All arguments that involve you being blamed on you-AS traits

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I understand how people exaggerate, even I exaggerate sometimes, but it annoys me when people overexaggerate, then can't admit that they're overexaggerating to the point where they're being irrational. Once when I was having an outburst, my mum even accused me of having one every day! Then when I tried to explain that this was the first one I had in 5 months, she just yelled, ''ssssshhhhhhhhhhh!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! You're shouting! Stop shouting!!'' And I nearly said, ''well what do you expect when I'm frustrated? Me to speak calmly? Nobody speaks calmly when frustrated, including you!'' But then I bet she would've said, ''I only ever get frustrated with YOU!'' , which is not true, I've seen my mum yell in that horrible high-pitched voice when frustrated over something completely unrelated to me or my behaviour (those good moments where I'm completely innocent and everybody else is in a rage over something ).

Also my mum accuses me of being in a bad mood every minute of the day. I admit that I'm not always a jolly person, and I can go a bit aloof sometimes, but so can she. Often she says, ''oh I feel irritable today'' or ''I feel depressed suddenly''. I say that too, which is why I don't like people pushing my buttons. But everybody gets in a bad mood, some do more than others, but I wouldn't consider myself to be noticeably angry and snappy every single day. She even says ''every morning you wake up moody!'', which I know that I normally wake up in a good mood really. I sometimes have my off mornings, where I feel a bit ratty, but doesn't most people? Then when I say, ''no, actually, I got up OK yesterday morning, and I got up OK the morning before, and I got up OK the morning before that...'' and she goes, ''yeahh....maybe you did....'' then she suddenly brings up some random moment when I maybe was feeling a bit moody. I just say ''that doesn't count, that's just a moment where I felt annoyed about something, what could easily be ignored.''

People are always teaching us Aspies to bear in mind that NTs can have off days and be in bad moods and to respect that, but it'd be nice if perhaps people can allow Aspies to have an off day too. Aren't we entitled, or have we just got to be extra happy all the time and NTs can choose whether they want to slam around in a temper and we still got to respect that and go ''aww, he/she's in a bad mood, I must respect their feelings....'' I may be Aspie, but that still doesn't mean my ''off moments'' are any different to NTs. Some people get in a bad mood for no reason, and choose not to talk, or will snap at you when you're just asking a civil question. I just keep quiet then, and think to myself, ''they're in a bad mood today, I will try not to push any buttons''. And if I know the person well enough, I normally know what pushes their buttons and what doesn't.

I've also noticed in life that a person can do something from time to time and consequently be accused of "always" doing it, even though that's not the case. You really only have to make the same mistake, or do the same thing that someone doesn't like in some way, a couple of times before being accused of "always" doing it.

Very similar to my family history. My sister could do no wrong, I did all the wrong (according to everyone). The core of the matter is that the parents are putting all their money on the "perfect" child and neglecting the "imperfect" one, to be saved by the "perfect" one when the day of need comes. In my case, my parents were in for a huge surprise in their old age. They were punished tenfold for this.

I hope it doesn't take you till your late forties, as it took me, to discover that your mom's points were not logical but 100% biased towards your sister. Just one example: if you want to talk about stubborness, your sister did an amazing display of it. I hope you're not almost 50 like me when you suddenly get it, the trap, and become free to enjoy who you are.

I think the NT were more concerned with the social implications of your conversation and you were only concerned with the topic. NT often argue to try to get one-up on the other person and what they are arguing about or how they do it does not matter. They probably saw your persistence as an attempt to dominate your sister or something like that instead of considering what you were actually saying.

I have learned to try to let things go when the conversation ends, especially in an argument. It is kind of obnoxious and sometimes I can't change the topic mentally, but I generally keep my mouth shut when the NT have decided that it's time to talk about something else.

I believe the issue is deeper and more invisible than you think, and a lot less conscious. You weren't one drop more aggressive than your sister, if anything she was a lot more aggressive than you. This fact is what raises the question of what was really happening here. My hunch is you're expected to be submissive to your sister and you were challenging that role you were assigned, that's why your mother was invalidating your thoughts and behavior, which were, at the very least, no less valid than your sister's (and your mother knows it). This is what I call investing in one and neglecting the other. Validation is, apart from fulfilling physical needs, the most important thing to give one's child. It's the basis for their self-esteem. A child that's invalidated on a regular basis is considered suffering from serious parental neglect.

