Page 11 of 17 [ 257 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 17  Next

wozeree
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,344

15 Feb 2014, 1:16 am

When I was a kid, watching the Waltons made being poor look really fun. Reality, not so much.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

15 Feb 2014, 1:46 am

Fnord wrote:
It isn't as if neurotypicals have a secret handshake or invisible tattoo that automatically grants them things that Autistics have to struggle for.



...actually that is rather incorrect.

You may have excellent credentials on your resume/CV but it is the interview which decides if you get the job. I've been on both ends of the hiring process and literally if you don't pass the 'socializing' test then your many years of education and work experience are like they didn't exist.

Applying for a bank loan also is decided for the most part, by the staff member that is reviewing your application and asking you questions. There's a reason why those people have jobs at the bank to talk to you and not sitting in a cubicle halfway across the country looking at your info on the screen. They screen out people from what they perceive (social info). For example, if you're applying for a loan to open a small business they will ask you to explain your business plan and what not. If you do not perform this task in a confident, well spoken/delivered manner chances are you're not getting the loan no matter how damn good it all looks on paper.

The secret handshake you mention is all about the performance of how you perform vs. what the other person expects your performance to be like. People with social anxiety/AS/what not that have difficulty in both perceiving and delivering 'normal' every day socializing 'handshakes' are given the 'cold shoulder'.



B19
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,993
Location: New Zealand

15 Feb 2014, 2:18 am

Totally agree with you, Dantac. Also, privilege is inherently present and operating in any NT environment where the ruling assumption is that "one size fits all". Emoting intelligently in a job interview, combined with verbal sophistication? Open plan offices? Working in teams with high degrees of personal interaction? Being a good team player? Socialising with team members? Fnord, the stress of working in a noisy open plan office in a team of extroverts nearly drove me to suicide and very adversely impacted on my mental health.

I noted that you work as an electrical engineer, and that is a field far more likely to be populated by other aspies. Maybe, for those of us with skills and qualifications in more NT dominated fields, it may be a very different experience from yours? I worked as hard as any other member of the team - harder sometimes -yet neither my output nor the quality of my work were enough to achieve the "fitting in" badge, unfortunately. I was passed over for promotion, bullied, and tried to counter this by working harder and harder, which only added exhaustion to all the other stresses. I didn't know I was an aspie for the first 60 years of my life, so we have late discovery in common. You obviously adjusted far far better than me.



mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

15 Feb 2014, 2:40 am

Back when I was in school, I think I was subjected to a degree of anti-aspie prejudice, due to the fact that I was technically enrolled in a special-ed program due to my diagnosis. Now, it was good that I had an individualized program that catered more to my needs, but at the same time I felt in many ways that the teachers treated me unfairly and placed me under more scrutiny than the other students, especially in the years before 11th grade. Around 11th grade, that's when I started to realize just how different I was than my NT peers, and as a result I guess I started to appreciate the things my teachers were doing for me more, and as such it didn't seem as much like I was being treated unfairly.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,688
Location: Long Island, New York

15 Feb 2014, 3:47 am

As I started to say many pages ago the current definition or group definition of privilege does a disservice to the fight against discrimination. Fighting decriminalization by labeling a group is inherently contradictory. It assumes the world is a zero sum game when it is only sometimes is. The idea started with race so lets use a common examples. A bunch of prejudiced policemen see a black person an assume he is criminal and beats the crap out of him. After leaving the black person dying on the street they stop me a white male because I am acting "strangely" stop and frisk me ask me if I all right. I say the wrong thing and after a few whacks to my head with nightstick they arrest me for disorderly conduct. The next night they see a guy in a business suit acting like I did the night before assume he is drunk and ride right by. So according the group definition on this hypothetical night I was both privileged and not privileged?

I was none of the about when they stopped me I was victim of their prejudice when it escalated it was a combination of prejudiced and ignorance. The black guy was a victim of race hatred. Ok who's fault is this? In my hypothetical station policemen for being bigoted sadists, the people the people who hired them, the people who trained the culture of that precinct, of the police department, community, go a high as you like. The fight would be better spent against whomever and whatever mindset is to blame, not labeling the group they belong to.

