Major Paper/Project – Page 2

James Pryor’s Major Project: Visual Art Piece; Glass Press

For my final project I chose to do a visual art piece. The physicality of the piece is two panes of 8×10 glass compressed together with excerpts of poetry from our class, along with both fabric and real flowers in between said pieces of glass. The compression on the glass is caused by the symmetrical placing four of heavy-duty binder clips against the glass.

The metaphorical ideas behind the creation of this piece stem from the ideas of preservation. By using excerpts from the following poems; Rebecca Foust’s “Apologies to my OBGYN,” Craig Romkema’s “Perspectives,” John Lee Clark’s, “Deaf Blind: Three Squared Cinquain,” and Emily Dickinson’s “Much Madness is divinest Sense,” the viewer sees art created by disabled authors, who are often forgotten in art. Whether it be the art of a disabled person being invalidated, or straight up destroyed due to living in a violently ableist society, the reality is that nondisabled people choose to overlook the art created by disabled artists. However, while there is an unmeasurable amount of art that has been lost due to ableism, the art that remains is preserved eternally. Placing the poem excerpts between two panes of glass ensures the security of not being tossed aside. This metaphor of fighting for visibility is continued with the intentional strain that has been placed on the paper the poems are on. An ableist society is one that attempts to crumple up the art made by disabled people and throw it aside, because they do not value it with the same weight as their own art.

The ugly truth is that nondisabled individuals do not want to hear about the personal experience of those with disabilities. Often when a disabled person is recounting their own personal struggled, nondisabled peers will berate them for complaining or whining, implying that talking about these ableist interactions in life are the fault of the disabled person, not the oppressive structure society has been founded on. On the other side of this doubled edged sword, if a disabled person views their disability in a positive light, they are also berated by nondisabled people who push the ideas that anyone who is not inside their definition of normal needs to be “fixed” or “cured.” The use of the flowers in this piece coincide with the wishes of the Disabled Rights Movement, where flowers are seen as beautiful, disabled individuals should not automatically be considered worthless or seen as eyesores to the greater idea of humanity as a whole. The use white and blue pansies, alongside the red rose petals stand for the beauty of each individual. However, the inclusion of the pink and yellow orchids calls attention to the issue of death against disabled people. This applies specifically to Foust’s poem, where she recounts the neglect her son faced from medical professionals who deemed her son not worth the effort to keep alive, unfortunately a common prejudice held by doctors and nurses alike.

Preserving the art made by disabled individuals, and by extension the disabled community, is a key factor in creating a society that will not overflow with ableist prejudices. Nondisabled people need to learn empathy for those who do not fall into their rigid categories of normal; exposure to art made from every point of view is the best way to teach others to care about humanity as a whole, not just those within their line of sight.

I pledge.

Word count: 569

Rachel Mullins’ Final Paper on The Infantilization of Adults with Disabilities in Literature

The representation of individuals with disabilities in literature has come a long way ince the beginning. In more recent times, there has not only been a striking increase in the representation of the many different kinds of disabilities in literature, but also an increase in the accuracy of the representation of the disabled characters and their disability. Nowadays one can find this inclusion and representation in almost any genre. It seems like many of the most important steps have been made, and are currently being made, to allow all different voices to be heard and different bodies to be seen. However, one unfortunate theme continues to resurface throughout both old and new works. This very common type of misrepresentation of disability is the infantilization of disabled characters. To infantilize is defined as “to make or keep infantile” and/or “to treat as if infantile” (Merriam-Webster). The infantilization of characters with disabilities, either by the original writer in their representations or descriptions of the disabled character or by their interactions with other characters in the piece, can be seen in slightly older pieces such as Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck and some more recent pieces such as The Wedding of Tom to Tom by Keith Banner. In the end, this infantilization takes away from the actual realities of so many disabled individuals, and it also has the potential to be translated further into the real world by the readers of these works as they interact with individuals with disabilities.

To begin with arguably one of the most famous works involving a disabled character, the theme of infantilization in John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men can be found aplenty in the character of Lennie. This piece is still being studied in Middle and High Schools across the country. The sorrowful story follows two men, Lennie Small and George Milton, as they are heading to a farm for work. The reader learns that Lennie and George are on their journey looking for work because Lennie had been involved in some sort of altercation with a girl from the last farm that they had worked at. Also revealed throughout the beginning of the story is that Lennie has some sort of cognitive disability. The reader comes to learn what motivates the two men to continue; they want to make enough money to own their own farm someday with a lot of rabbits for Lennie to pet and take care of. As they find work on yet another farm on their way through Northern California, more characters are introduced, and the audience gets a little more in-depth information regarding Lennie and the characteristics and nature of his disability.

Lennie’s character is definitely representative of infantilization. Lennie is repeatedly characterized as child-like throughout the novel, both outright and through the descriptions of his character and his actions. He is referred to as a baby multiple times. Lennie is described as “[b]lubberin’ like a baby” and being “[j]us’ like a big baby” (Steinbeck 43, 129). These comments are made by George, the person who is closest to Lennie and knows him the best. Slim also says to George that “[h]e’s jes’ like a kid, ain’t he.” and George of course agrees with this statement (Steinbeck 79). In addition to being outright described as a ‘baby’ and a ‘kid’ by other characters in the novel, George also calls him a “good boy” on two different occasions (Lawrence 4). This is much like one would praise a small child when they do something right. These examples all have in common the fact that they represent how Lennie is seen through and interacted with in the eyes of the other characters in the story. In addition, there are instances of the infantilization of his character that can be found in the descriptions of his actions by Steinbeck himself. In their piece called Is Lennie a Monster? A Reconsideration of Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in a 21st Century Inclusive Classroom Context, Clare Lawrence mentions that “Lennie’s obedience (and at times his disobedience, transparent to George), his mimicry of George’s actions and his enthusiasm are all childlike” (Lawrence 4). The aforementioned mimicry occurs while at a small pool of water near the beginning of the story. Steinbeck writes that “Lennie, who had been watching, imitated George exactly. He pushed himself back, drew up his knees, embraced them, looked over to George to see whether he had it just right. He pulled his hat down a little more over his eyes, the way George’s hat was” (Steinbeck 37). Also, at one point while speaking to Slim, and a few other times in the story “George draws on Lennie’s childlike qualities to make him seem less threatening” (Chivers 4). This is done “in order to maintain employment”, because George needed to make sure that Lennie was trustworthy in the eyes of the other characters. (Chivers 4). Steinbeck’s classic Of Mice and Men shows how infantilization can be represented through interactions between characters as well as author description of the individual disabled character.

