Were The Feminists Aspies?

Post Reply New Topic

I think that perhaps there were disproportionately more Aspies or women somewhere on the spectrum involved in the women's suffrage movements.

I think that those who've commented that Aspies aren't 'natural' networkers and activists do have a point, to an extent.

However, while people who are activists are often seen as social organisers, which perhaps isn't a strength of Aspies, a lot of activism is based on upholding certain principles and demanding social justice, and I think that many Aspies do fit that mould. A lot of Aspies are the kind of people who don't conform to those social conventions, who perhaps aren't aware that they shouldn't be speaking out, so they do speak out and say when they think something is wrong or illogical.

I can imagine that female Aspies, especially, wouldn't necessarily feel confined to behave in gender-dictated ways. For example, years ago, when I was reading the book Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, I reached a certain chapter and then thought: "Ohmigod! I'm a bloke!" because I read that if a woman is presented with a friend or partner who is distressed or upset or angry about a situation, a woman will want to give tea and sympathy and to listen, will adopt a very sympathetic and empathetic approach, whereas a man will take a practical approach, and will want to solve the problem and will suggest solutions. And I realised that that is what I do.

I can imagine that other women Aspies, when presented with a problem, an illogical situation, like women not being able to vote, won't necessarily have served up tea and sympathy to one another, but would have approached the situation as a problem that needed solving, and then thought up ways of solving that problem.

I think Aspies are perhaps disproportionately more likely to challenge social conventions, if not intentionally, then unintentionally.

I think we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and it depends where the balance is, for some Aspies, perhaps their social phobias might be stronger than their individual sense of injustice and desire to speak out, so you'll get someone who is more of a loner who is happy with their own company and who won't challenge conventions. Whereas for other Aspies, perhaps their sense of injustice and ability to be outspoken will outweigh any social phobias and they'll feel compelled to stick their head above the parapet on a point of principle.

I'm definitely more the kind of Aspie who is outspoken about injustices and who tends to stick their head above the parapet.

From my own life I have often been too dumb to not tell the truth, and that is a dangerous thing.

With a minority of thinkers, who will come up with good ideas, and a vast majority of socials, who will steal an idea and use it for personal gain, the results can become confused.

Through history most bloodshed has been caused by some recluse writing a book, and the ideas taking hold and leading to a string of wars.

"Nothing can stop and idea who's time has come."

"The pen is mighter than the sword."

Put the two together, we are are the worst possible danger to the State and the Status Quo.

Several times I have said here that the answer to the American problem is the people electing a Dictator, before Congress declares martial law. I have proposed the Commandant of the Marines, for a ten year term. It would end both political parties, the power of lobbists, special interests, and if such an idea was to catch the eye of the population, some people would feel threatened.

Historically both Greece and Rome had to clean house, and in each case it brought a hundred years of good government after.

While I have spoken out about feminists turning a dispute about wages to an attack on the white male power structure, as a distraction, that of world liberation of the masses from the Capitalists, instead of equal pay for equal work, do not take my maleness for support of any structure, as I think them just as catty as the girls.

I think the ideas of anti slavery, sufferage, did come from thinkers, but the movement gained the usual mentality of the mob. I do not think taking an axe to your neighborhood bar as being something an aspie would do. Demon Rum was a religious zealot fight.

In London in 1700 the consumption of Gin was a quart a day per man, woman and child, and it has declined as the standard of living went up. Making anything illegal puts it in illegal hands. Since it has become legal again, per capita consumption is declining.

I see we are at one end of the herd, political types are at the other, and the herd will follow the mad. Any idea of change for the better, the political types will take both sides, and see where the votes fall.

When Bush ran on oil money, twice what had ever been spent, Christian Fundamentalists were told all laws will be abolished and replaced with the Ten Commandments, and Faith Based local rule from the Bible, stoneing would be legal again. Conservatives were told those communist programs like Social Security would be abolished. Business was promised tax cuts, and the rich double tax cuts, which he did deliver. Wall Street was promised that Social Security would be converted to a 401K, and put in their hands, and that they did not need any regulation, and he half delivered.

Al Gore ran on a Locked Box, which never mentioned the box was empty. There is no Social Security Trust Fund, it is used to fund government, and paid from a printing press.