The group definition as commonly used is discriminatory because if a person argues against being called privileged the assumption is that because that person belongs to the group that person is a bigot/racist/ableist or just can not understand by nature of being privileged.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Feb 2014, 5:11 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
As I started to say many pages ago the current definition or group definition of privilege does a disservice to the fight against discrimination. Fighting decriminalization by labeling a group is inherently contradictory. It assumes the world is a zero sum game when it is only sometimes is. The idea started with race so lets use a common examples. A bunch of prejudiced policemen see a black person an assume he is criminal and beats the crap out of him. After leaving the black person dying on the street they stop me a white male because I am acting "strangely" stop and frisk me ask me if I all right. I say the wrong thing and after a few whacks to my head with nightstick they arrest me for disorderly conduct. The next night they see a guy in a business suit acting like I did the night before assume he is drunk and ride right by. So according the group definition on this hypothetical night I was both privileged and not privileged?


Your assertion that identifying groups as privileged "does a disservice to the fight against discrimination" is not true. The point is that people are marginalized - often violently - because of the way a demographic they are a part of is treated on an institutional level.

What you think of as "contradictory" in the sense of being privileged and not privileged is not really the way it works. I can't speak for anyone else, but what you wrote on that doesn't make any sense in reference to what I wrote when I tried to explain privilege earlier in the thread.

As far as it goes, everyone falls into multiple categories. Some categories are privileged, some are marginalized. This isn't simply matter of math, though. You can't add X privilege to Y oppression and come up with z person't position in society. Nor can you say "Well, the police harassed a white autistic man, so he's privileged in that circumstance" because police do harass autistic and other intellectually and developmentally disabled people. Your whiteness doesn't shield you from that, although it very probably shields you from being shot down - not that it can't happen, but that it is signifcantly less likely than it is for a black man. And where in your example are black autistic men? You can't compare race and autism the way you did because they are two different things that interact in different ways with the same situations.

Most of these things, when they intersect, are multiplicative.

Quote:
I was none of the about when they stopped me I was victim of their prejudice when it escalated it was a combination of prejudiced and ignorance. The black guy was a victim of race hatred. Ok who's fault is this? In my hypothetical station policemen for being bigoted sadists, the people the people who hired them, the people who trained the culture of that precinct, of the police department, community, go a high as you like. The fight would be better spent against whomever and whatever mindset is to blame, not labeling the group they belong to.


Here's the thing you don't seem to understand: Everyone has the mindset. It's everywhere. You can't avoid it. At best - on an individual level - you can identify it and try not to participate in it, and perhaps talk about it with others to better understand it. You can also engage in activism, try to find ways to reform things, pass new laws, etc.

But the thing is that if you can't identify or talk about your oppressor, you can't talk about your oppression, because oppression is literally made of people. If you can't talk about the people who implement it, then you have nothing to talk about. Without the people implementing it, you have nothing left but circumstance. It just so happens that police pick on black men more often than anyone else. It just so happens that women make less money than men. It's just the way it is, we can't figure out why because the most obvious answer is deemed "contradictory" to the "fight against discrimination.

This is a stance that is of benefit to privileged people, because it allows them to ignore any culpability or responsibility for participating in these systems of oppression. Which is, essentially, why it seems like such a good idea in the framework of modern western society.

Quote:
The group definition as commonly used is discriminatory because if a person argues against being called privileged the assumption is that because that person belongs to the group that person is a bigot/racist/ableist or just can not understand by nature of being privileged.


It's not an assumption. It's basically true. All white people are racist. All abled people are ableist. It's how society works. Disabled people also get a lot of internalized ableism. Women often internalize a lot of misogyny. This isn't discrimination in the sense you think it is. This is experience.

Also, you talk about race as a thing in your example above, and you write like it's people of color who enforce the existence of race as a category. But white people invented race to justify a) mass slavery of African people, b) occupation of indigenous lands, c) indigenous genocide and ethnocide. These categories were created by white people so as to exploit and kill people of color. So now black people and people of color talk about whiteness, about white supremacy, and white privilege, and you have a bunch of white people saying "Why do you have to make everything about race?" or "identifying white people as a group is contradictory to fighting against discrimination."



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2014, 6:44 am

Actually, if you looked further, you would also see her mention "internalization," which is where a member of the marginalized group adopts (or "internalizes") the prejudices of the privileged group against them. She gives examples, "internalized ableism, "internalized misogyny."

It just so happens that there is also "internalized racism."