It is important to note that this theme of infantilization is not limited to older works such as Steinbeck’s. The subject can also be seen in works written more recently. One good example can be found in Keith Banner’s collection of stories called The Smallest People Alive. Within this collection is a story called The Wedding of Tom to Tom. The story is narrated by a worker at a group home, but the story mostly follows two of the residents, Tom and Tom, or as they are often referred to in the story, Tom A and Tom B. Tom A and Tom B are in a romantic relationship with each other, and the narrator tells the story of beginning her job at the group home and being introduced to them in the start, and following all the way to the end of the story as Tom A and Tom B are married and go on their honeymoon. Along the way, there are other important characters such as the narrator’s ex-boyfriend and other minor characters, but for this analysis the most important characters are Tom A, Tom B, the narrator, and the other workers at the group home.

While it may seem like the story is far from infantilization due to some parts of the story, there are definitely plenty of examples of Tom A, Tom B, and other residents being treated so much like children. To begin, when Raquel (another worker at the group home) saw Tom and Tom sitting next to each other in the living room the morning after the narrators first shift, she said to the narrator that “’If you let them do that, they don’t know when to stop. They’ll get so into each other they’ll not know when to quit” (Banner 58-59). Raquel is letting the narrator know that there is an ongoing and perhaps unwritten rule to keep Tom A and Tom B away from each other if possible. This is to keep them ‘under control’. The manager, Kate Anderson-Malloy, even decides to relocate Tom A to prevent the two from seeing each other so much (Banner 63). Despite all of this, Tom A and Tom B do eventually get married. However, their entire wedding, beginning with the actual decision to have the ceremony at all and also including things like when it is to take place, where the ceremony occurs, who is invited to the ceremony, what the two grooms would wear, and the location they go to spend their wedding night is decided and planned for them directly by the staff at the group home. While the narrator does say that she had a discussion with Tom B about the wedding before it was actually planned, it never would have been able to happen without the support of the group home staff. Despite all of this, it can still most definitely be seen as a vast improvement over something like Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in terms of the representation of the characters with disabilities. Banner provides a look into the intersectionality between disability and sexuality and makes way for possible discussions about the cross-over between disability and other categories like race and gender identity.

No matter how minor, infantilization of disabled characters has occurred in the past and still occurs in literature as evidenced by the two works previously discussed. This has many potentially problematic implications for the real world. Beginning with the fact that the representations of disabled individuals in literature could affect how a reader might interact with someone in real life. While the work may or may not be fiction, the impact on the reader is most definitely real. Perpetuating these negative and untrue stereotypes is dangerous. According to Stevenson et al., “Adults with disabilities in general, and those with developmental disabilities in particular, have long been treated as childlike entities, deserving fewer rights and incurring greater condescension than adults without disabilities” (Stevenson et al.) The connection between stereotypical representation in the media and real life treatment is very real, and “[t]he stereotype of the “eternal child” has burned a disturbing path through history and continues to wreak havoc in arenas ranging from employment discrimination to forced sterilizations” (Stevenson et al.). As Stevenson mentioned, the many different stereotypes, specifically that of the “eternal child” affect the real life treatment of individuals with disabilities, and the infantilization of disabled characters in literature (both past and present) continues to perpetuate these extremely dangerous ideas, regardless of the intent.

It is easy to see the many instances of the infantilization of characters with disabilities in literature from the past and the present. This infantilization represents itself two ways. The first is through the interactions that the other, mostly non-disabled, characters have with the character or characters with disabilities. The second is through the descriptions by the author of the disabled character. Descriptions of their appearance, actions, thoughts, etc. can perpetuate the ideas of infantilization. Two specific pieces of literature which exemplify these concepts are John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men and Keith Banners short story The Wedding of Tom to Tom from his collection The Smallest People Alive. There are a lot of potentially very dangerous implications that can arise from the perpetuation of these stereotypes that can be translated into the real world, such as “employment discrimination [and] forced sterilizations” (Stevenson et al.). Because of this, authors should consider reevaluating the descriptions of and actions of their disabled characters so as to make sure they are represented truthfully.

Word Count: 1758 Excluding Header, Title, and Works Cited

Works Cited

Banner, Keith. The Smallest People Alive. Carnegie Mellon University Press, 2004.

Chivers, Sally. “Disability Studies and the Vancouver Opera’s Of Mice and Men.” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 1, 2003, pp. 95-108.

Clare Lawrence. “Is Lennie a Monster? A Reconsideration of Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men in a 21st Century Inclusive Classroom Context.” Palgrave Communications, vol. 6, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1–8.

“Infantilize.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infantilize. Accessed 22 Apr. 2020.

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men. Penguin Books, 2017.

Stevenson, Jennifer L, et al. “Infantilizing Autism.” Disability Studies Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 3, 2011,

