The willowbrook video and the question Leslie asked us about what we would have done in this time period given we were put into the situation with a family member with mental disabilities really made me start thinking about all those people who were put into the system and probably still remain there today.  I'm really interested in talking to my mom this upcoming break about one of my grandfathers' cousins, named Chester.  All I know about Chester is that he currently lives in some sort of an institution, like a home I believe for his mental disability.  I believe this disability has been a life-long one for Chester, I plan to find out more about his disability and how he ended up in institutionalized care and his story.  The willowbrook video made me absolutely sick and its hard to think that those things could have happened to someone within my family.  Hopefully Chesters' story isn't as traumatic as those at willowbrook, but I have a feeling given his age that he dealt with alot of hardships as many others did.

-Allison

The Intellectual Disabled

After reading the articles and viewing the video on Willowbrook I find it so interesting that those who were considered intellectual disabled were placed in these poor institutions because “thats just what they thought was the correct thing to do.” It’s very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of those back then and think that this was ok, considering the ideas of how we portray those with disabilities contrast so much to those 30 years ago. When you compare the article and the way each of us portrayed idiot in class really proves that. Its very promising to see the progression and right direction of attitudes towards “deviant” individuals are going. Including those who are intellectual disabled in many movies is getting the message out. The more common something is seen the less deviant it will be to those considered normal.

Brian Gallagher

Women in Eugenics

During Michael Rembis’ talk on women in the eugenics movement I found it very interesting  and enlightening towards the topic.  A specific study he mentioned was the Kallikak family study that was conducted in 1912 by a famous eugenicist, Henry Goddard.  This study contributed to the foundation building of the eugenics movement because it included 2 family trees of one man.  One of the women he reproduced with was a bar whore, their children were considered defective, the other relation was with a respectable woman and the children she had were considered socially accepted.  This information led eugenicists to the belief that “feebleminded-ness” or defectively was traced only along the woman’s blood line.  Gender defined how the information was viewed and this study became a popular one among Germans at the time.  This belief relieved the male from any sort of blame and was another way a patriarchal society could scientifically prove female inferiority.  I also found it interesting that even though eugenics was a male chauvinistic field, it also allowed females some of the first career opportunities as fieldworkers, psychologist, social workers, public health nurses and institution administrators.

-Allison

Willowbrook

When Leslie showed the video about the Willowbrook Institution and it really opened my eyes. How could someone treat another human like that? I understand that children with disabilities take more care. My cousin has Leukodystrophy, which is a disease that causes his brain to slowly stop responding, slowing his functions. He takes a lot of time and patience. I can see why parents would believe that sending their disabled child to an institution would be the best thing for them. They were unaware of the treatment they were receiving and did not know how to handle them. I am very sympathetic to those people who were in Willowbrook. I'm sure they would have been able to grow more as people if surrounded by family and loving care. 

Disabilities

I think that today the term disability is an unclear term. In addition to the disabilities that we know, everything that strays from the norm could be considered a disability. I often think of a disability that someone has had for some time and will have for the rest of their life, I know that this is not correct but it is what comes to mind. My friend tore her ACL and had knee surgery. She was given a handicap pass because she could not walk long distances but refused to use it because she said other people needed those parking spots more that she did. She was still labeled as "disabled" because she was not normal. She has since then healed from the surgery and returned to normal and is no longer seen as disabled. I believe that something like surgery should not label you as disabled because it is undermining the extent of a disability.

Twilight Zone Eugenics

After reading some of the posts and hearing our discussions in class I was reminded of a twilight zone episode I saw years ago. While it didn't do the same thing as eugenics by any means it did involve genetic engineering and trying to create a "perfect" people. In the episode a couple was considering using an illegal genetic engineering process that would enhance any child. You could sort of create your kid the way you wanted to, just like we mentioned in class; except instead of hair and eye color you could choose intelligence, athletic ability, confidence and others, with a hefty price tag attached to all of them. The couple struggled with the decision, especially after finding out that in a percentage of these procedures it sometimes goes terribly wrong and the child becomes a dysfunctional monster. They end up doing the procedure, but after finding out there neighbors son hadn't died years ago but had actually turned into one of these monsters they try to get it changed back. However the dysfunctional neighbors son kills the doctor before he can reverse it, leaving the fate of their child in question at the end.