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2014, 10:38 am

The key point is that virtually everyone is racist, but not necessarily explicitly. Instead, nearly everyone (I disagree with Verdandi's everyone) is racist implicitly in this society, implicitly white supremacist, both white people and people of color. One very limited exception to that would be people with Williams Syndrome.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Feb 2014, 11:16 am

I would not say that "nearly all white people are racist" or "most white people are racist" or "some white people are racist" because then white people who read that will probably think "oh, I'm not racist!" and they probably are in fact racist. Being white myself, having grown up around white people and lived with white people, I really can't think of anyone I know - including myself - who has not expressed racist sentiment at some point.

It's true that children with William's Syndrome don't absorb racial stereotypes, though.

Racism also is implicit (as beneficii said) and not always obvious. When I say all white people are racist, I don't mean "all white people are basically members of the KKK." I mean that white people carry and apply negative - racist - stereotypes on a routine, mundane basis.

I'm not really in the mood to spare anyone's feelings about this just so they can feel better about themselves.

As far as white people inventing race, the implicit association test isn't going to identify who invented race, because the category of race has now existed for something for centuries. It only needed to be invented, but the damage such an invention caused has been around for a long time.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ct/275872/
http://www.pitt.edu/~machery/papers/The ... 202005.pdf
http://news.rapgenius.com/Michael-p-jef ... -annotated
http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html

As far as privilege, examining it as a demographic is basically the only way to demonstrate that it exists on an institutional level. bugmenot's objections don't seem to be about refuting it as an actual measurable demographic feature. Which it is - tons of research supports that people who are part of certain demographics statistically do better than people who are part of certain other (marginalized, stigmatized) demographics.

Arguing that this is a bad idea because someone can misuse it to make a bad argument is not a valid argument. Anything can be misused, and often is but that does not make proper usage invalid.

Often it seems people take "privileged" to mean that "nothing bad ever happens to a person in this demographic" but different kinds of demographics overlap, so white people - privileged for being white - can be stigmatized for mental illness for for being women, being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, etc. For being poor. This doesn't mean those other things negate whiteness, but rather that white privilege for these people is not exactly the same as it is for white, cisgender, heterosexual, abled, neurotypical men because they don't fit into all of those categories listed after "white."



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,863
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

15 Feb 2014, 11:17 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
The following was posed above:
"The poor" have social advantages over non-poor, namely "freedom" from a lot of things, and that is a social advantage to be able to move around the country unlike people tied to their material possessions such as a house or even a job. Like the Janis Joplin song, "Freedom is when you have nothing left to lose".

I have a friend who owns a private jet. Now, let me tell you, that is a man with freedom to move around the country!


Yes, however, then he has the disadvantage of paying for it, maintaining it, and worrying about it. Possibly, he is even tied to that jet if he cannot sell it.

A person with no jet does not have any of these disadvantages.


How cruel of society to force this private jet onto this person....so now they have to pay for it, maintain it and worry about it....Oh my god this person has it so much worse than the very poor and homeless.

:roll:


1. I think all religious people who takes vows of poverty would laugh at your apparent sarcasm that money buys happiness.

2. Further, the definition of "privilege group" presented has nothing to do with subjective beliefs. It is a defined term, not what one feels is better or worse for a group.

3. It only requires a single "value" to be bestowed to a group.

4. There are many benefits to being poor. I cited "freedom" from material items.


I did not claim money buys happiness, however having access to resources and things you enjoy can certainly contribute to wellbeing. Also religious people who take vows of poverty are 'choosing' that lifestyle....and don't they usually still have housing, clothing and food funded by their respective religious group or do such people live on the streets?

Not sure what you mean by subjective beliefs....I did not redefine the term privilege group, only pointed out its a bit ridiculous to claim someone with enough money to have a jet has it so much harder then someone who is very poor and is lucky to have enough to eat.

I don't get # 3

And could you list the benefits of being poor? The freedom from material items is not very realistic, also not all of the poor are without possessions, there are poor working people who have families they have to feed and attempt to provide for so no they do not have freedom from material things. Homeless people who maybe have a back pack with all they can carry....do not have freedom from material things they are in a position where they hardly have the means to survive, if they are so free from needing things why do you see them digging in the garbage for scraps of food someone might have thrown out. So yes I am quite curious as to what all the other 'benefits' of being poor are.