It still finished in the courts.

In the most recent act, a few percent settled the election. So anyone who could change the thinking of 5%, would control elections.

So of the powers that be, half will work to discredit any idea, and the other half will claim they invented the Internet.

The Republicans are for a sound economy? A strong national defense ready to defend us?

The Democrats protect the homes and savings and jobs of the common people?

How about, both will lie for power.

Bringing it closer to home, are the sexes any different?

It is a game of situational ethics, which we play with principals, and they play any way they can.

I do not see us as incapable of social behavior, but of seeing it and avoiding it.

Independent, anti-social, free thinkers, is what I love about Wrong Planet. Dumping the psychobabble, our natural group is IN, EN, and likely 10%-20% of the population.

Fact based rational thinkers are a danger to the State, let's go for it!

Inventor, I think that your post is 99% right. But the problem has always been that most people don't want to be enlightened, and they exterminate the freethinkers, then sometimes pretend to live the truth for awhile before ultimately stealing and twisting the original idea, so that in the end, nearly no one remembers the original message.

I say 99% right and not a hundred because do we really avoid social behavior entirely? Isn't this site a form of social behavior? I'm not sure the problem is social behavior, but rather how being social is defined. And what you have to give up in order to be social.

It's interesting to me that AS/Autism is often defined in terms of being a disorder of communication in so many ways. With the deficit being put on our side. Sometimes I think that indeed, it is a disorder of communication. But that perhaps we communicate better than anyone. If dishonesty, omission, cruelty, among other things, are the hallmarks of good communication, why would anyone want to be involved in that, let alone be good at it?
I think the two hardest things in the world to do are to communicate in the world, and then to survive misunderstood in that world.

Most men and women ARE different, and a lot of them enjoy being different. I think we have a lot of trouble defining what those differences are, because they are slightly different for everyone. But we can make statements accurately, that a majority of women are indeed different in their behavior, than a majority of men, in specific ways.

To the extent that early feminist did not understand this fundamental truth... yes I would say that could be an Asperger's thing.

Gender roles are partly socialized, but they are partly born into most people. Chemicals like testoerone and estrogin really do affect the way our brains function, and those chemicals are found in different amounts in men and women.

I think at first feminism was popular because it freed women from the socially constructed parts of their gender roles. Suddenly women were able to have a good career if they wanted to and that felt good to them.

But feminism had overcompensated. Feminism insisted that men and women behave in the same way. And a majority of women wanted to have equal opportunities as men, but they did NOT want to be the same as men. They enjoyed being different than men, especially in areas like dating or socializing.

While professionally, women did want the same chances as men, they did not want to give up their sense of feminity. Most liked their "girlyness" so once feminism had achieved the important goal of giving women more opportunities for education and business, it faded away, because it wasn't as necessary.

Many women really do enjoy movies about romance. they really do enjoying putting on make-up and a pretty dress and feeling gorgeous. they do not do these things because they are forced to by society. They actually like them.

There are exceptions to every rule. But most of the time, that does turn out to be true.

There is nothing wrong with not feeling that way. Everyone is free to be whatever they want, so if a women doesn't want to behave like that, she has every right, and I support her decision. But it is important to notice that many women really do want to behave "girly" and no one should try to force them to stop.

Morgana, I feel EXACTLY the same way about being a man! Especially flirting does not come naturally to me.

However, after extensive research of scientific studies, I have realized I am the exception, rather than the rule. A whole lot of men and women ARE born doing this naturally. If you are interested in the subject (and I can tell that you are) I would strongly recommend 2 books on the subject.

"The Red Queen" follows men and women from an evolutionary perspective. It studies the evolution of the behavior of males and females of ALL species of animals. The book points out that males and females all throughout the animal kingdom have very different behaviors which they are genetically pre-disposed towards. So it makes no sense at all for us to expect humans to be any different.

"Sperm Wars" Do not let the title fool you, lol. This is a very serious book that follows men and women from a psychologists perspective and his based on his many many case studies of common differences between the way men and women few sex and dating. It also gets deep into the biology of what mens and womens bodies due during sex and how that leads naturally to different behavior.

