Concerned about aspie stepfather to my children...

Post Reply New Topic

It's only natural for a father to be worried about the stepfather. You need to be sure of the reasons for your worry.

1. If it's for your kids - just make sure that your wife and your kids (and the new man if it helps) know that you are there for your kids and available if things become overwhelmed.

2. If it's more about this "imposter in the house" - I'm afraid I can't help you. When people split up, weird things happen and you have to accept them.

You may be thinking it's the first reason and that's good... Just think a little more to make sure.

Unless the aspie has a history of violence towards people, there's no cause for concern.

You also got some weird feedback from this forum about how the marriage is doomed. It might be but it might not be - If you're thinking reason no. 2, don't pin your hopes on this. A lot of AS/NT marriages survive. We don't know the stats but it depends on the types of people involved - particularly, I think, the NT.

Personal Attacks

This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking the opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Man A asks question about the well being of his children in a situation.

Man B answers that there are two people, and discusses their behavior.

He sees the role of the step father described as someone who withdraws from conflict, and questions why there is conflict, and who could be causing it for what reason.

Looking at it from the point of view of a failing relationship between two very different personallity types.

Man B suggests that the behavior of the woman involved, her behavior before the children, could well be the problem that should looked at.

Her behavior is likened to the everyday Drama Queen, who goes on a tirade of name calling, extream over resopnse, personal and emotional attacks, ridicule, demeaning, angry, hostile, and is so full of herself, her right to be that way, that she will fight with herself to the point where she calls the police, and turns herself in for domestic abuse. She will destroy everything to feed her self love, the greatest love she has ever known. She seeks her social equal, which in men is a low class of common thug.

Rational people discuss their differances in private. Rational people accept that their are other opinions, other points of view, rational people put the well being of the children first, the situation is not their fault, and they should not be affected by adult behaviors.

This leaves the study to two adult people, and it takes two to argue. What was brought up is one withdraws, and the other side of that is, when the other attacks. Attacking your husband in front of the children is not done by anyone who considers the well being of the children, or of their marriage. It is emotional blackmail being used on everyone, her ex, her husband, and her children.

She is seen as the center of discord, and it is suggested that her self love is the problem, that she is acting like a spoiled little girl throwing a tantrum, not a mature woman with a husband and children.

A third party steps into the discussion, totally ignores the subject under discussion, and makes an extended personal attack on Man B, she heaps ridicule and personal insults upon him, she insinuates that he is the direct cause of all problems on Earth.

She shows no concern for the original poster, his coming to seek answers, his obvious feeling for his children, his desire to seek understanding, and the opinions of others, she offers nothing helpfull.

She does show exactly the same behavior suggested to be the problem in the original posters situation, a Narcessistic self love that is held higher than WP, the community, all people with AS, the original poster, his children, and the couple having marital difficulties.

Her emotional name calling spree is an attack personally directed at someone she does not know, in a discussion she has taken no part in, caused by anyone on Earth holding an opinion she does not approve of. She is self love throwing a tantrum.

Her personal hissyfit not being enough, she calls on the mods. Points of view not in confofmity with hers must be supressed, she is a strange woman, coming out of nowhere, for an off topic rant, violenting attacking a stranger, then calling the police to come get him, because his opinion upset her.

Because the original poster does have a family connection with his ex-wife, and a long term care for the well being of his children, I only pointed her out as at least an equal party to the conflict, and perhaps more, for it is not an AS trait to be emotional, or argue.

That trait belongs to other types of personalities.

I hearby submit the above quote as Exibit "A", in my reading of the situation.

Temple Grandin: does the job she adores and is thoroughly absorbed in, has designed a large number of livestock-related constructions throughout the US, and, last time I checked, was feeling quite fulfilled and happy about being who she is.

Donna Williams: prolific writer, artist, composer and poet, does art which she loves, has done teaching (including autistic children), also feels good about herself.

Sue Rubin: studies at university, successfully interacts with people using an alternative communication device.

