Blog 5

Since we were unable to thoroughly discuss Thomson in class last week- I find writing about it still difficult. Thomson’s piece of writing called Extraordinary Bodies was not an easy read. I found my self rereading parts over and over again. Although I do agree with what Thomson said on page 44, “..the limitations disabled people experience result more often from interaction with a social and physical environment designed to accommodate the normate body. In other words, people deemed disabled are barred from full citizenship because their bodies do not conform with architectural, attitudinal, educational, occupational, and legal convections based on assumptions that bodies appear and perform in certain ways.” I completely agree with this statement. All over the world we have limits set for people who are disabled in our community, work, schools, and cities. I am actually appalled now that I think about it. Now that I have that part understood, I want to talk about something that I don’t quiet get, the part where Thomson says on page 29 that, “In almost ever case, the disabled woman figure functions as a symbol of otherness, either positive or negative…in the account of freak shows for example, exhibitions of disabled women of color introduce race, gender, and ethnicity into freak discourse, which seems initially to turn upon the simple opposition between “normal” and “abnormal” bodies.” Why does Thomson have direct attention displayed on women who are disabled, and makes no reference to men who are? Is Thomson saying that if a woman is disabled than that woman, can no longer be looked at as feminine? I feel like I should reread this document a couple more times, and then finally I would get it!