I strongly recommend the books to anyone who is interested in discussing gender roles and feminism.

of course I agree that some of gender roles comes from socializing. but some does not. After careful study of books like those,I have found I have been able to at least improve the way I am perceived as "manly" around other people. And frankly, I enjoy it. It is fun to see how the other side lives.

Some historical corrections in Women's History Month:

There is no indication that temperance advocates commonly took axes to local bars. The movement in its inception (mid-1800s) was not focused on banning alcohol federally, or even legal bans at all. A lot of activism was geared towards voluntary abstinence from alcohol and closing of saloons. Temperance advocates also included men, though the largest women's organization of the nineteenth century (the Woman's Christian Temperance Union) was indeed a temperance organization. (Though in fact, the organization became involved with political advocacy in MANY other issues.) The Eighteenth Amendment, which illegalized alcohol federally, was passed before the Nineteenth Amendment which gave women voting rights. So, in other words, men were largely responsible for voting for Prohibition. (And many women were later a part in repealing it.) But the women's temperance movement often was not just about temperance, and the movement also produced some of the most important activists in this country's history, notably Susan B. Anthony and Carrie Chapman Catt.

In my fact based rational world view that is exactly the problem, AS suffers from a lack of natural human dishonesty, omission, cruelty. They fail to use these simple human tools not only to reach personal goals, but as a principal, that principal being that in every human exchange there will be a winner and a loser, and the goal of all exchanges is to make the other person lose.

Psychology, derived from Psychological Warfare studies during the Korean War, shows that Korean rice farmers sent to fight world opression can be reeducated to support world opression. Placed between two opressors, which one can fill your rice bowl?

In our culture that rice bowl is driving an SUV, cutting off others in traffic. This is the personal responibility the Republicans speak of, government cannot opress the masses, it calls for constant local action to keep the underclass down. Not just in traffic, but in employment, and god forbid, keeping them out of our churches and political parties. 75% of people know they are in the top 25%.

Opposing people just gives them something to struggle against, claiming you are helping them is where the real damage can be done.

Any group of teen girls can be seen putting this truth in action, their goal is direct, they want other teen girls to feel bad. If a girl has a boy friend, a half dozen will work to break them up, just to show they can. No one is going to have lifetime happiness if they have any thing to say about it.

This is the direction that all ASD treatment should take, showing it is not how high you can rise, that only makes you a target, but how far you can drag down all around you. You may be picking your few grains of rice out of the mud, but it will taste good if you know others are starving.

You can have all of your fancy theories about Communist inspired "Improvements" but AS misses the big picture, the last one standing wins.

Our culture tries to instill this, mostly with sucess, little girls are given brightly dressed smiling Barbies, but we know they all end up naked and disheveled, face down in the bottom of the closet.

Only AS trys to keep their action figures mint, new, in the original packaging.

The problem is not AS, it is a refusal to accept cultural norms. It is a refusal to agree that if 51% of people behave in one way, that is the only correct path, and must be followed by all. We hold National Elections to teach this truth.

FEMA has plans for reeducation camps, each will be run by a fifteen year old Queen Bee, with her fearful followers in total command. The followers will teach that it is better to accept being tortured and still be members of the group, than to be tortured as an outsider.

Camp Barbie will have no rules, only ever changing whims.

Only broken toys are free.

Quoting EnglishLulu:

Excellent post Lulu

My thinking on this subject as well.


Well said and profoundly so. Need I say I am in total agreement with these thoughts. Not to mention that women were considered chatel, could easily be put into insane asylums by their husbands or fathers, and lose their children if they swam or spoke out against the tide of popular opinion and ideology causing them to be perceived as "unfit" for motherhood. Not many women would be willing to sacrifice their children for their own equality.



And the chopping block. symbolic if not actual.

Again, another great post; it doesn't get more accurate and profound than that.

The last sentence especially grabs me and I would love to add it to my signature (as a quote from you of course) with your permission.

Quoting Inventor:

Funny but oh so true.



Inventor, you always have such unique insights.

cosmiccat: I'd be delighted if you quoted me. I often feel as if I'm in a vacuum sometimes or banging my head against a wall. So, it's nice to know that I'm not always.

Inventor: What are you referring to about FEMA? I try not to watch too much t.v....are you referring to the big K, hurricane katrina?

