to his crippled leg. When men did sleep with him, it was only a casual, one-night fling causing Mack to feel just as unfilled as before the encounter. He even states that all his problems would be solved, “if only I were beautiful,” insinuating that all his misfortunes could be corrected with an idealistic “beauty standard” that he wished he could fit (Mack, 47). Jonathan is majorly lacking on self confidence and feels strongly that he needs to overcompensate for his “hairy stick leg… knotted and clawed hoof” (Mack, 44). He cannot accept the imperfections on his own body, even if it’s not centered around the leg. Mack puts himself down in other ways including the size of his penis and his facial features as well as his disability which in turn leads to a self destructive mentality that he has held onto for so long.

Mack’s sudden urge to live naked is encouraging in that he is finally accepting himself, imperfections and all. Although, Mack does reveal that he has been naked more than the average human, but only to have loads of sex for the possibility of one day feeling accepted. He proclaims that he would, “like to learn how to let go for real,” during his sexual encounters displaying his want to appreciate himself and his body (Mack, 49). He does add that , “I always adore other crippled men,” showing that he doesn’t judge others who are disabled or imperfect (Mack, 48). Unfortunately, Jonathan tends to be his own toughest critic as he cannot admire himself the way he can others and their bodies. His claim to be seen naked, whether he is accepted or arrested for doing so, in a way gives Mack his power back. He hopes to be seen as a man who “doesn’t move like a naked man,” meaning that Mack will naturally be able to move about even if every inch of his body is seen and fully on display (Mack, 43). With this new realization, he cannot hide behind his clothes or even himself, and that mentality in and of itself, is so freeing.

I pledged. (Kyelin Thrift)

Word Count: 528

Caitlyn with a C’s Response to L.J. Davis’s “The End of Identity Politics and the Beginning of Dismodernism”

Within society individuals are constantly searching for, and creating labels: labeling others in order to place them in arbitrary stereotyped groups, labeling themselves to gain a sense of belonging or community, labeling behaviors, thoughts, actions. People are so desperate to either align with, or alienate themselves from others that differentiation categories, such as race, were created purely on the basis of the appearance of skin color. L.J. Davis’s introduction section controversially explores the idea that disability should not be one of these identifiers, and instead society should “expand the protected class (referencing the disabled) to the entire population.” (30)

Davis begins as many disability theorists do, by explaining the history of disability studies, and citing it as a “relatively new field” which has made critiquing, and especially attempting to dismantle one of the main ideas of the organization, extremely taboo. (11) Davis then focuses in on the idea of eugenics, and how it unites the studies of race, gender, sexuality, and disability. This fascinating concept of whether or not creating a ‘perfect society’ would include those who are seen as ‘the other’ is discussed alongside the question of genes, and their inability of consistently or accurately determining the outcome of an individual. This supports Davis’s proposal that these distinguishing features are not substantial at all, as there is little scientific fact to support these assumptions. “If all identities are socially constructed or performative, is there a core identity there? Is there a there?” (13)

Another biological aspect relating disability and identity discussed in this piece is genetic testing, and whether or not disabled individuals have “the right not to be born.” (22) While this topic may not be quintessential to Davis’s overall argument, it is a concept that stuck out greatly, and was such an original, unheard of idea, that it had to be further explored. Typically, when genetic testing is referenced in a disability theory piece, it is to highlight the underlying harm of attempting to not have a child with a disability. While Davis does do this, namely referencing the disparities that would be seen relating to the wealth of different countries and social classes, he then presents this new concept. Is this something that will become more commonplace as disability studies becomes more accessible and popular? If children have the right to be born, can they also have the right to not be? This is something that could have been further explored, as it would support Davis’s idea that disability is not black and white, and should not be seen as a concept to differentiate people.

Throughout the various theory pieces analyzed in this class, different authors have presented dissimilar models of disability that they believe are quintessential. Models such as the medical, social, and racial have all been presented, explored, and thoroughly dissected. Specific to this piece, Davis explores the humanistic model, which is “a new way of thinking [that] rests on…” dismodernism. (30) This humanistic model centers around the physical human body, and postulates that there is no ‘normal’ in society, and disability should not be a dividing factor amongst individuals.

Groupings such as gender, sexual orientation, and sexuality were once thought to have concrete boundaries, but these ideas are now seen as being on more of a spectrum. Davis proposes that disability is a grouping that should also be rethought, but unlike those previously mentioned, disability should no longer be a form of identity at all, because as Davis states, “We are all nonstandard.” (32)

Word Count: 581

I hereby declare upon my word of honor that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work.

-Caitlyn Valenza

Claudia’s Response to Keith Banner’s “The Wedding of Tom to Tom”

One theme I have consistently noticed throughout reading our course material on Disability is the selectivity and hierarchy of disability by both able bodied and disabled people. I like to compare this to colourism within people of color. This is an issue among the African American community, with my own culture as a Lebanese woman, and in East Asian cultures. People with disabilities experience horizontal discrimination within the community. For example Deaf people don’t want to be associated with Limbless people, Limbless people don’t want to be associated with Schizophrenic people, Schizophrenic people don’t want to be associated with Autistic people, Autistic people don’t want to be associated with Alcoholics, but at the end of the day every one of these disabilities are disabilities. Every single person has to overcome their own challenges and discrimination along with it.

In John Steinbeck’s novella, Of Mice and Men Lennie Small is intellectually disabled while Candy is physically disabled. Both men are disabled but because Candy’s disability is a physical disability and not an intellectual disability he is valued more as a person while Lennie is dehumanized and babied.