_________________
We won't go back.


Last edited by Sweetleaf on 15 Feb 2014, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

BigSister
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 258

15 Feb 2014, 11:25 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
As I started to say many pages ago the current definition or group definition of privilege does a disservice to the fight against discrimination. Fighting decriminalization by labeling a group is inherently contradictory. It assumes the world is a zero sum game when it is only sometimes is. The idea started with race so lets use a common examples. A bunch of prejudiced policemen see a black person an assume he is criminal and beats the crap out of him. After leaving the black person dying on the street they stop me a white male because I am acting "strangely" stop and frisk me ask me if I all right. I say the wrong thing and after a few whacks to my head with nightstick they arrest me for disorderly conduct. The next night they see a guy in a business suit acting like I did the night before assume he is drunk and ride right by. So according the group definition on this hypothetical night I was both privileged and not privileged?

I was none of the about when they stopped me I was victim of their prejudice when it escalated it was a combination of prejudiced and ignorance. The black guy was a victim of race hatred. Ok who's fault is this? In my hypothetical station policemen for being bigoted sadists, the people the people who hired them, the people who trained the culture of that precinct, of the police department, community, go a high as you like. The fight would be better spent against whomever and whatever mindset is to blame, not labeling the group they belong to.

The group definition as commonly used is discriminatory because if a person argues against being called privileged the assumption is that because that person belongs to the group that person is a bigot/racist/ableist or just can not understand by nature of being privileged.


I'm not at all an expert on privilege in any way (hence the reason I started this thread to ask others for their thoughts) but it's my understanding that you can be privileged in some areas but not others. Eg, a person who is thin because of an eating disorder might have thin privilege but be victim to ableism. You could have white privilege (so not get assumed you're a criminal because of your race), but not have neurotypical privilege (get assumed to be criminal because you're acting in ways outside the neurotypical norm). I think this article ( http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/10/let ... privilege/ ) does a good job of explaining how you can be privileged in one area and not in another.


_________________
I'm BAP and a big sister to an Autistic woman. We made some websites to help kids on the spectrum and parents understand autism in a positive way: http://www.teachmeaboutautism.com/


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

15 Feb 2014, 11:27 am

"Poor privilege" doesn't exist. Under capitalism, it is fundamentally impossible for a poor person to be privileged over a wealthy person specifically because of wealth or poverty. Under capitalism, a poor person is either:

1) Unable to work and thus of no particular use to anyone
2) Able to work, and thus exploited for their labor

Poor people are significantly more likely to experience food insecurity (that is, risk not having enough food), homelessness, predatory lending practices (e.g. payday loans), lack of access to education, inability to pay student loans if attempting higher education, lack of access to income mobility.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374822/

Quote:
Objectives. Individuals may cope with perceived stress through unhealthy but often pleasurable behaviors. We examined whether smoking, alcohol use, and physical inactivity moderate the relationship between perceived stress and the risk of death in the US population as a whole and across socioeconomic strata.

Methods. Data were derived from the 1990 National Health Interview Survey’s Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Supplement, which involved a representative sample of the adult US population (n=40335) and was linked to prospective National Death Index mortality data through 1997. Gompertz hazard models were used to estimate the risk of death.

Results. High baseline levels of former smoking and physical inactivity increased the impact of stress on mortality in the general population as well as among those of low socioeconomic status (SES), but not middle or high SES.

Conclusions. The combination of high stress levels and high levels of former smoking or physical inactivity is especially harmful among low-SES individuals. Stress, unhealthy behaviors, and low SES independently increase risk of death, and they combine to create a truly disadvantaged segment of the population.


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 ... h-problems

Poor people are more likely to die younger due to stress and coping mechanisms for dealing with that stress, and are more vulnerable to mental illness and other chronic illness.



littlebee
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,338

15 Feb 2014, 11:43 am

The reason by my persepctive that the blog about privilege is even damaging to autistics is that it puts a lot of material about so called neurotypical privilege into a lump, and by this device keeps people from looking at themselves, which is the alive factor, the factor of interdependence which will lead to learning and a solution to the problem and even ultimately to changing other people's thinking and behavior.The material on the blog would take on a different characteristic if people were discussing an individual incident they experienced and sharing their feelings about it or talking about a possible solution to the problem besides just talking, but they are not doing that. This is not to say somebody should talk about this or that. Talk away:-) To say that I am keeping people from talking about this subject is ridiculous. In fact after I write this I bet someone will have something even more to say, spurred on by some reaction this has created within themselves. And no, this is not saying that everything a person says and does is a reaction, but a lot of it just is. Have you ever watched yourself and seen how you are flare up when you are triggered? I have. Try doing it is my suggestion.