I know my summary was allover the place and probably a bit confusing, but in the end I found it interesting how it related; and wonder which people would risk their childs functional life for a chance at great success.

John Plevel

Eugenics and the "Designer Baby"

I know that to some extent that we now have the ability to pick and choose certain characteristics of your child, if you have enough money that is. The fact that we can do that now makes me think that it is realistic to assume that we will eventually be able to pick every last detail about your child before it is even born. Having the ability to "design" your baby kinda repulses me. It reminds me greatly of eugenics.  It connects to the questions brought up with the eugenics movement; Who gets to determine what characteristics are "undesirable"? and "Should they do so"? Who are you to say what your baby should look like? Who are we as a  society to say what a child or anyone for that matter should look like or what their personality should be?

The "Super Crip"

Disability seems to remain invisible within our society. In rare cases, however, disabled individuals perform what “normal” abled individuals would see as quite difficult considering the disabled status of an individual such as painting, intelligence, driving, even parenting. For example, many television shows and talk shows are dedicated to people with “extraordinary” stories or peculiar disabilities, such as a paralyzed bride-to-be.
Why do we seem to “celebrate” disabled individuals when they perform seemingly “normal” actions? Is it that we are surprised that they are able to overcome what we perceive as medical aversive conditions and obstacles? Or, is it surprising that they are able to navigate and succeed in a society which is created on the basis of an ideal, or “normalcy?” Do we admire people with disabilities for being able to live “the way they do?” Does the idea of the “super crip” exist due to common belief that one disability in one area is complimented with superior abilities in another area? (e.g. a blind person who has superior hearing). Does it reinforce the notion that disability can be overcome if only the person would “try hard enough?”

Angela B.

Current Eugenic "Fittest" Contests

During the height of the eugenics, fittest family contests and better baby contests were popular across the country at various county and state fairs. These contests served principally as a means of entertainment, establishing the ideal and satisfying our most valued sense-visualization. Currently, we still hold multiple contests which aim to display the ideal. Consider Miss America contests or beauty pageants, both of which attempt to award the ideal individual based on our perceptions of beauty and “appropriate” cultural behaviors. Even “Toddlers and Tiaras,” a television show which features young girls who compete in beauty pageants, is dedicated to entertainment and establishing the ideal of young girls’ bodies. These girls are objectified and hyper sexualized in these pageants, which are inherently pedophilic. Current pageants and contests may hold similar purposes as did the fittest family contests and better baby contests during the height of eugenics in that they fulfilled popular societies’ need for entertainment and to demonstrate the ideal. Although current contests may not be directly related to the betterment of the human race and society, they certainly have serious implications.

Angela B.

Response to Jilian's "Disabilities" Post

I also like the "differently abled" term as well - to add to that, I think it is also important to recognize that everyone has their own normal too (what may be normal to you, may be deviant to someone else). I also like that you mentioned how we should focus on abilities instead of inabilities, this is also really important. When I read that your best friend has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, it made me think of my friend Chris that passed away - he had the same thing.

- Josh Steffen

"Disabilities"

I thought it was interesting in class when someone mentioned that everyone does something differently than other people. That is what we have said defines so to speak what a "disabled" person is; someone who does things differently than everyone else. I also really like the term brought up in class, "differently abled." 

If we all think about it there is something that you do that is different than other people. Josh mentioned that he is left handed and that with a big majority of right handed desks in classrooms brings that difference out. I don't have that issue being right handed, although when the odd left handed desk comes along it is strange for me to sit in it, so I suppose I can relate in a small way. I for one am very near sighted (I can't see far away), which most people might not know because I wear contacts everyday. But without them or my glasses I would be lost, I really can't see anything. I use those aids to see as do millions of other people who have difficulty seeing. I wouldn't necessarily call that a "disability" nor would I call being left handed a "disability." They are just things that we have that require us to do something like seeing and writing differently than those who can see perfectly or are right handed.


I think that too many people look at the disability and what that person can't do versus what they can do. My best friend has Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. Muscular Dystrophy is a disorder that causes muscle degeneration which affects walking ability, breathing, and heart strength. He often has people assume that he can't do things. That is 100% NOT the case. He can do pretty much everything that anyone else can, just in a different or slower pace.  