The Contemporary Freak Show

For many, unfortunately, the cartoon freak show is the first interaction one ever has with the concept of disability; a passing joke in a film where characters blatantly and derogatorily designated as ‘other’ chanting “one of us, one of us”. It’s not hard to see that the concept of the disabled body is one largely treated as a joke, and this is due in no small part to past depictions of disabled bodies as spectacle in ‘freak shows’, or their continued negative representation in popular contemporary media; from children’s shows like Johnny Bravo and the Fairly Oddparents to major motion pictures like the Greatest Showman, which leave controversial films like Freaks perfect pictures of positive representation in comparison.
To understand the way disability is understood and portrayed in modern media requires one to first understand the way disability has been depicted throughout the history of media. While this essay does not have the capacity to examine each and every differing cultural perspective towards disability throughout history, the three that are the most relevant will be discussed. Firstly, one of the most common ways the able bodied tried to rationalize the disabled body was religiously/morally. A child’s cleft palate could be seen as a divine punishment for the gossiping nature of a parent, a birthmark covering one’s face, a symbol that they were chosen by a higher power. This moral association with disability places the responsibility of the reactions of the able bodied onto the disabled individual; they are at fault for the way in which they are ‘othered’ by society, freeing said society from blame.
It was also common throughout history for the wealthy to collect relics of deformity as curios, one of the most well known examples being the caricature of the English explorer whose study is decorated with pygmy bones and shrunken heads; this form of the disabled body as spectacle also ties disability to savagery, which was often used to further white supremacist goals; “Learned gentlemen of the early Enlightenment collected relics of the increasingly secularized monstrous body in their eclectic cabinets of curiosities, along with an array of oddities such as sharks’ teeth, fossils, and intricately carved cherrystones,” further dehumanizing the disabled body (RGT). However, the most relevant othering of the disabled body to this essay is that of the pet freak: “For example, Egyptian kings, Roman aristocrats, and European royalty kept dwarfs and fools as amusing pets,” (RGT). This was, in a sense, the earliest from of the freak show.
My first exposure to the concept of the “freak show” was in the Fairly Oddparents episode “The Grass Is Greener”. The main character, a child named Timmy Turner, is feeling neglected and runs away from home, to go live at the carnival, populated by ‘freakish’ Carnies: an alligator man covered in scales, a man full pins that he claims he can’t feel, and even the classic bearded lady. In this cartoon, all of these characters are clearly meant to be presented as undesirable, a crowd this child does not want to partake in. Each can be linked to a historic sideshow act, the most obvious being the bearded lady. However, in a twist, it is revealed in the end that they were all actors, posing as freaks to present an environment so hostile and foreign that it would take on a sort of “scared straight” approach in getting Timmy to return home, thus linking the moral of the story to the earlier association of disability and morality. Freaks, Carnies, whatever they may be called, are a group that one finds themself in when they make bad choices; that is the lesson children are taught.
The Johnny Bravo episode “Carnival of the Darned” is perhaps an even worse example of the freak show used as a comedic/moral device in children’s media, because not only is the presence of the ‘freaks’ meant to teach a lesson to the child, of gratitude and humility, but one of the ‘freaks’ is actually the first woman in the entire run of the show that the titular Johnny does not romantically pursue, meant to be a joke at the woman’s expense. As icing on the cake, the freaks end up quoting the film of the same name, Freaks, chanting “one of us, one of us,” as they reach towards Johnny, before he flees in terror. This is not even the only children’s program to quote the 1932 film; 2009’s Astro Boy uses the same line while a gang of rusted, deformed robots reach out towards a shiny, new android in an old junk yard, furthering associations of freakhood with two things: fear and humor, in the process foregoing the controversial yet sympathetic message of the original film and denoting the concept of a society of “freaks” as something to be mocked.
And now we come to P. T. Barnum, the man who popularized the idea of the freak show in North America. It would be both inaccurate and unfair to place all of the blame of these freak shows solely onto Barnum; he was as much at fault as those who paid to gawk at disabled bodies, after all. It would be equally unfair to those he exploited, however, to make a film in 2017 that sanitizes and romanticizes the story of P. T. Barnum’s freak shows for a modern day audience, and Disney still did that, so I will, in no uncertain terms, be placing quite a lot of blame on him.
Though there is no concrete proof of this, it is widely believed that P. T. Barnum is the man who coined the adage “there is a sucker born every minute”. This is in keeping with P. T. Barnum’s nature as a proud capitalist and businessman, with little he wasn’t willing to do to “fill his own coffers” in the words of his enemies. But he is relevant to this discussion because of his treatment of and exploitation of disabled bodies, the best known example likely being Charles Stratton, better known as General Tom Thumb. At the ripe age of 4, Stratton was sold by his family to P. T. Barnum’s sideshow, where Barnum would dress him up in humorous adult attire, claiming he was a minimum of 11 years old to further the spectacle of such a small man. At age 5, Stratton was given his first cigarette, simply because P. T. Barnum thought it would be funny, and thus the man was turned onto a life of nicotine addiction and alcoholism. Quite possibly the worst thing to come from this relationship, however, is the twisted gratitude Stratton felt towards Barnum, from whom he received an admittedly generous wage. When Barnum fell into debt later in life, an adult Stratton would bail him out with a loan, considering himself a business partner to the man. Not long after, Barnum would arrange a “munchkin wedding”, available for spectatorship to the public for a modest sum, between Stratton and another little person, even going so far as to make the best man and bridesmaids little people, for the gag. Barnum didn’t even care that the best man he chose was a known enemy of Stratton’s; he just wanted it to be funny.
Though Barnum’s misdeeds were egregious, there are too many to go over here. It should just be known that Barnum was very much the kind of man to succeed in profiting off of the othering of the disabled body, utilizing “contrived mystery”, a term used by Sharon Snyder in the same piece in which she goes into the different perspectives literary figures often hold towards disability; “While Bill would reference James’s accident as a humorous example of literary myth-making, Jake soberly contemplates wounds as a constitutive feature of postwar identity.” (Snyder).
From Barnum’s legacy was spawned a film, a pop-ballad musical with a half-baked message about self acceptance, which painted P. T. Barnum as a charismatic, swashbuckling hero, with women tripping over themselves to be with him as he rescued people from burning buildings. In the film, though Barnum initially seeks out the ‘freaks’ to cash in on the value of their spectacle, he begins to respect them as friends, and even family, and helps them to take advantage of the othering of their own bodies. While it is true that many of the freaks led more luxurious lifestyles under Barnum’s employment than they would have otherwise, there is no attempt at nuance in the film, which simply paints his ‘freak shows’ as a net positive, further watering down the cultural impact had by his freak shows.
There is irony in the title of the 1932 film Freaks, because it humanizes the divergent-bodied characters that star in the film more effectively than The Greatest Showman ever could. The fact that the piece of media which handled the subject of ‘freaks’ with the most tenderness, not only for its time but compared to the majority of media even today, is also the most controversial, is very telling about the way we as a society view the disabled body. Like the life P. T. Barnum, there is more nuance in this film than I can adequately cover, and the climax of the story in which the ‘freaks’ physically assault the antagonist, resulting in her deformity and conversion into another freak is one I am not equipped to analyze, but what I can do is discuss the way the film treats its disabled characters up to that point. Now, I have gone this far without saying so, but it is difficult deciding what terms to use in describing the titular ‘freaks’. Even “disabled person”, seemingly the most sensitive term possible, is more complicated than it would seem at first glance; “As typically used, the term disability is a linchpin in a complex web of social ideals, institutional structures, and government policies.” (Linton) So, I will be using the term freaks, as they are called in the film and were referred to at the time.
This film, in 1932, was the first time disabled characters were ever depicted on screen living normal lives; the first third of the film shows the titular freaks going about their day to day lives, interacting with their coworkers, buying groceries, returning home to their apartments. This meager chunk of a movie does more to humanize the freaks of the film than anything The Greatest Showman even attempts, especially when the freaks converse with their able-bodied peers, blurring the line between the othering. Browning “begins to undercut the voyeuristic aspects of the traditional freakshow by showing the freaks engaged in the activities of everyday life, dispelling the initial shock and revulsion, and encouraging the viewer to see the freaks as individuals who have overcome their disabilities” (SHC), all of which would be absolutely necessary in familiarizing a 1932 movie-going crowd with these characters, although the idea that these characters ‘overcame’ their disabilities is rather contentious.
Another innovation of the film is the dichotomy of the freaks and the able-bodied characters; while media has historically coded disabled characters as villainous, it is the able-bodied Cleopatra and Hercules who scheme to murder one of their fellow circus performers, while the naive and trusting freaks accept the two into their society. In the iconic “one of us” scene, the initiation rites performed to allow Cleopatra into their tight-knit family set her into a rage, because she cannot possibly conceive of a world where she needs to be accepted into a group of freaks rather than the other way around; she is the ‘normal’ one, and the freaks should be grateful that she is gracing them with her presence. The film ends with the freaks receiving Hans’ inheritance money, Cleopatra’s drive for attempting to seduce and murder him, and going on to live rather lush, priveleged lives, almost as if they are being rewarded for the struggles they have had to overcome their whole lives. The way the perceptions of the freaks and able-bodied characters are flipped, Cleopatra and Hercules being vile, conniving murderers with hearts blackened by greed and the freaks being innocent, ‘normal’ people, was revolutionary for the time.
Of course, this film is not the holy grail of positive disability representation – it’s called Freaks, for crying out loud – but it deserves to be lauded for the steps it took towards un-othering the freaks, especially for its time. The fact that The Greatest Showman, a film that came out nearly a century later, is so misguided and naive in its attempts to push a moral of self acceptance, shows the damage a joke as simple as having a group of ugly characters chant “one of us” in a cartoon can have. Mocking the freaks becomes normalized when it occurs from the point that a child first turns on Nickelodeon, and now The Greatest Showman will further contribute to this normalizing of viewing the disabled body as spectacle, despite the fact that Freaks took the first step 88 years ago.

