Autism awareness gone too far?

Post Reply New Topic

Back in the 1990-s when I were telling people I have Asperger, they would ask me "what is it?" and when I tell them they would say "you can't be autistic you look normal" or "you are using Asperger as an excuse". On the other hand, when I tell people I have Asperger right now, they all know what it is, a lot of them say they know people that have it, and oftentimes they say they knew I had it even before I ever told them!

Now, a lot of you might disagree with me, but I think that what I experienced back in the 1990-s is better than what I experiencing now. After all, back in the 1990-s I didn't have to face any stereotypes. I also weren't ostracized in the 1990-s, but I am ostracized today, and I suspect it might have something to do with it: when I ask "why am I being ostracized?" sometimes I am told "well they don't know how to talk to someone who has Asperger". Well, don't talk to me "like with someone with Asperger" talk to me like someone normal already!! !

And like I said, this is pretty opposite to the kinds of complaints I hear from other aspies. Most other aspies are saying that they don't like it when NT-s ask them to be normal, they want NT-s to let them be who they are. Well for me its the opposite: when I ask NT-s about my social status, they tell me "who cares about your social status, just be who you are" and I find that line super-frustrating. But doesn't it sound remarkably similar to what aspies -- other than me -- were asking for? Back in the 1990-s I don't remember any NT ever telling me to be who I am; it were the aspies who kept talking about wanting NT-s to do that. Well, I guess within past two decades aspies successfully brainwashed NT-s into thinking this way, and now I have to suffer for it.

And here is another very similar example. I heard a lot of NT-s complaining how their aspie partners wouldn't wnat to go to any social functioning. Well, my past girlfriends never took me to any social functioning, except for a few, because they ASSUMED I wouldn't want it either since other aspies don't want it. But guess what: I want to go to social things, and thats precisely why I feel like I missed out on the best part of my life, since my ex-s haven't taken me out. But other aspies, the type that want to sit at home and be who they are, apparently got what they wanted. The NT girlfriends that I had "accommodated" to my PRESUMED aspie needs -- except that of course I don't have those needs cause I am not like other aspies.

So yeah I think other aspies ruined my life through their autism awarenness campaign.

The hell with the other aspies. In your next relationship ASK to be asked to every social function she goes to.

And when will I ever have a next relationship? The girls don't approach me because they make assumptions about me due to autism awareness.

It might be awhile be awhile but you had have had relationships before so it is quite possible it can happen again.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 03 May 2018, 3:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Back to the topic of this post: I would have had easier time getting into relationships if I weren't stereotyped, and the autism awareness contributes to those stereotypes.

While there is a lot more awareness in general what is confusing me is that girls seem to be aware that you in particular are autistic before they even meet you.

Because I show acute signs of autism. But back in the 90-s they didn't know those are the signs of autism, as evident from the fact that in the 90-s they were telling me I don't look autistic and now they are telling me that I do.

Back in the 90's you did not get ostracized for your autistic traits that nobody knew was autism?

Back in the 60's and 70's I got ostracized for being gay. I am not gay but if you were different in any way people thought you were gay and for a guy "homo" was the worst stigma you could get.

The only non-professional person who has ever said to me I was autistic was my boss at the end of the 90's. For 2018 I am not a good example because of a stroke and tongue replacement operation for cancer. I believe people see my physical disabilities first and ascribe my differences to them.

Any other WP members have the experience of people knowing you are autistic as soon as they meet you?

There is one important difference between the 60s version of the stigma and today's version: in the 60s they were trying to change you (in your case, I imagine they were trying to cure you from your homosexuality; sure, you are not gay, but they tried to change you nonetheless) whereas today they are telling you "be who you are" and are ostracizing you in the name of "being who you are". And, personally, I resent the "be who you are" mantra far more.

Have you watched a movie "breaking code"? Do you remember how in that movie one of the people that tried to "convert" a gay mathematician into being straight was a woman who tried to date him? Well, in your case -- since you are in fact straight -- at least you had some women wanting to date you. But in today's world that won't happen: if you are perceived as gay women won't want to date you so that you can "be who you are".

Or here is another illustration of this point. As we all know, the attempts to cure homosexuality are illegal today. But what if it is the gay himself who wants to be cured? So in today's world they will tell that gay "no you aren't allowed to" even though he is the one wanting to be cured. Thus, in this respect, they are discriminating against gays today "more" than in the past -- and again in the name of "be who you are".

Now lets put the conversation I have with girls into those terms. When I tell them that my current personality traits that put them off will go away the moment I start dating them and they don't believe me, it is basically me telling them that dating would cure me of my Asperger and they don't buy it because Asperger doesn't have a cure (by the way I dno't think dating will cure my Asperger, I do think it will greatly alleviate it though; but you get the gist). Now, what would have happened if I were to have that same conversation in the 60s? Back then they would have probably believed me since back then "refrigirator mother" theory was common, and if autism was viewed in psychological terms, then the idea of it being cured psychologically wasn't that far fetched. But today when autism is viewed biologically, nobody ever buys it when I say that being in a relationship would make me act any differently, even though I know it would.

So I guess for the people that don't like to be asked to change -- whether those are gays or aspies -- they prefer to live today; but someone who wants to change -- again whether its gay or an aspie -- would probably prefer to live in the 60s.

