Neurotypical Privilege

Post Reply New Topic

I had that happen as well on my way home from school by classmates. I wasn't diagnosed then or now but my being weird was enough to provoke them.

This is an overgeneralization. "This is what it's like for me, therefore this is what it's like for everybody" is not a valid claim.

You also seem to think that such things can only happen if people know one is autistic and then act on that knowledge, and that's not the case. Being autistic affects one's behavior whether or not there's a diagnosis, whether or not you are aware you are autistic. Autistic behaviors tend to result in limited opportunities as compared to others because those behaviors are seen as weird and perhaps untrustworthy.

At this point it is probably tempting to say "it's your fault for having those behaviors and not stopping them" but this implies a level of self-awareness about these behaviors either in those situations or at all times, neither of which may be the case.

And then there's the matter of environment and the impact of that environment. When I go to the store, it is typically not designed for people like me: Brightly lit with fluorescent lights, loudspeakers/PA system that are used routinely to make announcements. I remember one occasion getting stuck under one of said speakers when someone repeated the same announcement through it multiple times (more than three, at any rate, but I can't say how many more after that). I was stuck under that loudspeaker for some time because I couldn't filter out the noise or focus on anything else until it was done. These stores are also crowded with people, the temperature may be comfortable for many people but tends to be too warm for me. In short, these environments fail to accommodate the needs of at least some autistic people (like myself - but there are others who can't even stand to be in those stores).

While you can argue that it's my impairments that make these places so difficult, this does not actually excuse it. One could argue an inability to walk is what keeps people out of certain buildings, but in the US many buildings have wheelchair ramps for access so as to more easily enter or enter at all. This is an acknowledgment that a designed environment is not conducive to participation by people with certain disabilities, and accommodation of said people so they can participate/access these locations.

The lack of awareness that such environments are so overwhelming and difficult for autistic people is a sign of neurotypical (subset of abled) privilege and since accommodating environments do not really exist for us, at least as intentional things, it makes it more difficult to be a part of the community.

Or I guess we can try to narrow it down to "people aren't throwing rocks at us for being autistic, so it doesn't count" which is not a valid or informed argument.

Wow, there are so many things I want to say it is hard to know where to start. I guess I'll start here and see what comes of it.

I do not think that anyone would argue against the idea that there is a point in which society should be held responsible for accommodating the individual but I also think that no one would argue against the idea that there comes a point in which the individual must be held responsible for accommodating society as well. The real discussion is at what point do we draw the line and shift from one to another? Let me use an obviously extreme and ridiculous example.

I am five foot six inches tall. That is a fine height for a man in much of Asia but here in the United States - not so much. Study after study has conclusively established that (as a general rule) women are more physically attracted to men who are tall than they are to men who are short. (Yes, there are exceptions, just work with me here.) As a result of this biological predilection, a man who is six foot has an advantage over me. Would that be a height privilege? Some might argue yes and others might argue no but regardless that fact remains it is an advantage that I must overcome when competing for female attention. Now is it my responsibility to find other ways to attract that attention or is it society's responsibility? Should certain women be required by society to date me? Should there be a scale: if a man is this height to this height then this group of women are required to date them while men of a different height category get that group of women? Who gets to choose which women fall into which group? What about the women's needs and their choices? Where do they fit into the decision making process? Is finding a date a personal responsibility or a societal responsibility?

In our modern western society it is very difficult to be able to work in a place that is within a short walking distance of where we have our homes. An individual who is legally blind cannot drive and even a short walk in a busy city can be problematic. Do we tell the blind - too bad you are going to need to figure out how to get to and from work just like everybody else - you can do it if you try harder. Or do we create programs like public transportation and install distinctive audio cues at our cross walks? Is making it safe or even feasible for a blind individual to get to and from their work an individual responsibility or a societal one?

I recognize that ultimately where we draw that line is largely determined by our own personal experiences. It is easy to recognize the extreme ends of the spectrum but the real progress will only be made when we discuss the middle ground. This is a discussion that needs to be open and accepting of differing opinions if it is to have any chance of meaningful progress.

This is a terrible experience for anyone and please do not take any offense but I need to ask the question: What if you are wrong? Hear me out, for a just a moment, please. You admit there was a point that you didn't fully understand your condition. What happens when the person truly does not know what is best for them but thinks they do? There are many many examples that can be ripped from the headlines - cases where psychotic individuals stopped taking their medications because they didn't believe they needed them and went on to do harm to themselves or others - but let me offer you something a little more mundane from my personal life. My father has had a series of micro-strokes. The result of his brain injury is that he has severely impaired impulse control. He also suffers from diabetes. You can speak to my father and he can tell you all of the reasons he cannot have sugar. He is very rational and completely normal in his speech. He will convince you that he will avoid sugar at every opportunity. But if you offer him some ice cream immediately after he has just finished telling you why he cannot have sugar he will accept the ice cream every single time. Why? Because he likes ice cream. When you confront him about the discrepancy between his words and his actions he becomes confused and frustrated. He truly does not understand the disconnect between he can't have sugar and accepting the ice cream - his brain injury does not allow him to make the connection.