Alternate Ending to “Of Mice and Men”

Alternately titled, what could’ve happened if Curley’s wife had noticed. I really liked this book and how it played with morality, but one thing that really stuck with me about it was Curley’s wife and her death scene. To me, it seemed obvious that Lennie had been scared (of course it did, I was reading the scene), but to someone being held like that, I know it’s much harder to notice someone else in the midst of your own terror, but I couldn’t help but think that if Curley’s wife had taken just a few seconds to pause and look up at Lennie, everything would have been different. So, I wrote it.

Not only did I want to explore the idea of an ending where things don’t end badly for George and Lennie, but I also wanted to explore Curley’s wife’s character a little more. She is easily one of the most interesting characters in the book to me, and she is given such little representation, only to die at the end. She is an example of male jealousy, and how little power women had over their husbands at that time. She had no voice in the book, so in my creative writing project, I wanted to give her one. I tried to stay true to what little character we were given in the book and delve into her mind and what she may have been feeling while she was talking to Lennie and telling him her story. From what she told Lennie, she was very self-aware of what was happening with Curley and how he was treating her poorly but felt powerless to leave, and I wanted to expand on the idea of her past and what could have happened differently. While she was telling that story, she seemed almost obsessed with her past, like it is something that she thinks about and mulls over very often, and having no one to talk to, she would have a lot of time to think things over and obsess about what could have happened differently as well, so I took that idea and ran with it.

I wanted to highlight the power of decision in this piece. There are a few important decisions that I wanted to bring focus to, mainly Curley’s wife’s decision to listen to her mother when she said not to join the show, her decision to leave and marry Curley after not knowing him very well, her decision to stop struggling and notice Lennie’s fear aside from her own, and her decision not to tell anyone what had happened between her and Lennie. These decisions that she makes evolve as she moves through the piece, going from mainly self-serving to more empathetic towards Lennie the longer she talks to him, her last decision to not tell driven by both a self-serving motive, and one that takes Lennie’s feelings into account when she notes that not only would she not be able to talk to him again (which is all she really wants—someone to talk to), but if she told someone, Lennie could very easily be killed, and his dream of having a rabbit farm would die with him, just as her dream of being a showgirl died when she married Curley.

Here is a downloadable file of the alternate ending: it’s six pages and 2495 words.

MPP-omam Download

Shelby and Libby’s Analysis of the Representation of Disability in the First Season of Glee

Dis_Lit-Pressie Download

Libby Wruck & Shelby Steele

ENGL 384-01

Foss

April 27, 2020

Disability Representation in Glee

Since the start of media such as television shows and movies, the representation of disability has been few and far between. Many shows and movies would implement disabled characters, played by able-bodied actors, as side characters used to develop the main characters into better people. When Ryan Murphy’s musical tv show, Glee, came out in 2009, it was seen as “woke” or socially aware. It had a wide range of characters shows typically did not have during this time. Characters with physical or mental disabilities, characters part of the LGBTQ+ community, and many people of color. Despite the impression this show gave off, Glee used disabled characters, such as Artie, who is in a wheelchair, Emma, who has OCD, Tina, who has anxiety and a stutter, and a deaf high school choir, to further the able-bodied characters and to push forward a “woke” narrative without giving disabled characters real representation.

In Simi Linton’s piece, “Reassigning Meaning” she speaks of the overcoming and passing issue. This occurs in real-life and in fictional media. While the New Directions, the glee club in Glee, is all about embracing who you are, they also often speak of all the disabled characters as “overcoming” or the other characters as trying to help the disabled ones “try to overcome” it. Artie is often told he has “overcome” his disability because he knows how to get around the school in his wheelchair without problems, and embraces his chair. Throughout the entirety of the show, Will, the glee club teacher, tells Emma he will help her to “overcome” her OCD, and even tells her he will do what he can to “fix” her.