I love the blog, actually, as it can be used as a learning tool. Personally I think people in power or with more power than someone else (such as parents having more power than their children) who are thinking wrongly and have many distortions mixed in with some good ideas (which is pretty common to all people, whatever race or sex or economic status) tend to trivialize and discount the experience of other people if they can get away with it, and this adds to their own story and buffers up the lying in it, and people in positions of power are more able to get away with doing this to their own perceived advantage, and yes, it does increase their own power, plus they are often more educated and have more sophisticated intellectual tools to lie, but poor people do it, too. They can be heck a liars. Much more to follow.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2014, 12:50 pm

Anyway, on the issue of internalized ableism, I am reminded of the case of Rie Sasamori (nee Henmi), a Japanese woman with ADHD and Asperger syndrome who went undiagnosed for 32 years. She was early in writing hiragana and Chinese characters, but spoke unclearly, pronouncing for example kuruma (car) as kununa or nezumi (mouse/rat) as nenuni, which pronunciation tendency became known as Rei-chan-go (Rie-chan language), but she eventually got over that. In youchien (essentially Japanese kindergarten), she isolated herself from the other students in the room; on a class outing to pick out vegetables, she refused to step onto the mud, having problems with ground that was not stable. While shopping with her mother, she would suddenly disappear, to be found playing something of interest.

In elementary school, she did really well in the classes that she was good at and interested in, like Chinese characters class. She was very enthusiastic in class and when the teacher called on the class, she raised her hand, and said the word hai over and over against repeatedly for at least 10 times, causing the rest of the class to look upon her in wonder. She artfully discriminated homophones. In classes she wasn't interested in, however, particularly classes where she had to just listen, she would not pay attention, and would either look out the window or, when she was sitting by the hall to move her away from the window, the notes of another class (because she had difficulty discriminating between different sounds). She would suddenly talk to a classmate about a favorite interest, like stegosauruses, but her teacher would scold her for it; she would do other things like leaning back and forth on her desk until she fell over.

She was poor at math (and possibly had dyscalculia), and during math class she would read the material of another class, like geography. When her teacher got on her about that, she, in little professor style, would explain how the lakes of Japan have changed in size over the years, leaving her teacher dumbfounded. She did not know how to clean her room, and often did not realize it was even a mess; she also had the autoimmune disease alopecia areata, which caused bald spots in her hair. She was very forgetful, and her mother would often have to bring her stuff in, but her mother and father changed their tone and became much more strict. She had difficulty keeping up with her stuff, so she tried doing things like stuffing her randoseru (Japanese elementary school students' leather backpack) and then just cramming everything in her desk, which she would subsequently forget. One morning, her teacher had inspected her students' desks and emptied out the contents of the messy desks and put them on the top of the desks; she then called out the students who had messy desks. Rie was the only girl who had a messy desk, which included even moldy bread, highly stigmatizing for a girl in Japan.

Like other children with ADHD, she was bursting with energy and in class often had the urge to simply get up and move about. Unlike other children with ADHD, though, she would immediately comply with direct orders given her. Whenever she got up, her teacher would tell her in no uncertain terms to sit immediately back down, which she did--she still burst with energy, however. The reason was she had yet another developmental disorder, which became apparent in a party in which the kids would each bring a present and start passing it around in a circle, until the teacher said stop, which meant that the present you had in your hands when stop was called was yours. (This game is very popular among Japanese children.) She received a girlish drawing book, which had been made by another girl in the class whose name was in the book, but she did not want it. Now, the teacher gave the students the opportunity to say they did not want the present, but the unspoken assumption behind that statement was for boys who received a girl's toy or girls who received a boy's toy to trade for the sex role-appropriate toy. Rie, oblivious to that unspoken assumption, simply raised her hand saying she didn't want it, shocking the class. The girl who created the book then cried, and another girl called Rie out for being mean, but Rie could not figure out what the problem was. This was her Asperger syndrome manifested.