This is the direction that all ASD treatment should take, showing it is not how high you can rise, that only makes you a target, but how far you can drag down all around you. You may be picking your few grains of rice out of the mud, but it will taste good if you know others are starving.

Do you mean that ASD treatment should teach one how to act as NT.....or trying not to generalize as much, as the majority, however that majority is comprised?
I most certainly understand the feeling....I wonder how humans have existed this long, why would anyone want to keep making more people. Look at what people do. But still, there's some part of me that just sees that as giving up. I don't care if I were to be a martyr, and I'm Not saying I am, at all, and even knowing what happens to people who are persecuted, I think the world would be even worse without people not willing to "drag others down" just because the fight is tiring.

Besides, I couldn't hide my differences even if I tried. Those that know, know.......like a bloodhound sniffing out a rabbit. I'll always be a target. I might as well walk around proudly with the bullseye on my forehead rather than run from the inevitable.

Opposing people just gives them something to struggle against, claiming you are helping them is where the real damage can be done.

This is very true. I'm just not sure what can be done about it. It's no longer a case of the emperor's new clothes, the "emperor" now has more clothes than Imelda Marcos' closet.

There's a book, I can't remember the author, I think the title is called, "The Banality of Evil." Anyway, the book is about studies that a psychologist did with college students, separating into groups--One group of students was told that they were supposed to act in "mock" roles of superiors, and to treat anyone that had brown eyes favorably, if I remember correctly. The other group were blue-eyed students, and they were supposed to be treated less favorably. This was supposed to just show how easily manipulated people were by suggestion and other forces, much like your example of the rice farmer, and the author was shocked at how far these students carried out what was only supposed to be mild, and theoretical to begin with. Anyhow, in trying to study the effects of evil, he effectively began to perpetrate evil, through his indifference, by not stopping the experiments. I think that his girlfriend was the one who said to him that he had to stop the experiment, however fascinating, because to let people be abused, even if you're not directly doing it is evil. And so he stopped it.

I'll admit, I haven't read the book....and this is my summary of it as told to me by a journalist/ former friend. that I knew for a long time. I mention it, because most of what people feel are "evil" acts, would have stopped ages ago, for reasons ranging from death of the initial perpetrator, to the unsustainability of certain acts, lifestyles, etc. It's the indifference, the " I was just doing my job" or " I can't get involved in that" folks that keep things going. The " not my problem" attitude is the worst one of all. It's only when enough separate groups get affected by a particular "common evil", so to speak, like a virus, that they seem to have enough, and say, hey, this is wrong.

WanderMan: Gender roles are partly socialized, but they are partly born into most people. Chemicals like testoerone and estrogin really do affect the way our brains function, and those chemicals are found in different amounts in men and women.

I think at first feminism was popular because it freed women from the socially constructed parts of their gender roles. Suddenly women were able to have a good career if they wanted to and that felt good to them.

But feminism had overcompensated. Feminism insisted that men and women behave in the same way. And a majority of women wanted to have equal opportunities as men, but they did NOT want to be the same as men. They enjoyed being different than men, especially in areas like dating or socializing.

While professionally, women did want the same chances as men, they did not want to give up their sense of feminity. Most liked their "girlyness" so once feminism had achieved the important goal of giving women more opportunities for education and business, it faded away, because it wasn't as necessary.

I agree with this post. While I personally don't understand the all encompassing need to be "girlie" that some women have, probably because I'm a utilitarian, and I don't see femininity as "useful", for myself especially, it's undeniable that whether nature, nuture, or both, women enjoy it. And by girlie or feminine, I don't mean just in ways of dress, at all.

I do think however, that whether one calls it "feminism" or "women's rights" or liberation or whatever, that the problem with any "minority" group, even though women are an atypical minority, since we're half the population......
regardless, people start to become complacent, comfortable, and seemingly forgetful of their oppression even when it was historically recent.

It always irks me to see a group, any group really, saying look, someone put one of us on a primetime drama, so we're accepted, we can call a truce. Women sometimes act as if because we can wear pants, or a tuxedo even, or be anything from a mother to a soldier, that we are treated equally as full human beings.