Artie is a great character to contrast with Yessenia from Good Kings Bad Kings. Both are wheelchair bound high schoolers and yet their representation is vastly different. Yessenia never views herself as lesser, she views the able-bodied society as the only thing holding her back. Within the first three pages of the book she gets into a fist fight with another wheelchair bound girl(3). This is a great example of Yessenia not allowing anything to hold her back and having agency in her story. Artie on the other hand is only used in the first season of the show to talk about being disabled and make the other characters better through how they treat him. Finn, the main jock, shows he’s been changed by the glee club when he stops his fellow jock friends from bullying Artie. The scene focuses on how much Finn has changed, not how Artie must be feeling. Good Kings Bad Kings ends with Yessenia tying herself to a try to protest her mistreatment while Artie doesn’t even get any sort of solo in the sections performance. He is forced into a passive role despite being on the first and most loyal members of the club.

Fox Network’s Glee ran for a total of seven years with six seasons. It was wildly popular and only recently have people started to come out and address all the problems they have with the show. It is important for the past viewers to understand the treatment of these characters and how it was wrong because this show was so big and was said to be socially aware, watching it as a child puts a stigma in one’s brain that this show was ‘okay’ and there was nothing wrong. It was truly a show of the late 2000’s that would never air the same way today, as people become more politically correct in speech and expression.

Word Count: 606

We pledge, Shelby Steele and Libby Wruck

Cayla Stroud’s MPP, “A Black Mother’s Understanding”

A Black Mother’s Understanding (Poetry)Download

For these poems I tried to emulate Rebecca Foust’s “A Mothers Understanding”. I enjoyed how through her poems she let us through her journey of being a mother to a child with Asperger’s syndrome. Foust’s connection to her son’s journey related to the relational model as it catered to the thoughts and feelings of a mother with a child that has a disability, with the focus on how it affects her personally. I thought that doing an assortment of poems catered to the feelings of a mother that had a child with quadriplegia, intellectual disabilities and confined to a wheelchair. I wanted the poems to reflect societal feelings, admiration, sadness, agony, pain, all in one. Putting a twist on the poems that Foust had done in “A Mother’s Understanding” by pairing the experiences to that of a black mother. It was important to me that the experiences of disability were not solely based on the traditional white American’s narrative of disability, but rather a rendition of disability that can be shown through the lens of intersexual, feminist, and a cultural viewpoint, essentially a black feminist disability narrative. I wanted the reader to grasp the understanding of how disability functions within different cultural expressions and the stereotypes that follow. Furthermore, how blackness is barred, in a western, ablest, patriarchal society from the weakness and visibility of disability.

word count (discussion): 226

word count (with poem explanations): 1191

I pledge my honor, Cayla Stroud.

Meredith’s MPP

Meredith Miller

ENGL 384

Prof. Foss

April 22, 2020

BFRB

something tells me to begin

feeling my worries, feeling distraught

tracing the motions of my chin

BUMP, “try to ignore” I thought

not clean, even, solid, or smooth

they don’t understand it is how I soothe

trying to get my attention

I lose my authority, piercing, digging

because of the suspension

becoming weak, hyper focused, bleeding

most believe we are neat-freaks

yet here I am filling cardinal creeks

I push and squeeze

imperfections being made more severe

I drain with ease

covered in crimson, the evidence is clear

let your opinions remain, there is no glee

I have to tell you, I have OCD

my body builds a wall

attempting to heal what I have done

weeks of defense from it all

after all, I hold the smoking gun

I am sentenced to a few weeks

hiding what I have done to my cheeks

a record of my crime

shown in the scars of my face

I will always serve my time

there will always be a trace

I will never win

something tells me to begin

Exposed

as I tear my wounds open

revealing what is beneath

I show the world this secret side of me

bringing attention to the unrest of my brain

I wear my mind on my skin

my focus, my fear, my feelings

often you don’t ask

using ‘acne’

I hide behind a mask

no, I do not do drugs

yes, I am bleeding

I thank you for your input

without it I would forget

the scars I wear on my chest

I know you try your best

looking away when I look at you

no, it is not contagious

yes, it is my fault

Impulses and Compulses

unable to stop myself

from either the tasks I can’t escape

or the tasks that they replace

without any thought

I rip the hair from my scalp

without any thought

I ran out of my second grade class

I used to get these two confused

when I continued to make myself bald

I am following the urges

when I speak out of turn and without thought

I follow the instincts

often these interact

resisting my impulses

heightens my compulses

fighting my compulses

worsens my impulses

they are working together

to overthrow my mind

using my body.

Drugged

I was not myself

sitting still, staying quiet

methylphenidate

Medicated

I was a robot at school

most days by dinner

I was a human again

Ritalin, Concerta

when they try

to make me a robot again

I will refuse

Zoloft, Prozac

I would rather have

compulsion than lose myself

rather than help me

they attempt to fix me

I could not eat

I could not sleep

I could not smile

methylphenidate took seven years

I obeyed, I sat still

my grades did not change

who was this drug for?

doctors, coaches, teachers, parents

because I was broken

and Ritalin would repair me

My major project took the form of poetry. While I have never created poetry for anything other than meaningless high school assignments, I found it to be a good way to express my personal experiences. I focused on my two diagnoses of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. While there is some representation of lived experiences of both of these conditions, I wanted to enhance the conversation on both disorders by adding my own experiences of the two interacting.

The first poem I have presented “BFRB” is describing the pattern of my unique form of OCD. Body-focused repetitive behavior is a term that represents a multitude of types of OCD. Personally I have Excoriation Disorder, but others struggle with Trichotillomania (hair pulling), some extreme cases of nail biting also fall under this blanket term of BFRB. While describing my thoughts as I am affected by compulsions, I intertwine some of the discussion we have had in this course. I use language such as ‘neat-freaks’ to show the misconceptions of OCD and the impact of the public understanding of the disorder. I touched on Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s concept of “The Body” through the expectations that society has given women to have flawless skin and how that makes me feel about my own skin and body. I also enlist the theories of Elizabeth Brewer’s “Coming Out Mad Coming Out Disabled” by admitting to the reader that I have OCD. I realize I do not have to tell anyone, that is my privacy, but somehow I gain credibility by labeling myself and allowing others to understand this complex part of my life.