Basically what I am saying I suppose is that the issues we brought up in class aren't always thought about by society at large. You see someone with what you would call a "disability" and make assumptions about them. I know we all do it no matter how hard we try not to or would like to think we don't. If you really think about it, using the common definition of "disability", everyone would be labeled as such.

Willowbrook video

The video that we watched today in class about the Willowbrook Institution broke my heart. All the kids in that place deserved so much better living conditions and medical treatment. One of the things that upset me the most was the limited contact that the parents had with their children. In some cases, this was because of the doctors, but in others, the parents wanted nothing to do with their disabled children and didn't want to bother making any effort trying to take care of them. It's as if they just threw them away and waited for them to die. Then, the doctors at these institutions and society in general becomes responsible for their care, which is just as bad, if not worse, because of the lack of education, staff, funds, care, etc. I understand that it's hard to take care of a child with any kind of disability, especially a severe mental handicap, but I've known many cases in which the family makes it work with what limited resources they may have. When I was in elementary school, my best friend at the time had a little sister who was born with Down's Syndrome. The girl was the third of four children, and her parents handled their situation very well. They weren't wealthy, only had your average middle-class income. But they were able to afford a therapist to make (weekly? I can't remember) visits to their home and work with their daughter. By the time she was about four years old, she still couldn't talk and still wasn't potty-trained. However, she was a very happy, well-adjusted child. The parents both worked, and the other children never suffered from any lack of attention from their parents. I understand that this is a rare, more positive case, but it can happen. Having a child with a disability isn't a guarantee that your family life will be miserable or that any other children you have will suffer greatly. Yes, it's very difficult and takes a lot of effort and education, and a whole lot of love, from everyone involved, but it can work out for the best for everyone.

Sarah Bradley

Early Life

When I was 14 months old, I was diagnosed as “developmentally delayed.” A rehabilitation center had a daytime program called infant stimulation and decided I was eligible upon evaluation. They did different activities with me that dealt with speech and articulation (I can vaguely remember my parents working on improving the range of motion in my legs on a daily basis too).

As I progressed to language development, I was surrounded by other children with behavior problems (biting, throwing tantrums) so I would bring that behavior home and do it to my parents or my older brother because I thought that was the appropriate thing to do. To show me that this was unacceptable behavior, my parents would pretend to bite me (I would scream, and eventually stopped the “bad” behavior because I did not want those things to be done to me). It was not all bad though, I learned some positive things like picking up after myself.

About to go to kindergarten, there were people who wanted to put me in a special education class, but my parents refused. They brought people in my defense, to say that I would do fine in a regular classroom setting. I still got services like resource room (mostly helped with math and science) and adaptive physical education since I could not participate in the regular gym activities most of the time.

I'm so thankful that I never had to go to an institution - I can only imagine what those people went through.

- Josh Steffen

"Profoundly Normal"

Today's discussion about people in the institutions made me think about a movie called "Profoundly Normal." It shows what life was like for people in and outside of an institution. You can watch the whole movie on YouTube divided into 9 parts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWLQw2sozYs&feature=autoplay&list=PLE5BF11147D34BD3E&lf=plpp_video&playnext=1

I would love to get the class's thoughts on this movie - it's definitely worth watching, I laugh and cry every time I watch it.

- Josh Steffen

Eugenics

My goal for the presentation on Eugenics was to find questions that each of you could make a connection too. Instead of going for the in depth questions pertaining the Medical Apartheid, I sought ask questions that would make you think of the big picture. The main purpose of Eugenics is artificially selecting desired traits - selective breeding. The main question of controversy I was working towards is “who determines the undesirable trait to be eliminated, and how one goes about removing it.”  Lets say you decide to you want to rid of specific disease trait. Someone would have to make a dictator decision permitting an elimination of a certain population by sterilizing those with that gene. Though you are trying to make the world a healthier place you are coming exceptionally close to idea of genocide and going against the democratic ideals of the US.