Again, in Banner’s short story The Wedding of Tom to Tom both Tom’s are intellectually disabled while Raquel is an Alcoholic, Archie is a drug addict, “Dad” is on Disability for a back injury, and Anita is co-dependent on her drug addict ex-fiance. Yet not one of these other characters, all of whom have disabilities are dehumanized, controlled, and babied the way the two Tom’s are.

I would also like to specifically explore Anita’s horizontal discrimination with the intellectually disabled people in the home, specifically the Tom’s.

Anita’s language is often belittling when discussing people with disabilities. She uses the slur “retarded” so many times throughout the story that I lost count. She clearly does not value her job nor did she actively look for a job involved in Special Education/Disability. In fact, she states “I was gonna keep this job no matter what. I was gonna stop living like trash”(51). This job is literally the bare minimum for her. She compares Tom A at one point to a cat “he looked at me the way… my cat does. Lonesome inside, without the capability to explain” (54). This act of comparing a human being to an animal is dangerously dehumanizing and lacks empathy. Anita also cooks an elaborate breakfast for everyone; however, this act of giving does not come from a selfless place, but

from an egotistical one. I believe Anita is an egomaniac with an inflated sense of self. She clearly sees herself as superior to the people she aids. Even in the marriage of Tom to Tom (which this scene reminded me of two children playing “make believe”) she is even stated, “Let’s let them get married” (66). Her support in the Tom’s marrying did not feel sincere or altruistic to me, but rather a game or a funny way to pass the time. I think her prejudice, and most people’s prejudice whether they are abled or disabled, stems from a place of insecurity and ignorance.

I like that Banner created an intersection of sexuality and disability in this short story. I couldn’t help but think how this story would have been different if it were a heterosexual, disabled couple couple rather than a same sex, disabled couple who was in love. Disabled people in general are desexualized. This is especially true for people with prosthetics, people in wheelchairs, and people with intellectual disabilities. “Joy” in O’Connor’s short story Good Country People is another example of a disabled character who has been desexualized. Joy is in her mid thirties yet had never kissed anyone before, and Joy’s mother also compares her to a child. Yet, people with disabilities are still human. Additionally, not only are Tom A and Tom B gay and disabled, but they have extremely high sex drives. They enjoy sex, they like sex. I think even able bodied people with high sex drives are shamed for this. They’re not just engaging in a “quickie” every now and then, they are consistently trying to find ways to have sex throughout the short story. Tom A and Tom B also clearly know what they are doing. They are in a very sexual position when Anita first walks in on them, they’ve dimmed the lights, they respond pleasurably to each other. Banner’s characters are calculated and the ending of the story is also calculating. As a co-dependent woman, Anita falls back into the arms of a possibly abusive, manipulative, lying man. She becomes the victim of her own doing and justified this choice as a choice of “love.’ Meanwhile the ending of Tom A and Tom B being torn apart because of their very healthy, but disabled love for each other is a stark contrast, and I believe is meant to be ironic. It is Anita’s co-dependence that hurts her and the ableist communities prejudice that hurts Tom A and Tom B. I really appreciate how Banner is challenging the way disabled people are being represented and how a lot of work needs to be done in how we conceptualize, determine, and value disability.

Another interesting part in Banner’s story is the representation of Alcoholism through Raquel. Raquel is described as a “drunk” by Anita. She often smells of liquor and is drunk when she shows up for work. Anita describes Raquel, “A lot of drunk work in group-homes, like it’s their way of paying penance: a vodka binge then they go in and wipe a retard’s ass and think they don’t have to quit drinking” (56).

I think any recovering Alcoholic would laugh and agree enthusiastically with this description of a drinking Alcoholic. Alcoholics will do whatever they can to justify their drinking. They will point fingers, blame, anything except look at themselves as the problem. I also think it is interesting that Raquel goes to AA but she is still drinking profusely. Not always, but often, people who go to AA are there to stop drinking and stay stopped. So, I found this detail to not be representative of *most* AA going alcoholics.

So, I definitely wrote way too much, but I really, really liked this short story. There was so much to unpack in just 15 pages, I can’t wait to talk about it in class!

Word Count: 1,080

I pledge.

Craig’s thoughts on: The perception of Disability and Sex as a whole.

The reason I did not select a particular piece for this response is because I had something I wanted to say about a theme I saw in all of these readings. The interactions between those with disabilities, disabled/able-bodied relationships, and able bodied relationships, are treated as if there are different requirements to love. I understand that certain steps need to be taken to ensure the safety or comfort of your partner, but I don’t think there has to be more complications then that to it. In regards to Tom A. and Tom B., in “The Smallest People Alive” they loved each other, but were going to be separated; because they could hurt each other, which seems like a cheap excuse to keep them apart. They’d been with each other 20+ years. I think that the thought of them being together made the manager uncomfortable; because she couldn’t see the reasons why they would be so attracted to each other. In Mollow and Mcruers book, the first paragraph bugged me; because not everyone sees physical traits as the primary reason they are attracted to someone or a reason at all for that matter. Love is what you feel for someone, and looks or even how someone processes things shouldn’t change how someone feels if they are in love.

My point in this rant is that there isn’t one or two ways to like someone, and we shouldn’t be using what we use to evaluate if someone is attractive as the default when referring to others; because in most cases it isn’t true.

css.php