The next poem is “Exposed”, I wrote this poem referring solely to how I felt about releasing this extremely private information of my condition to you all. I have included some of the dialogue that I have experienced both in my mind and in interactions with others. I encapsulate the general feelings I have about the disorder through my final line by taking responsibility for my appearance and mental state. Although I do understand that I am not at fault for my condition, I often struggle with this because it can be difficult to separate my mind and body. My body acts seemingly without the influence of my mind, yet I know my brain is in control of this condition. I also add a sequence of ‘yes’ and ‘no’ replies to common questions of why I look like this. I understand that it is easier to hide my self-inflicted blemishes as acne or scratches rather than other conditions that affect the body in a more difficult way to hide.

In my next poem “Impulses and Compulses” I discuss the interactions of my impulses from ADHD and my compulses from OCD. I describe some of my past behavioral issues before either diagnosis, having both impulses and compulses made my younger self believe that I was somehow not in control of my actions and constantly disappointing myself and others. I have often felt a real struggle in the deciphering of my impulses and compulses. Currently my impulses take the form of unprepared thoughts and a lack of judgement in conversations, but my compulses have not changed. As of now I separate the two as the compulses relieve stress and the impulses cause more stress.

I wrote my first ever haiku “Drugged” out of sheer luck. I was googling the name of the most recent medication I was prescribed and found that it was five syllables. I decided what better way to describe my experiences with medication than with the most unnatural sounding word in a haiku. In my personal experiences ADHD medications were not effective in treating my condition. This haiku is just the beginning of my expression of personal experiences on ‘brain meds’ as I often call them.

The final poem I have written for this assignment is called “Medicated”. Once again I am comparing my experiences of OCD and ADHD. While I agree that the medications listed in my poem do help many people and are not inherently bad, I show my distaste for them because of my ADHD experiences. I deduced after 7 years of various ADHD medication, it was in my best interest to stop taking them before college. I struggled with my appetite and ability to sleep as well as a more significant disconnect from myself while on the medication. I realized the medication was no benefit to myself, but rather to everyone around me. I make a similar connection with my BFRBs. I do not think I would be helped by an antianxiety or antidepressant medication as I have a way to make myself feel better through my BFRBs. I realized the only person benefiting from my taking another medication would be everyone else because it would help their discomfort.

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

Meredith Miller

Word Count: 804

Mackenzie’s MMP. Poetry: The Motivations of a Caregiver

Mary Lennox’s Mother:

Disappointment

How can she be mine?

I don’t see myself in her eyes.

My beauty, my spirit, my status, it

becomes lost in her dull expression.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this

for mother and her daughter.

She’s sad, she’s difficult, she’s ill,

and I can’t hide my disappointment.

I wasn’t meant for a life like this.

I was expecting a life of ease.

She requires so much attention,

And I just don’t have the patience.

I’ll find somone capable, of course,

to watch her as she grows.

She’ll have eveything a child could want

I’m sure she’ll be just fine.

George:

Protection

I had you and you had me,

we had our futures set.

But it was a dream, just a fantasy,

I’m not sure where you fit.

I love you I really do,

we’ve been partners this whole time.

But I know what’s best for you,

and you don’t know where to draw the line.

It couldn’t be like this forever,

maybe it’s better me than them.

Close your eyes and look ahead,

and I’ll relieve you from this pain.

Eva Peace:

Liberation

To my shadow of a son,

It’s time for you to go.

If you can’t live like a man,

Then you’ll die like one.

That is my last act of love.

You wouldn’t leave and

you wouldn’t grow.

My womb has no more space,

so, this is where I say goodbye.

I’ll hold you and I’ll rock you here,

I’ll let you be my child.

But then I’ll keep my tears away,

And I’ll do what must be done.

Mr. Radley:

Self-preservation

The community whispers

outside our door.

Please just stay inside

where you can’t cause us more pain.

Joanne Madsen:

Concern

Who cares for you?

Who makes sure your safe?

Who listens to your worries?

Who asks what you want?

Who will be your advocate,

when you can’t speak for yourself?

Who knows what makes you happy?

Who tells you that it’s okay to be you?

Ricky Hernandez:

Sympathy

He looks at me with those sad eyes as I hold him in this room.

Just a driver, now in charge of discipline.

I want to show them kindness, respect, consistency.

These kids don’t see that often,

But my job is to to show up when I get the call,

to constrain and remove.

One day, probably soon, I’ll leave this place,

but I find myself hesitant.

I didn’t think it would be so hard.

I didn’t expect to love them so much…

Jimmie Kenrick:

Acceptance

Just can just call me Jimmie.

You don’t have to call me mom,

you don’t have to call me anything.

We have our own rhythm,

we have a special click,

we have an understanding.

You don’t have to call me mom,

you don’t have to call me anything.

You can just call me Jimmie.

I have created poems based on the point of view of various characters from novels we have read throughout the semester. These are characters that have found themselves in some sort of caregiver position. These characters include Eva Peace from Toni Morrison’s Sula, Ricky Hernandez, Jimmie Kenrick and Joanne Madsen from Susan Nussbaum’s Good Kings, Bad Kings, Mr. Radley in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, Mary Lennox’s mother in Frances Hodgson Burnett’s The Secret Garden, and George from John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. These characters, whether parents, paid professionals, or friends, are put into the role of having to take care of someone with a perceived disability. All of these characters were chosen to represent a range of different types of caregivers and how successful they are in fulfilling their role. The first-person narratives allow for the exploration of the motivations behind these characters’ actions and the corresponding pieces reflect the character’s motivating emotion. Eva Peace was overwhelmed as her role of a mother of a child with a mental disability. Her son did not fit the expectations she had for him and that ultimately led her to orchestrate his death. This could be comapred to George killing Lennie in the end of Of Mice and Men. George was a friend but also a protector to Lennie. Throughout the novel they say they look out for each other, but it is never truly an equal partnership. George often acts according to what he feels is best for Lennie, but perhaps sometimes his actions are for selfish reasons. This raises the question of whether or not his killing of Lennie was really to protect his friend or to relieve himself from the stress of a caregiver position. Either way, he makes the decisions about what happens in Lennie’s life. Other caregivers, such as Mr. Radley and Mary Lennox’s mother, will keep their children at a distance. Maybe they can never accept their child’s differences or maybe they are unwilling to make the necessary adjustments to their own lifestyles in order to care for their children, either keeping them locked away in the house, as Mr. Radley does, or giving the responsibility to a paid worker, as Mary Lennox’s mother does.