And even worse, Western women, often seem to forget that their counterparts are suffering. I understand there are a lot of complicated issues surrounding all of that. Including that of, imperialism, should people even offer their "help"? At some point, doesn't the oppressed have to decide for themselves to stand up, whatever the cost?
And if they don't......does it mean they deserve what they get, are their cultures "weak" or "corrupted" or whatever other adjective one can use? Is it a matter of class, the "civilized" oppressing the "natives"?

It's a land mine that most people don't want to go into.
cosmiccat: Well said and profoundly so. Need I say I am in total agreement with these thoughts. Not to mention that women were considered chatel, could easily be put into insane asylums by their husbands or fathers, and lose their children if they swam or spoke out against the tide of popular opinion and ideology causing them to be perceived as "unfit" for motherhood. Not many women would be willing to sacrifice their children for their own equality.

This is exactly what I mean. This certainly wasn't uncommon is the U.S. not so long ago. Hell, there are atrocities still being committed. And it's definitely happening elsewhere.

How do I express this point without sounding absolutely cruel.....I think that if anyone, women, anyone who is being oppressed, especially when that oppression has been going on for forever it seems, decides to take a stand, fight back, peacefully or otherwise, there will be sacrifices. I'm certainly not saying to sacrifice one's children, but from a simply pragmatic standpoint, whenever people go against the dominant social forces of whatever era they live in, and particularly if they are not favored by the zeitgeist, people are going to die.

What is worse....to continue to suffer and never or barely put up a fight, and often die and be horribly abused anyway, or to fight, fully knowing the inevitable risks, but that also, things could be better.

I think this is what we're seeing now in these national/cultural wars between the U.S. and the Middle East, at least, in part. I think a lot of damage has been done by Americans not knowing how to mind our own business. But I am not indifferent to what goes on elsewhere either, just as I am aware that we don't even address our own social problems in the U.S. most of the time.

At what point does it not matter what side of the boundary people are on? Women <------------------> Men, anywhere along there for some individuals, Feminist, Women's Rights, Masculinist, Men's Rights, Human Rights, Animal Rights.......it doesn't matter....a lack of true equality is always about denying people their humanness or maybe it's our humanness that is our problem? As a human, as an Animal, I'm not embarrassed of the fact that humans are animals, as some in the world are, when we deny other people/ non-person lifeforms their essential right to "being" to authenticity as a "self" and as part of the "world" that is where all of the problems squarely lie.

This isn't the issue; feminists (most of them) don't deny that there are social and in-born differences between the sexes. The important thing is that you don't just treat people a certain way because they're men or because they're women, but based on the person themselves. It's basic human rights, actually; look at the person themselves without making judgments based on the group they belong to. Yeah, there'll be differences; but with men and women the differences are small enough that you can't make assumptions about any given individual. It's not saying, "Men on average develop muscle more easily than women," that feminists object to; it's saying something like, "Women shouldn't be allowed in jobs that require physical strength." Rather than ban women categorically, the approach a feminist would prefer would be to say, "You need to have X skill to hold X job", and consider, without putting sex into the picture at all, whether your applicant meets that requirement.

I agree with the last line on communication and being misunderstood in the world. And there is far to much emphasis on the deficits of the AS/autism communication style. In writing, at least, I've seen most here are either superior communicators or very straighforward ones.

However, the hallmarks of good communication are not dishonesty, omission, cruelty etc. They're the hallmarks of deceit, which those who are relatively adept in communication and non-verbals can choose to partake in (e.g. politicians) or be pressured to partake in. Autistics don't usually have that kind of choice. I met a communications tutor once who taught that good communication is the opposite of the above. She was easier for me to interact with than most because she was more open than most. She also liked my straightforward style of communication because it matched her own. She would teach how to recognise the dishonesty, omission etc. in others. I was really surprised, because I thought she'd be teaching it! The only thing was that I couldn't handle the non-verbals and social conversation aspects: One time, there was a very AS-type guy paired up with me and she had to guide us step-by-step on the basics of everyday conversation, saying she'd never encountered anything like us before. While there, I taught her about autism.