SG, the conversation didn't naturally end - throwing a bomb and changing the topic abruptly when challenged about it is a very common tactic. It's used a lot when one is in power over another, sometimes with a dismissive interruption such as "That will be all, sergeant" at the first "but" from the "underling" to defend from the accusation/criticism. It's not just a topic having run its course. And again, why does one of the two people get to decide when a conversation is finished. A conversation ends when BOTH people feel they have nothing more they want to say about it.

Wow, I think your sister was overreacting. It's not a "horrible thing to say" that you shouldn't have to force yourself to participate in social events. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement.

I think they felt annoyed because you continued the point and they wanted it over and done with. I understand completely - I would love it if people would at least acknowledge my point and it's really rude to ignore someone like that.

Your sister sounds like she has rigid ideas about socializing as well. She sounds like one of these people who assumes that everyone wants to do the same things socially, but not everyone has the mental energy to do that. A lot of very (well meaning) sociable people don't understand that (remember, there's a difference between sociable and socially intelligent. A socially intelligent person would understand that some people prefer solitude).

Me and my sister (as much as we get along very well) have fight like that, wherein we are in total denial of our own ignorance and have to be 'right' and every so often, either I am invalidated because of my AS or my sister is because she's a b***h (only joking....or am I?).

Yep, story of my life.

At least you know what's going on, so you can plan your life accordingly. I was in my late forties when I discovered AS and the reason why I was the black sheep and scapegoat of the family all my life. It was too late to change anything.

I think if I'd known what was going on at a younger age, I wouldn't have invested any energies inside the family (defending, trying to improve the relationships, trying to be valued). Instead, I would've taken what I could from them and built a life as independent as possible from their dysfunctional dynamics.

If anything, AS makes our insights a lot deeper, more researched, more informed and overall more intelligent (realistic) than those of NTs. Getting our insights regularly invalidated has no reason whatsoever except an unrelated motive.

The U.S is often-times accused of being 'the boss' or 'needing to be in control' because overwhelmingly other countries around the world are required to learn english. However, there is no requirement in the US to master a second language so most do NOT. Thus, broad communication and cultural richness that comes with mastering another language(from another country) isn't present in a lot of cases.

Autistics are the minority and as difficult as it can be; they were forced to learn another language and culture, to view society from another perspective.

Non-Autistics are not forced to learn another language because of their position in society and inability to fully engage and understand Autistics.

The thinking is totally different to the point where non-Autistics can not wrap their mind around the fact that your abilities/disabilities are not teachable; they are an inherent part of you THAT no FMRI is going to detect.

This should be obvious based on anecdotal evidence and plain old extrapolation.

Until there are Autistics actively engaged in research across the entire field of Autism, advancements are going to continue to be slow in coming.

TheSunAlsoRises

Ponder this:

http://www.1728.org/einstein.htm

What would it be like IF every time i had to write a paper on relativity; I had to redefine E=mc squared ?

IF i simply never took Einstein's equation into consideration BUT still found information to support my research, I'm either going to come up with something spectacular that is going to redefine the theory of relativity or I'm going to continue to move in many different directions bypassing vital connections.

TheSunAlsoRises

I see some wonderful things happening at ASAN.

TheSunAlsoRises

There is an implicit order of social domination in relationships, which decides "who can speak" and "who can't"; and for some reason, Aspies are at the bottom of that hierarchy. (lack of charisma?)
This hierarchy is not driven by rationality (who is "right" or who is "wrong"), but rather by an illegitimate "balance of power" (who has a bigger mouth, who is more intimidating, who has more "social prestige" etc...)

I think most of it is socially constructed though.

Ex: A lot has been said about the supposed lack of empathy of Aspies toward NTs, and how horrible and inconsiderate we are, but it seems that the lack of empathy NTs feel toward Aspies (leading from indifference to bullying) is totally acceptable and OK.

Case 1: When an Aspie is inconsiderate toward an NT and the NT is hurt, people will blame the Aspie for lacking empathy toward the feeling of others.

Case 2: when a NT bullies and is inconsiderate toward an Aspie, people will blame the Aspie inability to "cope" with the social skill of the NT.

In both case, identical but inverted, the Aspie is considered the "wrongdoer".

You mean like this:-