Oscar contender Poor Things is a film about disability. Why won’t more people say so?

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

Readers are advised this article includes an offensive and outdated disability term in a quote from the film.

Poor Things is a spectacular film that has garnered critical praise, scooped up awards and has 11 Oscar nominations. That might be the problem. Audiences become absorbed in another world, so much so our usual frames of reference disappear.

There has been much discussion about the film’s feminist potential (or betrayal). What’s not being talked about in mainstream reviews is disability. This seems strange when two of the film’s main characters are disabled.

Set in a fantasy version of Victorian London, unorthodox Dr Godwin Baxter (William Dafoe) finds the just-dead body of a heavily pregnant woman in the Thames River. In keeping with his menagerie of hybrid animals, Godwin removes the unborn baby’s brain and puts it into the skull of its mother, who becomes Bella Baxter (Emma Stone).

Is Bella really disabled?

Stone has been praised for her ability to embody a small child who rapidly matures into a hypersexual person – one who has not had time to absorb the restrictive rules of gender or patriarchy.

But we also see a woman using her behaviour to express herself because she has complex communication barriers. We see a woman who is highly sensitive and responsive to the sensory world around her. A woman moving through and seeing the world differently – just like the fish-eye lens used in many scenes.

Women like this exist and they have historically been confined, studied and monitored like Bella. When medical student Max McCandless (Ramy Youssef) first meets Bella, he offensively exclaims “what a very pretty retard!” before being told the truth and promptly declared her future husband.

Even if Bella is not coded as disabled through her movements, speech and behaviour, her onscreen creator and guardian is. Godwin Baxter has facial differences and other impairments which require assistive technology.

So ignoring disability as a theme of the film seems determined and overt. The absurd humour for which the film is being lauded is often at Bella’s “primitive”, “monstrous” or “damaged” actions: words which aren’t usually used to describe children, but have been used to describe disabled people throughout history.

In reviews, Bella’s walk and speech are compared to characters like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, rather than a disabled woman. So why the resistance?

Freak shows and displays

Disability studies scholar Rosemarie Gardland-Thomson writes “the history of disabled people in the Western world is in part the history of being on display”.

In the 19th century, when Poor Things is set, “freak shows” featuring disabled people, Indigenous people and others with bodily differences were extremely popular.

Doctors used freak shows to find specimens – like Joseph Merrick (also known as the Elephant Man and later depicted on screen) who was used for entertainment before he was exhibited in lecture halls. In the mid-1800s, as medicine became a profession, observing the disabled body shifted from a public spectacle to a private medical gaze that labelled disability as “sick” and pathologised it.

Poor Things doesn’t just circle around these discourses of disability. Bella’s body is a medical experiment, kept locked away for the private viewing of male doctors who take notes about her every move in small pads. While there is something glorious, intimate and familiar about Bella’s discovery of her own sexual pleasure, she immediately recognises it as worth recording in the third person:

I’ve discovered something that I must share […] Bella discover happy when she want!

The film’s narrative arc ends with Bella herself training to be a doctor but one whose more visible disabilities have disappeared.

Framing charity and sexual abuse

Even the film’s title is an expression often used to describe disabled people. The charity model of disability sees disabled people as needing pity and support from others. Financial poverty is briefly shown at a far-off port in the film and Bella initially becomes a sex worker in Paris for money – but her more pressing concern is sexual pleasure.

Disabled women’s sexuality is usually seen as something that needs to be controlled. It is frequently assumed disabled women are either hypersexual or de-gendered and sexually innocent.

In the real world disabled people experience much higher rates of abuse, including sexual assault, than others. Last year’s Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability found women with disability are nearly twice as likely as women without disability to have been assaulted. Almost a third of women with disability have experienced sexual assault by the age of 15. Bella’s hypersexual curiosity appears to give her some layer of protection – but that portrayal denies the lived experience of many.

Watch but don’t ignore

Poor Things is a stunning film. But ignoring disability in the production ignores the ways in which the representation of disabled bodies play into deep and historical stereotypes about disabled people.

These representations continue to shape lives. The Conversation

Louisa Smith, Senior lecturer, Deakin University; Gemma Digby, Lecturer – Health & Social Development, Deakin University, and Shane Clifton, Associate Professor of Practice, School of Health Sciences and the Centre for Disability Research and Policy, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Is it OK to lie to someone with dementia?
  • The Art and Science of Connection – by Kasley Killam, MPH
    Boost your longevity with science-backed social strategies! Learn how a +53% mortality risk is tied to social bonds and find practical tips for nurturing connections.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • The Exercises That Can Fix Sinus Problems (And More)

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Who nose what benefits you will gain today?

    This is James Nestor, a science journalist and author. He’s written for many publications, including Scientific American, and written a number of books, most notably Breath: The New Science Of A Lost Art.