With her Asperger syndrome, she had various sensory sensitivities as well as motor deficits. She would eat one food at a time (never thought this was abnormal until recently), which her dad chewed her out for. She would sneak a particular type of food whose taste she would seek. She could not stand to come into contact with water, or to hear it running. Her mother in the morning would ask if she washed her face, Rie would lie saying she did, but then her mother would catch her in the lie with evidence of food around her mouth, forcing her to wash her face. She had trouble with buttons and would often mismatch them when buttoning up her shirt. She had difficulty discriminating left and right and which shoe to put on. She had trouble fitting her name in the space for her name on tests, and she had difficulty using rulers and compasses and any task that would require her hands to be doing different things simultaneously (like cutting a piece of paper), which was very frustrating for her. Here, she acquired the nickname Hen-chan (literally, "strange-chan"), a play on her last name Henmi and the fact that her peers thought she was very strange.

In middle school, many of her problems continued. She could not clean her room, and would get distracted if she tried. When Rie's grandmother said a relative was staying with her, Rie wanted to meet with that relative, so out of the blue without telling anyone she took the 2+ hour train ride from her hometown of Kobe to Takamatsu where her grandmother lived. Her motor and organizational deficits continued, as her school painting supplies were such a mess, highly stigmatizing for a Japanese girl. She would read very advanced books on her favorite subjects, and other girls, still calling her Hen-chan, would ask her what she was reading and why she was reading it. Rie went into little professor mode, discussing the pancreas, specifically the Langerhans cells which produced insulin to control blood sugar, explaining that she found the way the human body was put together fascinating. Her special interests included human anatomy, fossils, dinosaurs, and history, all very unusual for a girl in middle school. In high school, she was at the top of her class in English and moved on to college where she graduated also. She chose a college close to home, however, to minimize the time she had to spend in the noisy train station.

She tried getting a job in her topic, but it was a struggle for her. She met with a potential employer in a cafe, but she kept being distracted by everything else going on in the cafe. She could not enter the workforce. She did like the sound of motorcycles, however, and that's how she met her husband-to-be. One time, at a motorcycle shop, the employee told them to wait while he checked if an item was in stock; her boyfriend would move around looking at different items, but she would stay rooted to the spot, telling her boyfriend that he shouldn't move from the spot while they were waiting. Either way, they would get married and move to Tokyo in an apartment together. He would work and she would assume the role of housewife, but her inability to clean became a problem. As she unpacked the boxes, she created a huge mess, which was stressful for her husband. Her husband would eventually direct her cleaning. Even with the issues, they still enjoyed time together.

One night, her husband told her to check on the bathtub he was filling up and come back and say how it was. She came back and said it was full. He then asked if she had stopped it, to which she answered in the negative. He had never told her to stop it if it was full. The couple would go on to have 3 sons, and problems would start when the eldest son Kuon started to exhibit signs of the issues Rie had dealt with. By age 3, Kuon could not say his own name and was delayed in talking, but Rie's husband assured her that he was slow speaking, too, and that Kuon would end up catching up. Later, in youchien Kuon, just like hsi mother Rie at his age, would stay apart from the group, lost in his own world. He had trouble with motor skills, and could not do origami. Rie was very troubled by this development and would talk to her mother and some of the other women about it. Her mother said she had been slow in speech, too, and that she needed to be especially strict with Kuon. The other women Rie spoke with agreed, saying if the husband was going to be a softy, she needed to properly scold her child for his failings.

She took those statements to heart, becoming a tyrannical mother, to the point where Kuon was afraid of her. Kuon continued to struggle with motor skills, and her mother was right there, yelling at him over and over again until he would get the motor skills right. Rie's husband warned her about this, saying she need to believe in their children, but the statement simply confused Rie. Rie then tried working at a retirement home, but she was quickly overwhelmed. She often could remember only the first instruction given, when told she needed to move to the next instruction she immediately stopped what she was doing (which involved the risk of an old man falling off his ball), and she struggled to act according to the situation (rinki-ouhen). Rie's supervisor chewed her out, saying as none of her tasks were completed despite not being difficult, she could not pay Rie. Rie then became depressed and went to a neurologist for help, but was diagnosed only with depression.

While out and about, she came across a book titled Women who cannot clean, which she expected to make fun of women like her, but instead she found that it captured her experiences perfectly. She brought all her old records to a doctor who diagnosed her with ADHD and Asperger syndrome. The doctor wondered how, with these developmental disorders being so bad, she could have been missed for 32 years. She then brought Kuon in to be tested, and he was diagnosed with high-functioning autism. The doctor assured Rie, saying she should not blame herself and her son for these issues.