Brian G 

idiots in america

today for class we read an article about idiots in america. i feel like this article is very relevant to todays world because as we seen in class everyone has a definition of what an idiot is. after watching the video of the willowbrrok institution i was very disgusted of the way that we treat people who are different from the normal. i also didnt like how there was very little interaction with the people in there and thier family members. a question was posed in class on wether or not we would ever put one of our children into an insitiution. i honestly dont have an answer to this because i do not have children but i feel like there are some parents out there who do not know how to take care of a child who has a disability and they have no other options and if thats a way to keep someone alive then it should be done. i feel like our society has changed alot however sence this article was written and we now accept these people into our society and educate them so that they are able to function every day. i think we just put them into instiutions in the past because it was societies way of hiding them. i also feel like doctors have alot to do with this because they convience parents that it is necessary fo them to put thier children into places for them to get help and we dont know alot about how to take care of a child with disabilities that parents are conveinced. the other thing that we read for class today dealt with defective children in the juvenile court. the one question that was brought up was wether or not a broken home makes a person disabled. i feel like this is wrong because i personally come from a defective home where my parents spilt and it doesnt affect my daily life yes i deal with some emotional problems but i am still able to do things and i do do things that someone else does who doesnt come from a home that isnt broken. i feel like there is more to it then just saying someone is disabled because they have family problems i believe that there are other problems that have to be added into the equation as well like how they were brought up and the enviorment and people that they hang out with.

Shallow

Martin Pernick’s article discussed the promotion of a breed that was not only attractive but active. This is what I quoted from Pernick’s article in an earlier post, “Careful propaganda was needed to unconsciously favorably modify the individual taste . . . in mate-choosing. . . . If their ideals of human beauty are properly trained, young people will, unconsciously reject the ugly and will fill their homes with beautiful wives and handsome husbands”. This promotion of beauty and fitness in one package is still visible today.  I learned my lesson on dating through a deployment my first time, so when I came home last November, I came home alone. My friend has tried to hook me up with a couple of her friends, but I was not attracted to them. So a couple weeks ago she told me that, “I need to stop trying to date a hot girl and date a girl that’s average.” Well I guess I am average. She then pointed out that I need to tan, dress nicer, get bigger muscles and lose weight. As we were sitting on her porch, a young male ran by who had a six-pack. She said, “See, like that guy, he’s hot”.  Well I appreciated her honesty even if it was brutal. What I realized though, is besides some rare instances, this is how the world works—at least among young adults in the United States. Like my friend said, “Hot girls date hot guys”. How do you become “hot”, well it helps if you have the physique of a Greek god or goddess. I am not going to give the run-around; we all know who promotes fitness and beauty. Indeed, all of us fall victim to this promoter in some way or another. I am glad that my friend snapped me back into reality; she also reminded me that a “hot” girl is not really what I should strive for. And on an end note: My friend asked me on a scale 1-10 what I would give her. I said an eight. It made me feel better, and yet I was being generous. After all, I am only average which is a 7.5….she’ll get over it at the gym…and so will I.
Domalski, Josh

Myth of the "Crack Baby"

One part of the reading that really broke my heart was section about the myths of the crack babies. African American women were influenced by doctors to take birth control or to undergo sterilization because of the myth of the crack baby. The myth was that many African American women were giving birth to crack babies, and that these babies were going to have major birth defects, or grow up to be delinquents. The facts are that white women are just as likely to smoke some from of crack while on their pregnancy as African American women. Another fact that was mentioned in the book, was that many children whose mothers engaged in drug use while pregnant, where not addicted to crack when they were born. There were some minor birth defects, but all-in-all, there should not have been a reason for African American women to be singled out to take birth control or to not have babies. This is a clear sign of eugenics that was going on in America not that long ago. And in some ways, is still prevalent.

Idiocy

My heart sank after reading these articles. It pains me to know that at one time in our history, the "feeble-minded" were treated fairly and not thrown into a an asylum right away. And for a few reasons, our attitudes towards this population shifted in a very negative way, at least about what we saw as potential in their capabilities. I was glad to learn that we have since seen it as best to educate this population and not throw them in the corner. 

I do think that it is down right sad that we have been so blunt in calling people idiots and labeling them. I'm saying this should be done discreetly, I'm saying it shouldn't be done at all. But I have also wondered that maybe this label had a different meaning at the time. Just as the words for "describing" the disabled have changed, so too, maybe has the word "idiot" changed too. 

Erin Pattridge

Class Discussion of Eugenics

I do believe that the idea of eugenics started off as well intended. However, it did get out of hand very quickly. What's scary to know is that Nazi Germany borrowed our ideas about eugenics in the first place and then took it to extremes by performing genocide.