    Today we’ll be looking at what he has to share about what has gone wrong with our breathing, what problems this causes, and how to fix it.

    What has gone wrong?

    When it comes to breathing, we humans are the pugs of the primate world. In a way, we have the opposite problem to the squashed-faced dogs, though. But, how and why?

    When our ancestors learned first tenderize food, and later to cook it, this had two big effects:

    1. We could now get much more nutrition for much less hunting/gathering
    2. We now did not need to chew our food nearly so much

    Getting much more nutrition for much less hunting/gathering is what allowed us to grow our brains so large—as a species, we have a singularly large brain-to-body size ratio.

    Not needing to chew our food nearly so much, meanwhile, had even more effects… And these effects have become only more pronounced in recent decades with the rise of processed food making our food softer and softer.

    It changed the shape of our jaw and cheekbones, just as the size of our brains taking up more space in our skull moved our breathing apparatus around. As a result, our nasal cavities are anatomically ridiculous, our sinuses are a crime against nature (not least of all because they drain backwards and get easily clogged), and our windpipes are very easily blocked and damaged due to the unique placement of our larynx; we’re the only species that has it there. It allowed us to develop speech, but at the cost of choking much more easily.

    What problems does this cause?

    Our (normal, to us) species-wide breathing problems have resulted in behavioral adaptations such as partial (or in some people’s cases, total or near-total) mouth-breathing. This in turn exacerbates the problems with our jaws and cheekbones, which in turn exacerbates the problems with our sinuses and nasal cavities in general.

    Results include such very human-centric conditions as sleep apnea, as well as a tendency towards asthma, allergies, and autoimmune diseases. Improper breathing also brings about a rather sluggish metabolism for how many calories we consume.

    How are we supposed to fix all that?!

    First, close your mouth if you haven’t already, and breathe through your nose.

    In and out.

    Both are important, and unless you are engaging in peak exercise, both should be through your nose. If you’re not used to this, it may feel odd at first, but practice, and build up your breathing ability.

    Six seconds in and six seconds out is a very good pace.

    If you’re sitting doing a breathing exercise, also good is four seconds in, four seconds hold, four seconds out, four seconds hold, repeat.

    But those frequent holds aren’t practical in general life, so: six seconds in, six seconds out.

    Through your nose only.

    This has benefits immediately, but there are other more long-term benefits from doing not just that, but also what has been called (by Nestor, amongst many others), “Mewing”, per the orthodontist, Dr. John Mew, who pioneered it.

    How (and why) to “mew”:

    Place your tongue against the roof of your mouth. It should be flat against the palate; you’re not touching it with the tip here; you’re creating a flat seal.

    Note: if you were mouth-breathing, you will now be unable to breathe. So, important to make sure you can breathe adequately through your nose first.

    This does two things:

    1. It obliges nose-breathing rather than mouth-breathing
    2. It creates a change in how the muscles of your face interact with the bones of your face

    In a battle between muscle and bone, muscle will always win.

    Aim to keep your tongue there as much as possible; make it your new best habit. If you’re not eating, talking, or otherwise using your tongue to do something, it should be flat against the roof of your mouth.

    You don’t have to exert pressure; this isn’t an exercise regime. Think of it more as a postural exercise, just, inside your mouth.

    Quick note: read the above line again, because it’s important. Doing it too hard could cause the opposite problems, and you don’t want that. You cannot rush this by doing it harder; it takes time and gentleness.

    Why would we want to do that?

    The result, over time, will tend to be much healthier breathing, better sinus health, freer airways, reduced or eliminated sleep apnea, and, as a bonus, what is generally considered a more attractive face in terms of bone structure. We’re talking more defined cheekbones, straighter teeth, and a better mouth position.

    Want to learn more?

    This is the “Mewing” technique that Nestor encourages us to try:

    Share This Post

  • 10% Human – by Dr. Alanna Collen

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The title, of course, is a nod to how by cell count, we are only about 10% human, and the other 90% are assorted microbes.

    Dr. Collen starts with the premise that “all diseases begin in the gut” which is perhaps a little bold, but as a general rule of thumb, the gut is, in fairness, implicated in most things—even if not being the cause, it generally plays at least some role in the pathogenesis of disease.

    The book talks us through the various ways that our trillions of tiny friends (and some foes) interact with us, from immune-related considerations, to nutrient metabolism, to neurotransmitters, and in some cases, direct mind control, which may sound like a stretch but it has to do with the vagus nerve “gut-brain highway”, and how microbes have evolved to tug on its strings just right. Bearing in mind, most of these microbes have very short life cycles, which means evolution happens for them so much more rapidly than it does for us—something that Dr. Collen, with her PhD in evolutionary biology, has plenty to say about.