To name just a few.

Does that make any of them any less autistic? Just wondering.

Daniel,

When I was real young, I was able to act "socially, vocationally and academically" beyond what I even wanted. In some cases, FAR beyond what anyone else really expected! Does that mean I didn't get a disorder until I got older and REALLY cared about making friends or having a mate, and lost interest in formal academia?

If someone falls down steps, gets hidiously injured gets brain damage, and goes blind, do THEY then have a disorder? AS was originally placed on the books as a relatively mild problem, and even today many diagnosed with it and many doctors feel the same way. HECK, most real problems I heard about before I came here, and the one real constant was supposedly social.
You make it sound like a person has to almost be ret*d or in a quiet room unable to do anything to have AS.

Inventor what you said is perfect and very insightful in adressing how the average NT female thinks. Fantastic your kids are very fortunate to have a father like you.

No, but you don't need me to point out the statistics do you?

# 1 in your list doesn't have a relationship, correct? Affected
# 2 she functions adequately (I assume she was affected at one time in her life)
# 3 she's obviously affected

It's funny when people need to point out the big few names to make a point, but neglect the majority who function nowhere near as well. Do we sweep these people under the rug and hide from reality? O and I also note, what's so good about the prior three people? Is it because they have status?

Here's the outcome of those with HFA/AS across the board:





Steve,

I forgot to add "/or" to "'...socially, academically and vocationally.'" You only need to be affected in one area to be diagnosed. A lot of people are affected in more than one area however.

Well, I am affected socially, and have other things that can affect me elsewhere. The only place I would say I CAN'T be a success is socially though, but I am affected probably in every area. Still, the other areas probably aren't CLINICALLY significant, because I can be a success there. I should add that my career has TWO paths. In ONE, I can be a STELLAR success. The average NT could probably be a success if they REALLY wanted to be. In the other, I would be lucky if I could be a success at all. The average NT could probably be considered one, even if they aren't.

BTW You used the word "and" correctly. You said that if they DON'T have a problem in ANY of those areas, they DON'T have a disorder. The DSM says that they CAN have a disorder if they have clinically significant problems in ANY of those areas.

There you go.

There's the odd and eccentric "worker" who's always been the social outcast; there's the young adult who lives at home after finishing high school, reads Star Trek technical manuals and calculates the total energy output of a Klingon D-7 battlecruiser whilst thinking of studying astronomy online; there's the highly verbose extrovert who bounces from relationship to relationship due to his/her inability to sustain them and what have you (I've seen all three of these in person).

All stereotypes, but they're all equal in their...Asperger's.

Obviously, the question is not that they don't have issues; they apparently do and nobody is debating this (besides, show me a person who HAS NO ISSUES, whether autistic or not). The question is that there are people who CAN and DO achieve what they want, regardless of the challenges they face, and I personally find this admirable.

Granted, some people are impaired and can do nothing about it, but there are others who are capable of overcoming their impairment and succeeding at something they had wanted to do. It is quite wrong not to take this into account as well. To say that anyone who is autistic is absolutely unable to achieve some goals of theirs, or anything to that extent, is erroneous at best, even though I had a feeling that this was precisely what was implied.

I mentioned the more famous people because they are the most well-known, and it would be easier for anyone to understand what I am talking about. But there are other examples of people getting jobs they like, or getting into relationships, in spite of having significant impairments, except again I don't think it would be relevant for me to get into this (and the translating would take a long time).

Then there are people who are content having modest jobs, or who prefer to stay alone and live a solitary, secluded life not because they are forced to, but because they have chosen it, and don't feel bitter in the slightest (in the same way as there are some non-autistic people who are like this). I know one person like this; she has difficulty speaking and wouldn't be able to hold down a more complex job, but she doesn't mind, because she likes living a quiet life in a close-knit family circle. She is happy and has an ability to enjoy every small thing around her which many other people I know have never had. It would be rather inadequate to describe all this in terms of her disability only and to claim that her life is flawed simply because she isn't achieving what others may feel she should. I know she would be offended with such a description herself.