There are positive examples of caregivers, too. Joanne Madsen, Ricky Hernandez, and Jimmie Kendrick from Good Kings, Bad Kings all behave more appropriately in their interactions with those they care for. Joanne, while not specifically a paid caregiver in the nursing home, offers the children guidence in accepting their identities as people with disabilities. She also looks after the best interest of all of the residence of the home. She treats the children as individuals and gives them room to grow and express themselves. Ricky, while he struggles with the ethics of his job, also tries to treat the children as individuals. He cares for them on a more emotional and personal level than many of the other paid professionals in the home. Lastly, Jimmie’s personal connection with Yessenia Lopez influences her decision to become her foster parent. All of these positive representations are similar in the way that they allow the other person to be an individual, not defined solely by disability. In cases where caregivers are unsucccessful in their roles, it is because they cannot accept the individual, whether that takes the form of making decisions about what happens to that person or releasing themselves from the caregiver role altogether.

I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this work

Word count: 564

Abigail’s MPP: The Princess and the Fearless Youth

Abigail Weber

Dr. Foss

ENGL 384

April 22, 2020

Once upon a time, in a faraway land, there lived a powerful king and queen. Although they had every luxury and ruled a vast kingdom, they were childless for many years. At last, the queen gave birth to a daughter to great fanfare and celebration in the kingdom.

But the couple’s joy was soon replaced by horror as they beheld their child. Her tiny legs were uneven and twisted. Her little face had wide apart eyes and a crooked mouth. Purple and red blotches swirled around her body.

As she grew, each milestone seemed to only deepen their revulsion. When the little princess learned to walk, her parents could only lament the limping of her uneven legs. When her smile first revealed a tiny tooth, her parents recoiled. When she first spoke, her parents forgot that all children’s first words are clumsy and cursed the twisting of her lips. But as she was their only heir, they did their best to cure her.

For years, an endless procession of clergymen, physicians, and conmen made their way to the grand palace, each attempting to curry favor by fixing the unsightly babe. Prayers and charms, relics and salves, potions and spells–all failed.

Finally, when the princess was seven years old, the king and queen gave birth to a son. His limbs were even and straight. His eyes were close, but not too close. The royal couple cooed over the baby, marvelling at his perfectly sculpted tiny limbs and features. They rejoiced at his birth, and told their most trusted servant to get rid of their loathed firstborn. This man could not bring himself to kill her, so he sent her to live with his mother, a weaver in a small river village far away from the castle.

The elderly woman adored the child as a granddaughter, and taught her all she knew of navigating the world. Years passed, and the princess acquired a reputation as a wise and clever woman. The people of the village came to her to solve their disputes, and eventually people began to come from all along the river.

When the princess realized this, she begged Grandmother to spin her a veil to hide herself.

“Whatever for?”

“Oh Grandmother, Grandmother, they will hate me when they see me.”

“Everyone here has already seen you,” Grandmother argued, but when she saw how distraught her granddaughter was, she finally agreed.

And so the princess continued to pose riddles and answer questions, never revealing her body. Her legend only became more fabulous for the mystery, and many a questioner came simply to ask to see her. She laughed at each and sent them on their way, telling them “oh my dear, oh my dear, you will fear me when you see me.” Some of the cleverer ones brought gifts of food to tempt her to lift her veil, but she would thank them for helping her to feed her good Grandmother and give it to her elder to eat instead.

One day, a scarred young man about the princess’ age came down the road to her little cottage, muttering to himself. The villagers stayed well away from him, and as he drew closer, the princess could hear his hoarse words.

“If only I could shudder, if only I could shudder!”

The princess asked what he wished to know.

“Oh, my lady, I will give you fifty thalers, which is all I have in the world, if you will teach me how to shudder!”

“How to shudder? However do you not know how to shudder?” The princess asked in disbelief.

“My father said I could never learn anything, but the only thing I ever wanted to learn was to shudder. At campfires, when people told stories about spirits and the devil, they would say ‘oh, that makes me shudder!’ But I have never shuddered, and I only wish I could.”

At this the princess laughed, but he looked so forlorn that she soon stopped. After much thought, she said,

“Listen. At the edge of town is a gallows where a murderer was hanged last night. Go there and spend the night, and you will learn how to shudder.”

The boy obeyed, and returned the next day.

“Have you learned how to shudder?” The princess asked.

“How could I?” The boy rasped. “The murderer made poor company. When I set him by the fire to warm himself, he let himself burn up, and I didn’t want to burn with him so I hung him back up!”

The princess marvelled at this, but quickly came up with another plan. “There is a place on the riverbank where a young boy drowned, and his ghost is still there. A girl I dared to stay there for five minutes as a child fled in terror. Surely he can teach you how to shudder.”

The boy obeyed, and returned the next day.

“Have you learned how to shudder?” The princess asked.

“How could I?” The boy rasped. “A little boy fell into the water, and so I jumped in and saved him. As soon as I had done so, he fell in again! I had no time to learn to shudder!”

“That was the ghost of the little boy!” The princess said.

“Well, if he died by falling in the river, he should know better than to do it again!” The boy said hotly.

The princess laughed, and so did the boy, but inevitably he returned to saying “if only I could shudder!”

“Come back tomorrow, and I will teach you how to shudder,” the princess promised. The boy agreed, and left.

“Oh Grandmother, Grandmother, he will fear me if he sees me!” The princess cried to her guardian. “And I so want him to shudder, for he is kind and funny and determined, and I cannot bear to see him so sad! If I am truly so horrifying, he will finally shudder when he sees me, and so I will be happy. If he does not shudder, I will be glad that at least one person does not see me as a monster, but I will be sad for him.”

So resolved, she met him the next morning and invited him into her cottage. She drew the curtains and lit candles. At last, she removed her veil.

He did not shudder or look on in fear, but even more, he was not confused or revolted by the sight of her, and his eyes didn’t linger on her as something to be picked apart, examined, fixed. She could no sooner imagine him among the procession of physicians than she could imagine him shuddering.

“How are you going to teach me to shudder?” The boy asked, oblivious to the princess’ self-consciousness.

“Lay down on that mat and go to sleep,” the princess ordered. “When you wake up, you will have shuddered.”