    There is a practical element too: advice on how to avoid the many illnesses that come with having our various microbiomes (it’s not just the gut!) out of balance, and how to keep everything working together as a team.

    The style is quite light pop-science and, once we get past the first chapter (which is about the history of the field), quite a pleasant read as Dr. Collen has an enjoyable and entertaining tone.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to understand more about all the things that come together to make us functionally 100% human, then this book is an excellent guide to that.

    Click here to check out 10% Human, and learn about how we interact with ourselves!

    Share This Post

  • Sweet Cinnamon vs Regular Cinnamon – Which is Healthier?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Our Verdict

    When comparing sweet cinnamon to regular cinnamon, we picked the sweet.

    Why?

    In this case, it’s not close. One of them is health-giving and the other is poisonous (but still widely sold in supermarkets, especially in the US and Canada, because it is cheaper).

    It’s worth noting that “regular cinnamon” is a bit of a misnomer, since sweet cinnamon is also called “true cinnamon”. The other cinnamon’s name is formally “cassia cinnamon”, but marketers don’t tend to call it that, preferring to calling it simply “cinnamon” and hope consumers won’t ask questions about what kind, because it’s cheaper.

    Note: this too is especially true in the US and Canada, where for whatever reason sweet cinnamon seems to be more difficult to obtain than in the rest of the world.

    In short, both cinnamons contain cinnamaldehyde and coumarin, but:

    • Sweet/True cinnamon contains only trace amounts of coumarin
    • Regular/Cassia cinnamon contains about 250x more coumarin

    Coumarin is heptatotoxic, meaning it poisons the liver, and the recommended safe amount is 0.1mg/kg, so it’s easy to go over that with just a couple of teaspoons of cassia cinnamon.

    You might be wondering: how can they get away with selling something that poisons the liver? In which case, see also: the alcohol aisle. Selling toxic things is very common; it just gets normalized a lot.

    Cinnamaldehyde is responsible for cinnamon’s healthier properties, and is found in reasonable amounts in both cinnamons. There is about 50% more of it in the regular/cassia than in the sweet/true, but that doesn’t come close to offsetting the potential harm of its higher coumarin content.

    Want to learn more?

    You may like to read:

    • A Tale Of Two Cinnamons ← this one has more of the science of coumarin toxicity, as well as discussing (and evidencing) cinnamaldehyde’s many healthful properties against inflammation, cancer, heart disease, neurodegeneration, etc

    Enjoy!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Is it OK to lie to someone with dementia?
  • How much does your phone’s blue light really delay your sleep? Relax, it’s just 2.7 minutes

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s one of the most pervasive messages about technology and sleep. We’re told bright, blue light from screens prevents us falling asleep easily. We’re told to avoid scrolling on our phones before bedtime or while in bed. We’re sold glasses to help filter out blue light. We put our phones on “night mode” to minimise exposure to blue light.

    But what does the science actually tell us about the impact of bright, blue light and sleep? When our group of sleep experts from Sweden, Australia and Israel compared scientific studies that directly tested this, we found the overall impact was close to meaningless. Sleep was disrupted, on average, by less than three minutes.

    We showed the message that blue light from screens stops you from falling asleep is essentially a myth, albeit a very convincing one.

    Instead, we found a more nuanced picture about technology and sleep.

    Mangostar/Shutterstock

    What we did

    We gathered evidence from 73 independent studies with a total of 113,370 participants of all ages examining various factors that connect technology use and sleep.

    We did indeed find a link between technology use and sleep, but not necessarily what you’d think.

    We found that sometimes technology use can lead to poor sleep and sometimes poor sleep can lead to more technology use. In other words, the relationship between technology and sleep is complex and can go both ways.

    How is technology supposed to harm sleep?

    Technology is proposed to harm our sleep in a number of ways. But here’s what we found when we looked at the evidence:

    • bright screen light – across 11 experimental studies, people who used a bright screen emitting blue light before bedtime fell asleep an average of only 2.7 minutes later. In some studies, people slept better after using a bright screen. When we were invited to write about this evidence further, we showed there is still no meaningful impact of bright screen light on other sleep characteristics including the total amount or quality of sleep
    • arousal is a measure of whether people become more alert depending on what they’re doing on their device. Across seven studies, people who engaged in more alerting or “exciting” content (for example, video games) lost an average of only about 3.5 minutes of sleep compared to those who engaged in something less exciting (for example, TV). This tells us the content of technology alone doesn’t affect sleep as much as we think
    • we found sleep disruption at night (for example, being awoken by text messages) and sleep displacement (using technology past the time that we could be sleeping) can lead to sleep loss. So while technology use was linked to less sleep in these instances, this was unrelated to being exposed to bright, blue light from screens before bedtime.

