Gracie Hall

            For the majority of the semester we have read articles that confront outer appearance. These texts have included both genders and have covered topics such as muscle density, hair texture, skin color, body shape, and hairless bodies. This week, however, our readings had a different central topic. Although the three readings still focused on the body, they were about uncontrollable internal functions rather than changeable outer ‘beauty’ practices. Personally, I was happy that our readings took this turn because it allowed for a more holistic view of the sociology of the body.

            Connecticut College’s Joan C. Chrisler’s chapter “PMS as a Culture-Bound Syndrome” tackled questions concerning women’s connections to their menstrual cycles and mental well being. The chapter began by framing PMS: a premenstrual syndrome that has psychological, neurological, gastrointestinal and dermatological symptoms. Chrisler, however, expanded this definition by admitting that there are many discrepancies concerning PMS. First of all, “there is little agreement on how many symptoms must be experienced or how severe the symptoms must be in order to be classified as premenstrual syndrome”, and later she also states that there is contradictory treatment recommendations for an upwards of 131 “symptoms”. There is no clear definition, no clean-cut explanation anyone can find on Web MD. Chrisler does explain though that PMS is not a disease but instead an illness that women often blame any problematic change to: “cultural images and social roles and stereotypes shape women to notice menstrual cycle-related changes and to label them as pathological rather than as normal”. I understood this through the example of a gendered headache. If a man has a headache he often might blame this on stress, hunger, or a hangover, whereas a women would more frequently blame it on PMS.

            Chrisler also examines the cultural stereotype of premenstrual women who are often described as hormonally crazy, beasts or monsters, who are trapped in hell. She attributes these violent PMS images to a 1981 Great Brittan manslaughter case, in which raging hormones accounted for murder. Earlier in class we discussed the idea of an angry, lesbian, hairy feminist; this week we were presented with the crazy, bitch “on the rag”. These cultural stereotypes suggest that PMS is a culture-bound syndrome. A culture bound syndrome is “a constellation of symptoms that have been categorized as a dysfunction or disease in some societies but not in others”, in this case PMS—the chapter’s culture bound syndrome—is confined to industrialized, technologically advanced societies such as North America, Western Europe, and Australia. In these areas, “industrialization may contribute to the belief in many societies that one can and should exercise self control in order to feel and behave the same way all the time”. In areas where stability is so highly praised, a changing body presents concerns. Another characteristic that attributes PMS as a culture bound syndrome is the idea that menstruating is ‘bad’ and is negatively connected to women’s personalities, behavior and physiology.  Finally, PMS reflects the western behavioral norms of the feminine gender role; it clearly separates and devalues women. Treating PMS is often connected with these notions of gender roles and “helps women to function more smoothly in their traditional, subordinate, ‘feminine’ role ‘in an uncomplaining, cheerful way.’” It encourages women to “think of themselves as unstable and potentially ill for at least half of each month, It encourages men to think of us that way too.” Chrisler finally states on the issue of gender roles that “PMS serves to keep women in their place; it is a form of social control”, and that ultimately PMS warns, isolates, and alienates women from society, their bodies, and their emotions.

            The other topic we explored this week in two different texts was disabled bodies. In Rhonda Olkin’s “Women With Disabilities” similar feelings of alienation and isolation are discussed. Olkin begins by examining commonalities and differences between two inhibited groups: women and the disabled. Olkin says that both groups are disadvantaged and are encouraged and promoted by women. She also states, however, that there are many differences between the two groups, such as isolation and the specifics of who is fighting for the cause. The combination of these two groups, a disabled woman, is the most disadvantaged: more than nondisabled women of the same ethnicity or men with disabilities of the same ethnicity. These disadvantages range from and include issues concerning dating and partnering, sexuality, pregnancy and childbirth, mothering, and separation and divorce.

            The other text we read, “Stigma Management Through Participation in Sport and Physical Activity: Experience of Male College Students with Physical Disabilities” also looks at disadvantages placed on the disabled, but in a more positive lens. Here, Taub, Blinde, and Greer examine the way social identity and normative interactions are affected by disability. They begin by putting disability in context, claiming that they are assumed to have a “condition of helplessness, passivity, and dependency” and often, “fail to meet prescribed standards of physical attractiveness”, however, the authors claim that disabled men can escape this through sport and physical activity. They specifically examined the ways in which participation can be used as a “technique of stigma management” for these individuals. Through interviewing a sampling of college students at a large Midwestern university they were able to identify the different areas of stigma and the personal gains/loses from physical participation. The two main themes that emerged from their work were sport/activity as a form of stigma management, and ideas of a fit (healthy, muscular, liberated, physically skilled) body.

            Taub, Blinde, and Greer discovered that of the men they interviewed participation in sport and physical activity were almost always seen as a positive experience. The interviewees explained it might “compensate” or improve bodily appearance. Demonstrating physical skill and a healthy body allowed them to change the minds of the doubtful able-bodied community, they could challenge stereotypes of a “disabled body as being sick and weak”. Their healthy bodies put them on a more equal playing field in addition to helping with endurance, flexibility, energy, and strength. Additionally, the demonstration of a muscular and liberated body, encouraged confidence and completed “the picture [by adding] a sense of the body self… to the mind self”. What the authors ultimately found is that, “participation inverts notions of physical incompetence and negative appearance by highlighting physical skill and a liberated body” in addition to confirming ideals of masculinity and social desirability.

           

            I thought this weeks readings were really unique to our class so far. Unlike other weeks where I could relate to the texts that were preaching notions of femininity, sexuality, and identity, it was hard for me to find bits of myself in these readings. I think this allowed the material to be more objective, but also less understandable. Additionally, I was left with some questions at the end of the readings. One question I had concerned the idea of a culture bound syndrome, if this definition could be applied to western ideas of menstruation, menopause, and obesity, could it similarly be linked to disability? Or is disability a global disadvantage? Like I said, I was intrigued by all three readings, but ultimately they felt distant.