Ideologies of Oppression

Post Reply New Topic

I just put together a descriptive list of ideologies of oppression, including neurelitism:

ideologies.neurelitism.com

Comments would be appreciated. I plan to use it in my Social Problems classes next semester.

This should be stuck to the top of the forum.

Thank you.

what is considered disability often depends on who is in charge, therefore it may be more a description used to classify someone who is failing because of standards that happen to be in force, rather than any absolutely measurable element of disability about someone.

Using the label "disabled" about someone may be as much of an oppression as the discriminatory treatment received as an obviously disabled person.

Problems experienced prior to receiving the label may not be result of ableism but simply some peoples tastes and preferences having the upper hand. For instance that modern urban society is so noisy, which does not disadvantage extraverts because in fact they often find it enabling, does disadvantage introverts, or those with sensory processing disorder, because it is too much stimulation for them, etc. If the environment were more peaceful the sensory issue, or introversion, would not appear a disability.
In fact it's not a disability but a difference of optimum functioning requirements. But when say that one group has sensory processing issues it defines them as the one with the problem, and the environment as neutral/normal/innocent.

Could the word disability be completely abandoned in the right circumstances? If society could be organised to include in an enabling way all people whatever their needs.
But surely there is a level of difficulty which does need the term disability? And just as surely there are people currently called disabled/disordered who are being disabled only by current social trends etc.

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2007, 6:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.

i'm trying to think of analogies. The trouble is that there aren't any others quite so "sliding" in their definitions. Good and bad, maybe!! Ouch!
Seriously, can't convincingly call a man a woman as anything except as fleeting insult, he will not be labelled as such all life.
Could label a straight man gay and he might have trouble proving otherwise. Such a label might limit his potential in life.
So long as situations favour any groups over others then differences will be materiel for oppression.

But for instance in the case of a straight man accused of homosexuality who could not prove otherwise, is he suffering from homophobia? I suppose so in a weird way, so does ableism work the same way, to oppress both "disabled" and other people alike?
Women said that about sexism actually i remember; that it oppressed men as well as women.
Ok. I'd forgotten that.
So us with extreme introversion/aspergers/HFA etc are actually suffering from ableism like the straight guy accused of homosexuality is suffering from homophobia.

Wow. Is that why it's so hotly disputed on WP,( despite being site for aspergers primarily), whether AS needs curing or not, cos if they ( autists) "need curing" it's a label of irremedial disability status, and perpetuates the label for oppressing us with.
Thank you for food for thought. It's actually hard to get my head round. Maybe this is what many men felt like about womens rights, to vote, etc, 100 years ago. Difficult to get head round.

NB: I fully get the child rights issue/adultism ideology. GB Shaw, John Holt, and others. I'm convinced!

Last edited by ouinon on 17 Dec 2007, 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You forgot to put "Hieghtism", where tall people discriminate against short people (like me).
I thought "Sizeism" would refer to that, but then I read the description.

All of the ideologies I listed are based on who is in charge. As Foucault indicated, it is always the people in power who construct reality and knowledge for the rest.



Personally, I like the term "differently abled," since it acknowledges that power can be taken from the oppressor while empowering the oppressed.

Okay. Thank you. I will add it.

Edit: It was already there. I did not need to add it.

Last edited by nominalist on 17 Dec 2007, 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There are both covert and overt ways in which these ideologies entrap people.

Really, when it comes to AS, it's more a matter of exclusion based on personality...

We're able to communicate - in many cases just as well (or better) than our peers - but we do it slightly differently. Mainstream NT's which makes them uncomfortable with the almost unexplainable differences.

This is a genuine exclusion, but so difficult to pinpoint because our difference isn't as measurable as skin colour, religion, size, stature, or finances.

This also means it's almost impossible to bring a bully to justice, because what law is that person breaking? It's illegal to judge against everything above, but exclusion on.... what.... personality?


I'm not sure how else to describe Aspergers..... it's almost a personality condition as much as a mental one.

Yes, but that is often true with heterotypicalism, too. People who behave in a way which others (correctly or not) interpret as "gay" are often targeted.



I know. I have been through it many times.

I knew about sexism , homophobia etc being created by those in charge, but i genuinely was having trouble seeing disability like that. Still do. I keep "seeing" it as an objective label. It keeps reforming in my head as something "real".
Really powerful one for me.
The others, or most of them, had previously seen in their nakedness, but this one keeps getting me. What might it be about the disability term, which resists deconstruction? I suppose cos till now not thought suffered from it, in EITHER way,( like many men in previous century, and some women too , found sexism impossible to see as construct) . It is invisible until take it apart.
I agree about the differently abled term cos i see it when think of extraverts having to give up their background noise if take introverts more into consideration.
I seriously appreciate the food for thought your list has given. thank you.

Last edited by ouinon on 18 Dec 2007, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

IMO, none of them are real. They are all social constructions. I often see people express what I and may other social scientists would criticize as "essentialism," that is, treating Asperger's and neurotypical as real things and not simply social constructions by the mental health establishment (just as some people reify gender or race).

What exists are individuals with various attributes (neurological, physical, etc.). Then various people look for similarities in those attributes from person to person, place them into categories, and come up with names for them.

Good grief. This is political correctness gone mad. It's like everyone is entitled to be offended at the tiniest slight.

The issue, as I see it, is not one of being offended by others. It is recognizing whatever obstacles may exist and trying to overcome them.

In any event, no one even mentioned being offended.

...in a way, it's like trying to write laws that prevent people from being total jerks... but have to be total jerks in order to carry them out.

It can't be done... people are jerks.