    Which factors encourage more technology use?

    Research we reviewed suggests people tend to use more technology at bedtime for two main reasons:

    There are also a few things that might make people more vulnerable to using technology late into the night and losing sleep.

    We found people who are risk-takers or who lose track of time easily may turn off devices later and sacrifice sleep. Fear of missing out and social pressures can also encourage young people in particular to stay up later on technology.

    What helps us use technology sensibly?

    Last of all, we looked at protective factors, ones that can help people use technology more sensibly before bed.

    The two main things we found that helped were self-control, which helps resist the short-term rewards of clicking and scrolling, and having a parent or loved one to help set bedtimes.

    Mother looking over shoulder of teen daughter sitting on sofa using smartphone
    We found having a parent or loved one to help set bedtimes encourages sensible use of technology. fast-stock/Shutterstock

    Why do we blame blue light?

    The blue light theory involves melatonin, a hormone that regulates sleep. During the day, we are exposed to bright, natural light that contains a high amount of blue light. This bright, blue light activates certain cells at the back of our eyes, which send signals to our brain that it’s time to be alert. But as light decreases at night, our brain starts to produce melatonin, making us feel sleepy.

    It’s logical to think that artificial light from devices could interfere with the production of melatonin and so affect our sleep. But studies show it would require light levels of about 1,000-2,000 lux (a measure of the intensity of light) to have a significant impact.

    Device screens emit only about 80-100 lux. At the other end of the scale, natural sunlight on a sunny day provides about 100,000 lux.

    What’s the take-home message?

    We know that bright light does affect sleep and alertness. However our research indicates the light from devices such as smartphones and laptops is nowhere near bright or blue enough to disrupt sleep.

    There are many factors that can affect sleep, and bright, blue screen light likely isn’t one of them.

    The take-home message is to understand your own sleep needs and how technology affects you. Maybe reading an e-book or scrolling on socials is fine for you, or maybe you’re too often putting the phone down way too late. Listen to your body and when you feel sleepy, turn off your device.

    Chelsea Reynolds, Casual Academic/Clinical Educator and Clinical Psychologist, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Reduce Your Skin Tag Risk

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

    Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

    In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

    As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

    So, no question/request too big or small

    ❝As I get older, I seem to be increasingly prone to skin tags, which appear, seemingly out of nowhere, on my face, chest and back. My dermatologist happily burns them off – but is there anything I can do to prevent them?!❞

    Not a lot! But, potentially something.

    The main risk factor for skin tags is genetic, and you can’t change that in any easy way.

    The other main risk factors are connected to each other:

    Skin folds, and chafing

    Skin tags mostly appear where chafing happens. This can be, for example:

    • Inside joint articulations (especially groin and armpits)
    • Between fat rolls (if you have them)

    So, if you have fat rolls, then losing weight will also reduce the risk of skin tags.

    Additionally, obesity and some often-related problems such as diabetes, hypertension, and an atherogenic lipid profile also increase the risk of skin tags (amongst other more serious things):

    See: Association of Skin Tag with Metabolic Syndrome and its Components

    As for the chafing, this can be reduced in various ways, including:

    • losing weight if (and only if) you are carrying excess weight
    • dressing against chafing (consider your underwear choices, for example)
    • keeping hair in the armpits and groin (it’s part of what it’s there for)

    See also: Simply The Pits: These Underarm Myths!

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • I’m So Effing Tired – by Dr. Amy Shah

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s easy sometimes to feel like we know more or less what we should be doing… If only we had the energy to get going!

    • We know we want a better diet… But we don’t have the time/energy to cook so will go for the quickest option even when it’s not the best?
    • We know we should exercise… But feel we just need to crash out on the couch for a bit first?
    • We would dearly love to get better sleep… But our responsibilities aren’t facilitating that?

    …and so on. Happily, Dr. Amy Shah is here with ways to cut through the Gordian Knot that is this otherwise self-perpetuating cycle of exhaustion.

    Most of the book is based around tackling what Dr. Shah calls “the energy trifecta“:

    • Hormone levels
    • Immune system
    • Gut health

    You’ll note (perhaps with relief) that none of these things require an initial investment of energy that you don’t have… She’s not asking you to hit the gym at 5am, or magically bludgeon your sleep schedule into its proper place, say.

    Instead, what she gives is practical, actionable, easy changes that don’t require much effort, to gently slide us back into the fast lane of actually having energy to do stuff!

    In short: if you’ve ever felt like you’d like to implement a lot of very common “best practice” lifestyle advice, but just haven’t had the energy to get going, there’s more value in this handbook than in a thousand motivational pep talks.

    Click here to check out “I’m So Effing Tired” and get on a better track of life!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: