Gender roles in Tanzania play a huge in a culture-specific aspect of violence inflicted upon Juma's mother, and subsequently, Juma himself. As Juma and his family lived in a patriarchal society where the men, in his particular culture, were viewed of a higher regard than women, the conventional wisdom of this society seems to dictate, on its own accord, that whether they acknowledge it or not, their culture traditionally and historically devalues the identity of a woman. To elaborate, this passage specifically indicates that a woman's identity is only legitimate if she is married and a mother; on the other hand, if she is single, divorced, or widowed she is denounced and regarded to as a "malevolent and destructive force". As such, Juma's mother (following her husband's death) becomes a scapegoat for the spread of AIDS, forcing her to relocate with her children (Juma, included) which exacerbates the trickle-down effect of Juma's exposure to 'everyday violence' and suffering.

In retrospect, I think that the gender-based cultural aspect of violence acts as a nexus with the structural aspect of poverty (or the economy), the government's lack of resistance to worldwide pressures of capitalism, and a lack of accessible health care by the government. This is so if we consider Juma's situation: the government failing to act lawfully for its own citizens caused a strain on Juma's already economically vulnerable family (re: relatives being dislocated and moving in). Furthermore, the lack of education in HIV/AIDS and lack of accessible/affordable care for these diseases arguably precipitated Juma's father's death which connects to the battle between the uncle and Juma's mother for land inheritance (where culture plays its role), ultimately causing her to fear for her safety so she flees with her children, and as her situation is not unique, a mass migration or exodus is a leading catalyst for HIV/AIDS diffusion in its role of everyday violence.

Even in our modern-day society with all the technological advancements and medical breakthroughs, to drug users, their lived and living experiences of pain is still regarded to as "unreal". Despite the fact that what they are struggling through is almost like a link between physical pain (when they are suffering so much so that they are actually physically hurting) and emotional pain (mental struggles with control and the desire to relieve such tremendous pain), technically (clinically), it is still "unreal". Thus, this statement from Paul is a perfect example of how his experience of pain is demonstrated as an allegorical concept. Here, Paul is comparing his addiction to drugs with a big brother; that is, he is using the typical "big brother" as a symbol of his pained experience. Since no one else (medical professionals) in society can help him relieve his pain, he resorts to addiction (his big brother) who can take away his pain, albeit temporarily, in exchange for even more suffering when he eventually experiences a withdrawal again. This metaphor helps Paul express his deeply twisted emotional state of being and how addiction (or his brother) is like a double-edged sword: it will be the only one willing to take his pain away (a brother taking care of him), but in the long-run, it buries him even further into the ground as it exposes him to more risk of HIV, it [the pain] will eventually return full-throttle, and it will weaken his control (substantiating his dependency on his "brother").

Personally, I found this passage to be a rather alarming case of a disconnect between a biomedical model of distress and the woman's own framework of agony. This is so because despite embodying various symptoms of depression (irritability, lack of interest), none of the mothers linked it to the "context of a biomedical psychiatric disorder" as it would be under a strict biomedical explanatory model of distress. The fact that they did not even consider this scenario (no matter the reason) and instead decided to endure all this heavy burden (often on their own) that even affected their relationship with their children was appalling. In terms of the irritability, the passage described a mother who would get "fed up" and hit her own children. Here, there may be a cross-cultural detachment because I know that in this extreme situation, this would absolutely raise red flags signaling some sort of issue that needs to be addressed, as it also would under a biomedical framework standpoint, but in India, and in this woman's framework of distress, domestic beating seems to be more tolerated there than it is in western culture.

Under a typical western biomedical explanatory framework of distress, society dictates that whenever one is in pain--be it physical or mental--the norm would call for the individual to seek professional help to relieve said pain; say, going to the hospital for an injury or visiting a therapist for mental stress relief. However, the fact that this woman helplessly questioned the point in seeking treatment as apparently "there's no solution for [her distress,]" I believe that this clearly illustrates the dissonance between a biomedical model and the woman's own framework of distress. In this passage, the last remark is especially interesting as the woman seems to imply that her own care for health or distress is basically nonexistent. So long as her husband is healthy, then "everything...[is] fine"--meaning, her "being fine" or her own idea of well-being is entirely dependent on her husband's state of being, and not her own (being the individual with distress) as any biomedical framework would most definitely highlight.

As a result of the sudden accident that rendered Yosef vulnerable and unable to assist in any way as the woman died before him, I've concluded from this passage that Yosef is more so embodying a rather intangible capacity: guilt. The key phrases that illustrated this concept to me included: "he perpetually talks about...the accident," "if he could only have rescued her...[but] he stood there helpless," and "I already know this 'record'". The first and third key phrases mentioned are components that factor into his overall "embodiment" because he is so transfixed by this event that it is essentially all he talks about; the situation seems to have embodied him and he seems to have embodied the guilt from the situation. In fact, his "perpetual" talking of said incident caused Rabbi Dov to even compare Yosef's talking [of the accident] to a [broken] record--something that keeps on repeating endlessly as if it's the only thing that matters in the world. Meanwhile, the second key phrase clearly paints that the aspect Yosef is so engrossed in is, unfortunately, guilt and helplessness. Yosef articulates that he wishes he could have rescued her constantly, so it all contributes to the notion that Yosef is embodying the guilty feeling he experienced and is traumatized by mentally.

Here, I disagree with the author's interpretation of the respective interview transcript. The author claims that this situation is problematic because Yosef is not studying the Torah, so he is not keeping his mind occupied with positive thoughts. Personally, I find this to be extremely unreasonable because, logically speaking, one can only keep their mind occupied for so long; there is bound to be at least one fleeting, ephemeral moment--that even those who do study the Torah--where the individual simply thinks of nothing or comes across a [negative] situation where it is only natural to think of such an event. Interestingly enough, Rabbi Dov even states in the passage that "When...we have nothing to think about, we think about stupidities." Thus, I find it irrational to assume that not studying the Torah is a chief problem for Yosef's situation when thinking [about "stupidities"] is as ubiquitous as it is. Instead, it may be more sound to assume that Yosef's troubles stemmed from his trauma from that sudden accident with the woman that caused him to actually think and process the scenario; thus, causing Yosef to truly understand and question the meaning of life and the timer over everyone's heads for their respective "expiration dates" because death in unavoidable.

Although modern thought enforces the notion of the body belonging only to the self [the individual in reference], which I appreciate and concur with, it is undeniable that society has in some way, shape, or form aided in the construction of the body; that is, the body definitely has "social meanings". As stated in this passage, "historical, cultural, political, and societal frames" are all experiences that, under physical and social environments, shaped who we are today. For example, a petite woman of short stature will definitely face different day-to-day reactions [harassment] than a bulky, tall male. Despite our progressive attitudes, there is still a lingering existence of how not only have different attributes and beliefs that dictated or influenced who we are today as individuals bear fruit, but also because of these innate parts of being, society also has various perceptions of our body and cast judgement almost pre-consciously. We embody what we were exposed to, who we were raised by, and how we think society views our embodiment of self, and ultimately, all these factors play into our body's social meanings.

More often than not, visits to medical professionals seem to take almost an entirely clinical approach. As this participant stated, the "norm" in this field appeared to be about getting the stone-cold facts and subsequently, I would assume, applying the patient to some particular label that fits them best. However, everything about this situation is, for lack of a better word, robotic. Thus, embodiment is so important in patient-physician experiences because if the doctor is able to step out of their "professional" shoes for just a moment, and actually connect with the patient as not a client, but a fellow human being, the personal bond or intimacy will become much more benign in illustrating a vivid depiction of the patient's ordeal as there is now an added aspect of trust between the two parties. Personally, I can respect this particular physician's coming-to in terms of her approach to practices--with this updated attitude, her experience with the patient is built more on a foundation of the patient's "self" and how that patient is feeling in respect to their wholesome embodiment of their body, mind, and spirit, as their own "self" which the physician is now capable of understanding on a deeper level and connection.

Despite the fact that in our society conventional wisdom seems to dictate that sickness is merely clinical, this passage takes an overlooked, but common, part of our daily lives and introduces a whole new meaning to "sickness" in my eyes. Despairingly, I feel that this "strategic" form of sickness is ultimately quite obtuse and impeding. Whereas mental illness is quite rampant and should be further addressed and researched, it almost, in my opinion, feels as if it is being taken quite lightly here. Of course, I'm sure everyone has had a moment in time where we might have feigned illness to take a mental break of the sorts which is "perfectly fine", but to the extent of using mental illness as an excuse for irrational behavior is quite frustrating to say the least. Nonetheless, this aspect does chalk up a new perspective of sickness that should be considered as well.

While illness is quite distinctive in a multitude of ways, it's important to realize,as I have, that culture can play a huge factor in shaping sickness. Based on one's customs and traditions and depending on the level of modernity that individual's country is situated in, it is astounding, but somewhat unsurprising for those of such mixed cultures, to note that each culture has their own way of diagnosing and treating sickness. For example, instead of just going to the doctor's office and getting prescribed some medicine, often times my mother would first refer back to traditional Chinese medicine and ointments that she swears by as she herself had received similar "treatment" from her parents. This connection also stems over to explaining how culture can "situate illness within the socio-economic reality which sets the parameters of therapeutic action" as described in the article. Whether the culture and community just is not as technologically advanced in the field of bio-medicine or the individual him or herself cannot afford "Western" medicine and reverts to "traditional" medicine of their own culture, the expanding meaning of sickness can certainly be corroborated by a cultural standpoint/variation.

Sickness is not as clear-cut as a simple diagnosis that you relieve with its respective medicine; instead, sickness is more so of an overarching umbrella that encompasses not only the diagnosis, symptoms, and medicine, but also the personal experience of the [one who is] sick that truly brings the "definition" of sickness full circle. Yes, some people may experience the same 'type' or 'category' of sickness (say, having the flu or a cold for the most elementary of examples), but what each person actually goes through in combating this illness is entirely subjective and personal. No one truly knows the extent of pain and suffering the person is at in regards to a specific stage in their illness, except for themselves. Thus, one's personal illness narrative combines both the basics of being ill (the class or category) with the complexities of being ill (the unique personal experience) in order to 'redefine' the popular and conventional belief of what it means to be "sick".

In regards to quantitative methods producing one 'kind' of knowledge and qualitative methods producing another 'kind' of knowledge, I believe that this section illustrates the type of knowledge that may occur as a result of each method. Although quantitative methods may produce the statistical data for an overall generalization of the population, here, the authors demonstrate that qualitative methods (in this case, building "trust and rapport" with the participants) may yield more truthful and honest answers that would have otherwise not have been indicated or falsified via the quantitative research.

Unfortunately, the aspects of culture may indeed take part in the explanation of the researcher's findings in this scenario. Under many customs and traditions, men are typically still viewed as the "dominant figures" and hold high amounts of power, which may also contribute to a patriarchal form of government. In these conditions, women may be essentially powerless and, like these results show, thus attribute them being raped to the "natural sexual drives and entitlement [of men]". This qualitative exploration shows the nuances as to how even though the women were traumatized by the rape, they pass it off as another sexual encounter natural for men which leads to much more to be configured under a cultural standpoint.

Here, the authors are stating that even though there are several research findings that involved both qualitative and quantitative methods, having only one study that decided to fuse both sides of the spectrum of the research is rather lackluster and unfortunate. The authors are particularly trying to reiterate the importance of taking both qualitative and quantitative findings and have them be mutually beneficial to the other. Considering how this is a field of subjectivity, being able to synthesis all information together can really aid in finding those direct nuances that can lead to further research or progression--which is why they are really questioning why exactly this extra step isn't being taken when it can really illustrate a clearer picture.