As for movements such as feminism--I don't understand such--being an individual (in the extreme). I don't live by gender and societal rules anyway, and it wouldn't occur to me to organise or partake in such a movement. I also wouldn't have the ability. I also don't think in such categories as Callista outlines well above, which feminists, like anyone, are still prone to in reality.

Good post Callista, you expressed my thoughts as well.

Good discussion, everybody.

WanderMan: ironically, I happen to be reading "The Red Queen" now! (What a coincidence). Yes, it is very interesting, and it´s answering many of my questions, though I´m not sure I believe every word. I´m about half way through with it. Thanks for recommending the other book, I´ll check it out.

outlier: However, the hallmarks of good communication are not dishonesty, omission, cruelty etc. They're the hallmarks of deceit, which those who are relatively adept in communication and non-verbals can choose to partake in (e.g. politicians) or be pressured to partake in. Autistics don't usually have that kind of choice. I met a communications tutor once who taught that good communication is the opposite of the above. She was easier for me to interact with than most because she was more open than most. She also liked my straightforward style of communication because it matched her own. She would teach how to recognise the dishonesty, omission etc. in others. I was really surprised, because I thought she'd be teaching it! The only thing was that I couldn't handle the non-verbals and social conversation aspects: One time, there was a very AS-type guy paired up with me and she had to guide us step-by-step on the basics of everyday conversation, saying she'd never encountered anything like us before. While there, I taught her about autism.

As for movements such as feminism--I don't understand such--being an individual (in the extreme). I don't live by gender and societal rules anyway, and it wouldn't occur to me to organise or partake in such a movement. I also wouldn't have the ability. I also don't think in such categories as Callista outlines well above, which feminists, like anyone, are still prone to in reality.

I agree that dishonesty, etc. are not the true hallmarks of good communication. It still doesn't mean that many people don't practice and profit from it, and that it seems to be the antithesis of autistic communication.
And, admittedly, this is a generalization, it appears that most people consider whatever form of communicating that gives them the most personal gain, to be successful. People do that with a lot of other things too, for that matter.

On a couple of other points....you said that autistics don't really have a choice in partaking in the above types of communication. I suppose that's true for many.....and admittedly, I'm still learning about autism myself and searching for my own answers.....But would that be true for all autistics? Especially given that it's viewed as something being on a "spectrum". Not to mention inherent personality traits that individuals have, and if these traits can even be separated from autism.

I also ask because you mentioned non-verbals. I don't know much about that, yet. This is probably an ignorant comment, but it seems that if one is non-verbal, that it would be harder to be deceitful? That the more verbal facility one has, the more one can manipulate language and other things to one's benefit. And I don't think, but correct me if I'm wrong, that non-verbal always means totally mute? I also thought it tied into a way of thinking/processing, such as non-verbal learning disability. Anyhow, I feel out on a limb here.....so I'm sure I'm wrong on this point. And I don't mind clarification.

Interesting point with regards to not understanding movements such as feminism. I can understand the desire not to organize and/or outwardly sympathize with people to a degree, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean in reference to the categories outlined by Callista, not still having a foundation in current reality.

Do you mean that you don't think that people are oppressed, suffering, marginalized, or whatever word one would choose to use? Or do you mean that you don't think it's an "us" vs. "them" dichotomy anymore? That any women being marginalized are simply victims of circumstance, other individuals, life, and not a concerted effort by any particular group. And that the same would go for any other group claiming marginalization?

Also what do you mean by, "in reality." I don't necessarily want to get into a reality vs. perception discussion/ debate...and I do understand the basic meaning of the word, I just wonder how one defines such ultimately.
I don't experience other people's realities. And I do have difficulties relating to other people's reality......Yet, I'm not sure if I can say that their experiences are invalid. Especially when speaking of things that we have evidence that happened, that have been, may be, and are observable. It's not the same as a delusion, to dispute.

I consider myself an individual too, but I know that I've not been treated well by everyone on the planet. And despite an, "I don't care attitude", sometimes I do. If bad things happen to people, regardless of any special interest affiliations they can have because of it, then I do understand the impetus to do something to stop it....and to feel, for some, a certain connectedness with others who have lived in similar circumstances.

Of course, no matter how similar a life, each life is ultimately as unique as a snowflake, I suppose.

I agree, Morganna, you started a great thread.