What I found interesting yesterday was when someone brought up that you can pick out certain traits you wish your embryo and future child to have, granted that it is very expensive. But then you turn around and there are people who can't even hope to have children of their own. I have a few family members that are sterile and did not come by that medically. It was just something that happened to them naturally. I think we really have to step back and ask ourselves what is truly important? What is right? How far are we willing to let technology go? What are the moral and ethical issues here?

Erin Pattridge

Eugenics anomaly?

I found this description on page 33 of “Defining the Defective: Eugenics, Aesthetics, and Mass Culture in Early 20^th Century America” “The Woman of Tomorrow” to develop strength and beauty through vigorous exercises was demonstrated by a short haired woman, whose hard, flat body…”(emphasis added) to be very curious.  Consider, this was in an era in which a woman's cutting her hair short was considered to be an act of rebellion, and when any woman worthy of the title was to have a small waist, large hips and large bust.  Yet the eugenics movement is using as a model the woman described above.

Joyce Abbott

Life of a tortured kind

For my presentation I did some more research on disabled persons in our society.  I remember from my EDU 250 class, watching a documentary on the Willowbrook institution.  This documentary was very disturbing and myself and my classmates were all almost in tears over it.  At this institution, children were taken from their parents some who did not want to send them to Willowbrook, put to live in awful conditions and left to fend for themselves.   They would be naked and in a room were they could roll in there feces.  This is unsanitary and deplorable.  They stated that they could train these people.  Since when can you train a human?  Last time I checked, I haven't met a human that would wag their tail when you told them to sit down.

The treatment of disabled has changed rapidly from the time of Willowbrook to now, or so we thought.  In the Spring of April 2011, Laura Cummings, a mentally retarded 23 year old, was murdered by her mother and step brother.  Laura's everyday life was a struggle and she was tortured on a daily basis.  She would be shackled to a chair and had a sack put over her head to limit her breathing.  I remember vividly my mother coming home from work this day in tears because her client had to suffer such a long and painful death.  The shocking factor of this death is that many people knew of the treatment of Laura and they did not say anything to anyone.  This is disgusting to me.  If I knew about her treatment  would have called APS anonymously.  Sadly, very little justice has been done to punish those who were involved in this crime.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article36366.ece

Leslie Walter

Individuals

This weeks reading really interest me because I am looking to be in the field of special education in a few short years!  I was very interested in Tuesday's readings because it involved the IDEA and that is something I have a lot of knowledge in. 

When we were talking about the classification of people with disabilities, I brought up the point of them being called "individuals".  This is an important point to recognize because people with a disability and their advocates take major offense to being called mentally "retarded".  To them this means that they are completely incapable of doing activities that the "normal" person would do.  They can do the activities but they just do it at a slower pace or with some modification. 

In the field of education, we have to be able to look at a child with a disability and see them not for their disability but for their personalty.  Society needs to do the same because we tend to judge people before walking a mile in their shoes. 

Leslie Walter

Eugenics and Disabilities

Today in class we read two articles one on eugenics and one on disabilities. the one on eugenics dealt with the issue of being able to change peoples genes. the first thing that we talked about was an african american women who had her uterus removen when she didnt even know it was happening. I feel like one reason this was happening was so that we could stop this race from growing. i also feel like this was a terrible thing to do to a women because thats what makes us a women is being able to carry a child. it also causes a problem later on if this is done because most men want to marry someone who is able to bear a child. this also has to do with todays world because we are still trying to do things in order to control people or a certain race or gender. when it comes to being able to make your own baby or even decide to have testing done to see if your baby has a disease i feel like our technology has come a long way. i feel like our new technology is good and bad. its good because if a parent learns early on that somehting is wrong with thier child then they have time to learn about the disease and how to take care of a child with something wrong with them. at the same time i feel like this is bad because then i feel most people are uneducated and will decide to just abort the baby.
Next we talked about disability history. the one thing that i did not like in this article is that they labeled any kind of disease as being a disability and i dont think that this is true. this relates to the world today because we still do this. the reason i think that they shouldnt label every disease as a diablility beccause its not. for example one girl in class said that she should be labeled disabeled because she has to wear glasses but she lives day to day like any normal person. I also have been diagnosed with bell's palsy which is a parlysis in the face and i still go to school and work like any other person and it doesnt affect me in anyway so i dont feel like i am diabeled but according to this article i would be. i feel like we just need to have classifications for people so we try to put a label on anything that we can.

