User:Lorenapreston/sandbox

During the mid to late 20th century people with disabilities where met with fear, stigma, and pity. Their opportunities for a full productive life where minimal at best and often emphasis was placed more on personal characterizes that could be enhanced so the attention was taken from their disability (Groomes and Linkowski 2007). Linkowski developed the Acceptance of Disability Scale (ADS) during this time to help measure a person’s struggle to accept disability (Groomes and Linkowski 2007). He developed the ADS to reflect the value change process associated with the acceptance of loss theory Groomes and Linkowski 2007). In contrast to later trends, the current trend shows great improvement in the quality of life for those with disabilities (Groomes and Linkowski 2007). Sociopolitical definitions of disability, the independent living movement, improved media and social messages, observation and consideration of situational and environmental barriers, passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 have all come together to help a person with disability define their acceptance of what living with a disability means (Groomes and Linkowski 2007).

Bogdan and Taylor's (1993) acceptance of sociology, which states that a person need not be defined by personal characterizes alone, has become influential in helping persons with disabilities to refuse to accept exclusion from mainstream society (Groomes and Linkowski 2007). According to some disability scholar’s, disabilities are created by oppressive relations with society, this has been called the social creationist view of disability (Vehmas 2004). In this view, it is important to grasp the difference between physical impairment and disability. In the article The Mountain written by Eli Clare, Michael Oliver defines impairment as lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organism or mechanism of the body and the societal construct of disability; Oliver defines disability as the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical (and/or cognitive/developmental/mental) impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of society (Clare). In society, language helps to construct reality, for instance, societies way of defining disability which implies that a disabled person lacks a certain ability, or possibility, that could contribute to her personal well-being and enable her to be a contributing member of society versus abilities and possibilities that are considered to be good and useful (Vehmas 2004). Society needs to destruct the language that is used and build a new one that does not place those with disabilities in the “other” category Groomes and Linkowski 2007).

Groomes, D. A. G., & Linkowski, D. C. (2007). Examining the structure of the revised acceptance disability scale. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73(3), 3-9. Retrieved from http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/docview/236273029?accountid=9649

Vehmas, Simo. 2004. "Dimensions of Disability." Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13(1):34-40 ( http://libproxy.boisestate.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/201349627?accountid=9649 ).

Eli Clare, The Mountain

I have changed articles and I am now looking at Normalization (people with disabilities). The article seems to do a good job talking about the history and definition of normalization. But it then goes into connecting normalization with contemporary society. The article talks about the theory of normalization at play today, what are some of the different theories that have been created, and some of the misconceptions of normalization. I feel that the one thing the article does not talk about enough, is some of the mistakes and pitfalls of the normalization theory that has been researched.

One of the research articles that I looked at talked about whether normalization should be deconstructed and another newer theory used. The article talked about many of the mistakes and pitfalls that those who first created normalization made. The article summed up it's definition of normalization as, ‘‘normalization is one of those illusory concepts that everyone understands until asked to give examples of how it might affect practice’’ (Shaddock, Zilber (1991). The article also talks about normalization having a gap between theory and practice. There is more and more research out there is showing that maybe normalization has outlived its usefulness. I am going to use that research to add a section about the mistakes that have been made in normalization. Eloit, I. (2016). the queer turn in feminism: identities, sexualities, and the theater of gender. Feminist Review, 112(1), e16-e18. doi:10.1057/fr.2015.64

HEMMINGS, C. (2016). Is Gender Studies Singular? Stories of Queer/Feminist Difference and Displacement. Differences: A Journal Of Feminist Cultural Studies, 27(2), 9-102. doi:10.1215/10407391-3621721

Article Evaluation

The article The Social Construction of Gender does not seem to be a neutral voice. The evidence for why the author considers it a social construction is very strong, but their is very little about any other ideas about gender. Their is original research stated in it. The information is not all relevant to the what the author is talking about, for instance, talking about gender performance, adolescents view on gender, depression, and education are not necessary to the idea of gender being a social construct.