There was a major change in Rie's attitude and she worked closely with her son Kuon to help him succeed, probably understanding him better than anyone else. She began to seek support and accommodation, rather than the super-strict disciplinarian model which resulted in little other than misery for her and her son. 8 years after diagnosis, both she and her son were doing quite well.

This is the kinda ableism which I think is poisonous, that you need to be extra super duper hard on yourself, you need to tear into yourself, you need to think of yourself as crud until you can act just like a neurotypical person could: the further from a neurotypical person you are the more abominable you are, goes the belief. Part of overcoming internalized ableism is to finally explore not only your impairments, but how these impairments could be better accommodated so you can succeed and to advocate for them and to make sure to discuss and debate these issues.

EDIT: BTW, the source for this was a documentary on Nihon Television.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

15 Feb 2014, 1:22 pm

littlebee wrote:
The reason by my persepctive that the blog about privilege is even damaging to autistics is that it puts a lot of material about so called neurotypical privilege into a lump, and by this device keeps people from looking at themselves, which is the alive factor, the factor of interdependence which will lead to learning and a solution to the problem and even ultimately to changing other people's thinking and behavior.The material on the blog would take on a different characteristic if people were discussing an individual incident they experienced and sharing their feelings about it or talking about a possible solution to the problem besides just talking, but they are not doing that. This is not to say somebody should talk about this or that. Talk away:-) To say that I am keeping people from talking about this subject is ridiculous. In fact after I write this I bet someone will have something even more to say, spurred on by some reaction this has created within themselves. And no, this is not saying that everything a person says and does is a reaction, but a lot of it just is. Have you ever watched yourself and seen how you are flare up when you are triggered? I have. Try doing it is my suggestion.

I love the blog, actually, as it can be used as a learning tool. Personally I think people in power or with more power than someone else (such as parents having more power than their children) who are thinking wrongly and have many distortions mixed in with some good ideas (which is pretty common to all people, whatever race or sex or economic status) tend to trivialize and discount the experience of other people if they can get away with it, and this adds to their own story and buffers up the lying in it, and people in positions of power are more able to get away with doing this to their own perceived advantage, and yes, it does increase their own power, plus they are often more educated and have more sophisticated intellectual tools to lie, but poor people do it, too. They can be heck a liars. Much more to follow.


Jeez, I had difficulty following this, but this seems, as far as I can tell, to be little more than pseudo-psychoanalysis of autistic people who are discussing and debating ableism ("In fact after I write this I bet someone will have something even more to say, spurred on by some reaction this has created within themselves," which sounds awfully similar to the question asked by psychoanalysts, "What is the real intrapsychic conflict here?"). Really, you have no business attempting to engage in psychoanalysis until 1.) You've been trained in it and certified and 2.) You have a client you meet face to face.

You are not Freud.

What is it with privileged Americans and their always pseudo-psychoanalyzing other people, in a way that invalidates those other people? I know other minorities, not just autistics, have commented on this tendency.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

15 Feb 2014, 1:58 pm

Verdandi wrote:
I would not say that "nearly all white people are racist" or "most white people are racist" or "some white people are racist" because then white people who read that will probably think "oh, I'm not racist!" and they probably are in fact racist. Being white myself, having grown up around white people and lived with white people, I really can't think of anyone I know - including myself - who has not expressed racist sentiment at some point.


Thats a pretty big generalization, don't you think? Seven billion people in the world, and you know for a fact that every single one of them is racist?

Racism by definition is the belief that one race is superior to any other.

Personally while I acknowledge there are differences between races, it's impossible for me to conclude that any one race is superior to any other. I believe that all races are different, each with positives and negatives, but none are superior to another. And within each race, each individuals characteristics and differences are much greater then the characteristics and differences of their race. Therefor I believe that it is impossible to rationally conclude that one race is superior to another. It's like trying to conclude which is superior, apples or oranges? Neither, they are just different.

So I'm pretty sure that I don't fit the definition of a racist. Which kind of disproves your point.

As for your growing up and never knowing anyone who didn't express racist sentiments. Certainly you understand that, that is your limited experience, and is not necessarily typical of all seven billion people in the entire world, right? I have lived in many different places. From places that lacked diversity, where racism was pretty common, to very diverse places where racism is not as common. Even in the most racist places I have lived, the majority of people there were not racist.


rac·ist [rey-sist]
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
adjective
2.
of or like racists or racism: racist policies; racist attitudes.

Racist | Define Racist at Dictionary.com