Kevorkian and Eugenics?

Besides Medical Apartheid having a biased ring to it, I appreciate the information. But when Washington equated Dr. Kevrorkian with Eugenics, I was shocked. Washington states that along with Harry Haiselden, Dr Kevorkian, “Hastened the death of those they perceived as ‘unfit for life,’ and both chose their victim from the poles of life.” The only difference Washington suggests is that Kevorkian preyed upon the, “old or ill” (192). So according to Washington, euthanasia or assisted suicide is the same as or would fall under eugenics? Huh! First off, Kevorkians' patients were all older, terminally ill and consented to “treatment”. Those who succumbed to the evils of true eugenics through sterilization were forced, tricked, or consented against their own volition. Euthanasia is known as “mercy killing.” If everyone has the right to live, then everyone should also have the right to die. I think Washington needs to eliminate such biased opinions in her work, and especially understand that when discussing eugenics there is no correlation with Dr. Kevorkian and euthanasia, for they are completely different subjects.
Domalski

Eugenics and Movies

Are only pretty people good? Being an aunt of two young nephews I watch a lot of Disney movies. So as I was reading the Pernicks article there was a Disney movie playing in the background and it got me to think. In most of the Disney movies there is a main character, the good pretty character with all their good moral fibers. And then there is the bad, evil, ugly character who wants nothing more than to destroy the pretty characters world. Is this what we are teaching the younger generation? That to be good and moral and right you have to be beautiful? Yes Disney can go on and say that beauty is what is underneath but, all their “hero” characters are attractive. The Pernicks article argues that with eugenics we can create a beautiful society. That when we create beautiful people we are also creating a culture that is more moral and “good”.  it doesn’t matter  what you look like  you still can be moral and good but, then why does the entertainment world keeps telling us   that to be good, moral and popular you have to look beautiful.

-Sarah Fiorella 

Sterilization

After reading the Washington chapter I was beside myself. I couldn’t believe the amount of women who were sterilized without even knowing about it. Sterilizing women can lead to some pretty harsh side effects. A woman needs her organs to produce hormones that regulate her body. My question is why weren’t men sterilized or were they and were not just reported on? In the Washington book stated that many men felt that the pill or Norplant were genocide because it killed or prevented pregnancy.  I don’t know how much I agree with the men. However when I found out that most of the preventatives were given a way to African American women by organization that was mostly white men or women I started to get more skeptical. My opinions are still up in the air about preventatives against births and the motive behind it. I don’t believe that birth control is a form of genocide. I don’t even know if men should have a say in the birth control fight because once again it is not their body.  

-Sarah Fiorella 

Eugenics movement & Hitler

Out of everything that we've read in class so far, the readings on eugenics were the hardest for me to read. All of our readings have been rampant with evidence of racism, sexism, and prejudice against all kinds of people. However, I was able to somewhat understand why some people have had these perspectives in the past. I don't condone them, but I can see how one could be raised to think negatively about people who were different from them and considered "abnormal." But the idea of sterilizing or euthanizing a child, an innocent baby who hasn't even had the chance to develop into anyone's idea of a normal, productive member of society, just because of a PERCEIVED defect, made me sick. I couldn't help but think of Adolf Hitler and his mission during the Holocaust. He's been labeled every awful name in the book for his viewpoints on Aryan supremacy and his ideas behind eliminating people who were homosexual, who were different races, and who had physical or mental disabilities. But these eugenics doctors and advocates were doing the same thing! They just threw in a bunch of medical mumbo-jumbo and tried to conjure up a scientific rationale to make it sound better to the general public. Their goal was the same as Hitler's: the supremacy of a certain, "better" kind of people by eliminating those who were less than their idea of beautiful, useful, etc.The eugenics movement was on a much smaller scale, wasn't public for very long, and was supported by trusted medical professionals and other well-respected public figures. Therefore, it's not well-known nor is it often talked about when discussing topics like genocide, race supremacy, etc. I don't think it should be forgotten and I think more people should be aware that this is a part of our fairly recent history that has
 had more influence on today's world than most people realize.

Sarah Bradley

Beauth=goodness

People who equate a physically appealing face with goodness make me laugh.  Did you ever hear the evil stepmother described as a hag?  I never did she is always shown as an aristocratic and beautiful woman, so much for physical beauty equaling goodness.

Joyce Abbott