Once he was asleep, the princess opened his shirt and poured the flopping tadpoles all over him. He awoke shuddering.

“Oh my lady, my lady, look how I shuddered! You’ve taught me how!” He embraced her with joy and spun her around, setting her back down carefully so she could balance on her wobbly legs.

The boy never shuddered again, but it mattered not, for he was satisfied. In time, he and the princess were wed, and when the royal family died and left the kingdom without a ruler, the faithful servant retrieved the princess and invited her back to the throne. She was a kind and wise queen, and she was never cured as long as she lived.

Word count: 1262

Writeup:

In my project, I decided to combine my love of fairy tales, particularly The Youth Who Went Forth To Learn What Fear Was, with disability studies. The result is a retelling that aims for the style similar to traditional fairy tales while avoiding the ableist tendency of such stories to cure disability. In this piece, I wanted to particularly engage with the ideas introduced during this course of freakery, societal expectations of ability, the cure narrative, and the way disability and neurodivergency affect relationships.

The story primarily engages with freakery through the character of the princess. The theory piece for this consideration was Rosemarie Garland-Thomson’s Introduction: From Wonder to Error–A Genealogy of Freak Discourse in Modernity from Freakery: Cultural Spectacles of the Extraordinary Body. As a child, her highly visible disability horrifies those around her and is highly emphasized by her parents’ desire to fix her. Her difference is exploited and speculated about both by physicians and clergymen, capturing both scientific interest and religious wonder as described by Garland-Thomson. The throng of people attempting to cure her makes the palace itself into a freak show with one exhibit, objectifying and exoticizing the princess even as the gawkers attempt to remove her disability. As an adult, the princess interacts with freakery again as her fear of prejudice drives her to cover her disability. Here, again, people flock to the strange and unknown, her fame growing in part because of the mystery surrounding her body. Even though she is engaging in the opposite of the traditional freak show by covering instead of revealing and leaving things to mystery instead of describing a fictionalized backstory in elaborate terms, her deviation from an expected norm is still greeted with curiosity, and her petitioners’ desire to see her face is an effort to categorize and understand–an entitlement to knowledge of her body that also defines the attitude of a freak show audience.

The story engages with the cure narrative and societal expectations of ability through both main characters. The princess’ experience of a cure is inherently negative, and she views escaping those who seek to cure her as a triumph, to the point that it is a part of her happy ending. Her parents had a clearly defined expectation for their child that did not allow disability, and so the princess labored under the pressure of an unattainable expectation. Like many cure-focused parents of disabled children, the king and queen view disability as stealing their child: a cure will return to them the child they should have had and that they actually want. On the other hand, the boy’s main goal throughout the story is to find a cure for one of the symptoms of his neuroatypicality. He is highly aware of his difference from other people, and sees his inability to shudder mainly through a social lens; he talks about how he cannot fully enjoy the social experience of campfire stories because he does not shudder at them with others. In the end, his happy ending is found in the satisfaction of experience. He has shuddered without truly changing his inability to feel fear, achieving satisfaction without a real cure to his disability.

Finally, my last goal with this story is to offer a nuanced relationship between a neuroatypical boy and a physically disabled girl. The main struggle was the constraints of the genre. Fairy tales are not long enough for nuanced and deep love stories, and often rely on instantaneous love and telling instead of showing. Despite these constraints, I set out with two goals: to portray how the two main characters’ disabilities bring them together, and to show they have reasons to love each other beyond those similarities. In particular, as the focus is on the princess, I wanted to make sure I did not simply portray her as falling for the first man who was not afraid of her. She falls in love with the boy for his compassion toward the drowning ghost, his sense of humor, and his determination. Although he cannot be afraid of her, he does not negatively react to her appearance in any of the many ways he still could. As with any fairy tale romance, it happens quickly from the audience’s view, but I believe I successfully included nuance and insight into their relationship.

Word count: 721

I pledge that I have neither given nor received unauthorized help on this assignment. -Abigail Weber

Meg’s MPP: The Discomfort of Invisible Disability

I chose to do a painting, inspired by Jillian Weise’s poem, “Nondisabled Demands” for my project. The piece itself is a multi-media composition consisting of watercolor, completed in two 3 hour painting sessions, and a computer printed background photograph of a freckled young woman’s face. I painted a set of eyes that contain all possible eye colors, and arranged those colors to subtly reflect a sense of the natural world around us. I placed the painted eyes over the photograph of the woman’s eyes to symbolize a sort of mask. I imagined the viewer as the speaker of the poem, and wanted to have a clear set of eyes to stare back at that speaker, as a response to what is being said.

The poem begins, “It isn’t fair to us. You owe it to the reader. We’re trying to help. We have an uncle with a disability and he always says what it is […] you can’t expect people to read you if you don’t come out and say it […] ”. In one respect, the painting’s mask represents a choice made by the woman wearing it to conform outwardly to the neurotypical norms of larger society, to guard herself from being “othered”, and her dead-on stare informs the viewer that he/she is only entitled to see what the woman chooses to show. Is she judging the viewer, or is the viewer judging her? Does that make the viewer uncomfortable? Good.

The poem continues, “Everyone knows the default mode of a poem is ten fingers, ten toes […] When this is not true, it is incumbent on you to come out and say it” The mask, in another respect, represents invisible disability, the woman may not “look disabled” to the viewer, which challenges the viewer to question what disability “looks” like. As the poem’s speaker continues, demanding to know, “What do you have? What is it?” The woman’s eyes stare back at the speaker in defiance, her mascara’d lashes act as a sort of war paint in this interaction, and her furrowed brow as metaphorical battle armor.

The speaker goes further, “If you refuse to answer, then we call your doctor. Then we get to say You’re an inspiration.” The painted eyes stare back from atop the printed freckled face, daring the speaker to go ahead and try. The woman will not be moved to comply, her disabilities are her own to share or not share as she decides. The eyes will continue to stare, and make the viewer uncomfortable, despite the viewer/speaker’s demands, which are rooted in the need to feel a sense of order and to be able to appropriately label others, without which the viewer is left uncomfortable. The painting is made to challenge that sense of labeled, ordered, comfort. It is made to prolong the discomfort of the speaker/viewer, and to suggest that perhaps he/she should direct their questioning inward to discover what it is that truly makes them uncomfortable with another person’s invisible (or visible) disabilities in the first place.

Word Count: 506

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