I have no doubt that you have a complete understanding of what you need and what is best for you. That is not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying make is that there are people who truly do not understand (for one reason or another) what is in their own best interests. What do we do for those people? How do you get them to understand that what you are doing really is in their best interests even when they cannot recognize it? This is something I struggle with in my own life with my father. I know that he becomes very unhappy with me when I won't let him do all the things he wants to do but I also know that if I didn't stop him from doing those things he would do great harm to himself. It is a balancing act because at the same time I do not want to interfere with his right to self-determination. There are rarely easy answers when even a glass of orange juice can be potentially life-threatening.

The point of my arguments isn't to say that everyone can be accommodated 100%, but these are real disparities and they don't go away just because people don't want to accept that they are real.

However, in the United States we have the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires some degree of accommodation for people with disabilities. However, many people with disabilities are rarely or even never accommodated because those disabilities are either not understood or because people do not care.

Anyway, I am open to differing opinions, although I am not open to differing facts. Denying that the disparities exist is essentially a lie (unintentionally or not) and I have no interest in participating in promoting such a lie. If people want to believe they don't exist, that's fine, but while they are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. I also do not accept an opinion based on falsehood to be valid.

You don't find this to be the least bit insulting or condescending? You cannot say you are open to differing opinions and then slam people who disagree with you in the same paragraph. You cannot say people are entitled to their own opinions and then say that their opinions are invalid in the very next sentence. You disadvantage your own arguments when you make belligerent statements like this. You make it too easy for people to dismiss your valid statements as the rantings of a self-centered prig with resentment issues. I encourage you to pull back on the emotion and try reaching people instead of bludgeoning them. They will be more receptive and you will get more traction on changing things for the better. Ultimately, whether you are right or wrong in your statement is irrelevant if no one is willing to listen.

I didn't slam them, I said they were wrong and the statements are untrue. I am not open to imaginary ideas about what the world is like, so I am not open to opinions that these disparities do not exist.

You're reading emotion into this.

I'm always a little horrified when I hear people talk about the importance of networking in getting a job. I guess if I wanted to make an issue out of NT privilege I would go at it from the angle of attacking nepotism and bad HR practice. I really don't understand why rationally self-interested businesses put any stock in the opinions of a person's friends it's not like they're objective at all.

If you cannot recognize the hypocrisy in your statements then you are wasting your time trying to convey your position and I am wasting my time in trying to help you help others.

Actually, it is because of that rational self-interest that many business people fall into that trap. There are many factors that come into play. Some of it is biological. Did you know that when most men see a woman smile at them their brains release endorphins. The closer the man's connection to the woman the stronger the endorphin release is. This reaction was even observed in homosexual men who had no sexual interest in the woman. I was never able to find a similar study of women reacting to men so I can't say if the reverse is true or not.

Much of it is also psychological. People naturally place greater trust in the people they have a close relationship with. The assumption, right or wrong but often wrong, is that the person would not intentionally hurt them or give them bad advice. The subconscious belief is that the self-interest of the friend is mitigated by the strength of the friendship. We conveniently ignore the thought that our friends might not want to upset us by giving us needed but uncomfortable advice.

Me too.

There is nothing hypocritical about refusing to accept false things as true. The existence of these disparities is not a matter of opinion, but have been shown to exist through actual studies with actual statistics demonstrating that they exist.

So, yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, yes. But they are not entitled to their own facts, and I do not see why someone who makes up their own facts should be seen as having a valid opinion.

Here is a matter of opinion that can be valid no matter which opinion you hold: How far society needs to go to redress these disparities.

I will not agree with anyone who states that the disparities should not be addressed or at best minimally addressed. I am entitled to disagree with them on that point, and I am also entitled to not seek compromise with them because they do not seem to have any stake in the well-being of people like myself. There are other degrees that would be easier to work with because these would be people who at least acknowledge the factual information that the problem is real and needs to be addressed. It's simply a question of how much.

There may be times when there is nothing to do but deal with people who refuse to believe the problem exists. I am not sure, however, how they would be willing to compromise on a problem they do not believe exists.

So where is the hypocrisy? I'm not telling people what to think, I am saying that sometimes people think things that are not true, and that I am not interested in accepting their opinions as valid. Why should I have to?

Social networking is another good example. I didn't know what it was until recently and I still do not know how to do it in a manner that would actually benefit me. I started a thread about this a couple of years ago.

Why is everyone on the planet lately being served up the label of privileged?

Soon my chicken dinner will be called privileged

I've never heard of that one before.

Verandi, I have read this entire interchange with Yaguara, and I agree with you. However, sometimes people think their opinions are facts, and this could be you, too, though maybe not in this particular instance, and also various contextual subtleties including subjective opinions taken by oneself and others to be facts are factored into what is happening, and this needs to be taken into account in terms of solving various social problems. So how to take it into account? Only by dealing with (perceived) 'facts' or with provable facts or both? You know in a criminal trial before a jury the defending and prosecuting lawyers are taking facts into account but are also playing toward the bias of various members of the jury. I see many aspies including myself at times functioning from a theory of mind that by 'hitting the nail on the head' is missing approaching situations in a way which is comprehensive, and sometimes solutions can only be arrived at by approaching material comprehensively.

In any case, do we agree that an aspie who is not capable of handling a certain job should not be given that job? You do agree with this, right? Also, should people trying to focus in the workplace be forced to be around someone with a personality disorder that is either subtly or overtly disruptive and so makes other workers uncomfortable? Such a person is disabled and through no fault of his own, so should society accommodate such a person in the workplace?.