They had the "be who you want to be" thing going on in the 60's with the hippies. And they did not truly mean it often then also. The gay "diagnosis" was an assumption was by my classmates not a formal diagnosis so nobody tried conversion therapy, I was just punished for it via bullying. Bullying was thought of as a normal part of growing up or boys being boys. If you could not handle it, it was your fault that you were a weak person and all the homophobic implications that "weak" implies.

I would not have wanted to be diagnosed as autistic in the 60's. That would have meant lifetime institutionalization, being subject to abuse and bizarre experimentation. It would have meant my "refrigerator mother" would have been ostracized, told to remove all indications that I ever lived at home and told to have endless psychotherapy to find out why she hated me so much that she turned me in someone who is not fully human.

Today is pretty bad growing up autistic also but in a very different way and different from the 90's. Instead of harsh conversion therapies or institutionalization, you get 25 to 40 hours a week of behavioral therapies. It is all cloaked in "positive" language and reinforcement techniques. That is often just a mask but the basic idea is similar

I guess what I was trying to say is that modern way of dealing with it is "withdrawal of attention" whereas the 60-s way of dealing with it was "lots of attention you wouldn't like", and a lot of what you said seem to confirm it (except for the behavioral therapy that you mentioned, but that is for kids; but maybe the kids make an exception for this rule?) I guess whether or not "be who you are" is a good thing is based on whether you think its worse to be bullied or ostracized; if you think bullying is worse than ostracism then, sure, you will support "be who you are" mantra; but if you think ostracism is worse than bullying, then you will see just how horrible that mantra is since its used as an excuse for ostracism. Bullying was the 60-s way, ostracism is today's way, thats what I am trying to say.

I do find your mention of hippies being "allowed to be themselves" in the 60-s pretty interesting. A lot of modern liberalism, including sexual revolution, gay rights, etc., were in fact started with the 60-s. So could it be that hippies being allowed to be who they are in the 60-s is what laid a groundwork of gays and aspies being allowed to be who they are today? That would be an interesting twist, given that today they use "scientific" arguments to argue that gays and aspies are hardwired to be the way they are; I doubt you can make similar argument for hippies, or perhaps they did?

"Be who you want to be" was a hippie worldview. Mainstream society often reacted harshly to them. Families disowned them, police tear gassed them, billy clubbed them and gave them long sentences for drug use. That said most people did not have the technology to follow you around 24/7 and your every mistake did not immediately go viral. So you had privacy when you did not conform. There were no "hardwired" arguments but it was understood that people had different "personalities". The hippies argued like awareness people now that allowing more variety of people leads to innovation and needed change.

Ostracization is a form of bullying and has existed since there have been humans. The 60's and 70's bullying was more beating people up.

Then we are talking about different things. I am trying to talk about the view of the majority that does the ostracizing and you are talking about the view of the minority that is being ostracized. The type of conversation I am talking about is something like this:

Outcast: I want to be given an opportunity to change so that I don't have to be an outcast

Typical person: No you don't have to change, be who you are. And who cares if you are an outcast? It doesn't matter what people think, just be who you are.

Now, this type of conversation wouldn't have occurred in the 1960-s.



Ostracism would only be a type of bullying if they are "pretending" to avoid someone in order to get their attention. Well, I genuinely doubt that girls that avoid me are enjoying my obsessing over them, quite the opposite in fact. That's why I don't think its a form of bullying.

That type of conversation did happen, it was not unusual. The why don't you conform conversations happened also. This has not changed. I suspect with all the fear, mass shootings and social media there is more pressure to conform now then back then.




https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/ostracize


Bolding mine
Avoiding is not necessarily ostracizing. Ostracizing is a group activity and involves avoiding with hostility.

Thats a bit surprising that this conversation happened back then. "Be who you are" seems like a modern concept, although like I said modern trends like sexual revolution can, indeed, be tracked to the 1960-s. So did the above conversation occur in, say, 1940-s as well? If so, that would be *TRULY* surprising.



What you just said seem to be "orthogonal" to what we talked about. One topic is "who" ostracizes (individual or a group) and the other topic is the "technique" they use to ostracize (such as "be who you are"). I have personally experienced being ostracized by a group in the name of "being who I am", so yeah its possible.

But since you brought up the subject, I think this particular tangent is the one worth going into. So what is the REASON behind group ostracism? Lets say you are a part of the group that ostracizes someone. Why would you not talk to that person simply because the rest of the group doesn't talk to them? I think you have every reason to do just the opposite: since nobody else talks to htat person, that person needs YOU to talk to them more desperately than anyone else. So why would you hurt someone further because they are already hurting?

If you tell me that you will not talk to them because you will be ostracized for talkign to them, that leads to another interesting question: why would you be ostracized for helping someone out?

Peer Pressure has always been a powerful motivator. It is human nature.

As for be yourself and celebrating individuality in the olden days
Eddie and The Hot Rod’s “Do Anything You Want To Do”
https://youtu.be/rUYkHNAtXTI

Sly And The Family Stone “Everybody Is A Star”
https://youtu.be/3-1s2gqDs_U

The Kinks “I’m Not Like Anybody Else”
https://youtu.be/mmb7TU0OrOI


Frank Sinatra “My Way”
https://youtu.be/6E2hYDIFDIU


Ray Stevens “Everything Is Beautiful”
https://youtu.be/0a45z_HG3WU