It is wrong to absolutely pathologize such people and include their personal goals, interests, choice of lifestyle and whatever into their disability. This doesn't take into account that some don't strive toward certain things not because they are unable to do them, but because they DO NOT WANT TO (or both); this in turn implies that everyone has, or should have the same set of goals and values, that of the speaker. I suppose this needs no further comments.



I don't know what to make of this sentence. I find the way it is formulated highly disturbing, and I am not sure what is meant by "what is good about a person" and why would one want to say such a thing at all. Not to mention that nobody was actually talking about what is good or not about whom. I don't quite get why this statement even cropped up in the first place and cannot draw a connection between it and what was being discussed before.

This sentence also contains the implication that these people matter to me because they have status, which, again, is rather disturbing. Status is one of the things that mean extremely little to me, and I've never concealed this, including on here. So it almost feels like a deliberate personal accusation which works exactly because it is absurd; this is not quite nice and I don't see the reason for resorting to this.

Last edited by ixochiyo_yohuallan on 23 Dec 2007, 12:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.

That's a really strange assessment of her.

I've seen her describe being something like 40 years old before she could start a bath without causing a major problem.

While she got a university degree or two, she also scored with an IQ of 67 after getting the degrees. She also has serious learning disabilities in some areas.

There's a whole lot to life as an autistic person beyond "vocational, social, and academic" problems.

Yes. An approach which still seems to be fairly widespread in Russia treats AS as synonymous with marked schizoid personality (where it becomes a personality disorder rather than a mere accentuation). Consequently, it is also believed that the outcomes are not significantly worse than those in people with said personality disorder, nor is the potential for adjustment any less.

Even in Bashina's book, which treats autistic people as "black boxes" as is based on this narrowly medicalized, negative approach, AS is listed as being associated with a generally good outcome. It looks like she concluded from her various observations that the main problem with AS children was not even the AS itself, but the various co-morbid mental illnesses such as OCD, depression, bipolar etc.



I agree. I would also add - to one's life as ANYBODY, really.

We're being objective here and comparing people with a disorder to normal people; there's nothing else we can do.



I take it you didn't mean it like this: There's a reason for why individuals, professionals included, bring these people up and hold them in high regard, which in turn is comparing them to those who haven't "made" it; it's there to make us feel better in knowing that we can achieve too. "Feel good" statements and comparisons don't mean much to the overall picture. I apologize for assuming.

anbuend, that's why I added "assume"; I know nothing of her, how it was worded and in the context, she "appeared" ok. Which in reality, isn't the truth at all; taking away the individual's emotions, she doesn't function well at all compared to normal people.

It's fine. It is all too easy to misunderstand something written on an online forum like this. I probably misread things all the time myself.

Personally I'd respect the guy because he has been pretty honest about his limitations and what affects him.

'NTs' and people in general are not always bundles of joy either. Personally I can't stand to be around neurotic people. I wouldn't date them. I don't mind anxious people or even some volatility. But there is a type of generalized anxiety that seeks a type of control outside of what should really concern them or is their own business. These sort of people get right up my back because they make me more nervous. They are usually very jumpy, loud, catastrophic and invasive. Many people have a catastrophic take on things, it goes part and parcel of anxiety I've been that way before. I can handle most of them because it is question of temperament. It is when it is directed at me and directly concerning my actions that I have a problem with it.

It is good credence to consider that learnt behaviors can be just as antisocial as developmental.
Personally I would suggest a good CBT book for the both of them. That way they can be objective about it rather than reinforce negative behavioral cycles.

I do. But respecting someone doesn't mean having to agree with their every word.



This was part of what I was saying.

lol I was talking to the op I haven't read your post yet. Give me a sec.

In essence I agree with you there is nothing more freaky than someone who agrees with everything you say, like they don't have a mind of their own. This is the ultimate codependency.