My earlier rant is spawning a subrant...
Apr. 8th, 2004 05:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
The mother in question whined mentioned that "every step towards normalcy is seen as a bad thing" (that's a paraphrase, not a quote, sorry about that!), probably because she doesn't understand why being normal isn't and shouldn't be a goal of its own. When responding, I translated it as "self-sufficiency" because I really didn't want to deal with that argument at the time, but now I've rested, so.
Why, exactly, should normalcy be seen as a goal? This is something I do not understand. Judging entirely by her letter, and assuming that she is 'normal', I can make these conclusions:
1. Normal people can't make logical arguments to save their life. That's why we have so very many names for logical fallacies.
2. Normal people interpret most things that disagree with them as a personal attack, which helps to explain why her idea of a rebuttal consisted entirely of a personal attack against the person who made the first argument.
3. Normal people are intolerant of differences, which is why normalcy is a goal. These same people often claim to love individualism and tolerance and diversity, so what we are to make of this, I don't know.
4. Normal people blame the victim. If your kid gets teased, it's his fault for being different.
5. Normal people have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between what was said and what they think was said. My mother is a good example of this....
And this is all what you want your kid to be? Oooooo-kaaaaayyyy...
Now, seriously. I don't think that this sort of behaviour is endemic to being 'normal'... plenty of NTs don't act like that, and plenty of autistics do. It happens. That's why lumping people into groups is generally seen as a bad idea. Snideness aside, though, her only argument towards 'normalcy is good' is that if her son were less 'quirky', he'd be teased less... so HE should change because people SHE knows are rude snots. This is what I really don't understand. Where does she get off equating healthy, harmless, but strange behaviour with a life-and-death situation? And why on earth does she think it's okay for people to tease her son so long as he's the one 'in the wrong'? How can he be the one in the wrong when they're the attackers?
Why, exactly, should normalcy be seen as a goal? This is something I do not understand. Judging entirely by her letter, and assuming that she is 'normal', I can make these conclusions:
1. Normal people can't make logical arguments to save their life. That's why we have so very many names for logical fallacies.
2. Normal people interpret most things that disagree with them as a personal attack, which helps to explain why her idea of a rebuttal consisted entirely of a personal attack against the person who made the first argument.
3. Normal people are intolerant of differences, which is why normalcy is a goal. These same people often claim to love individualism and tolerance and diversity, so what we are to make of this, I don't know.
4. Normal people blame the victim. If your kid gets teased, it's his fault for being different.
5. Normal people have a great deal of trouble distinguishing between what was said and what they think was said. My mother is a good example of this....
And this is all what you want your kid to be? Oooooo-kaaaaayyyy...
Now, seriously. I don't think that this sort of behaviour is endemic to being 'normal'... plenty of NTs don't act like that, and plenty of autistics do. It happens. That's why lumping people into groups is generally seen as a bad idea. Snideness aside, though, her only argument towards 'normalcy is good' is that if her son were less 'quirky', he'd be teased less... so HE should change because people SHE knows are rude snots. This is what I really don't understand. Where does she get off equating healthy, harmless, but strange behaviour with a life-and-death situation? And why on earth does she think it's okay for people to tease her son so long as he's the one 'in the wrong'? How can he be the one in the wrong when they're the attackers?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 02:50 pm (UTC)As I once heard a gay man refer to heterosexuality, this stuff isn't normal, it's just common.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:12 pm (UTC)It's normal to have acne as a kid, too. Doesn't mean that it's desirable. It's normal to want to blame other people for your problems, but that doesn't make it an impulse you should cultivate.
It's also normal to bathe regularly and to not murder your mother with an axe. Which are good things.
So you really can't make "normal" mean "acceptable behavior" and nothing more or less, and you make yourself look stupid when you try: like this lady.
Acting enough like your peers that they don't beat you to a pulp or lock you away is normal, yes. It's also sane and rational, because the alternative is expecting your entire culture to conform to you, which is unrealistic.
But acting a bit weird is also normal, because people aren't identical, even the ones who often seem like they are :P
I will never understand why more people can't just live and let live.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:50 pm (UTC)It's not really unrealistic, any more so than black Americans (from a black culture) expecting to be able to act in accordance with their culture instead of assimilating fully into white culture, or people in wheelchairs demanding and getting wheelchair-cuts on virtually every sidewalk corner. It's also a whole lot better than trying to "fake normal" until adulthood and then going into a total psychological collapse (with subsequent suicide/attempts), which is what typically happens to autistics raised to behave that way.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 09:04 pm (UTC)The thing is that, truly, almost no human being in the world is self-sufficient. There are merely people (including many NTs) who are supported primarily in ways that are considered "usual" and therefore they are still "independent" when they use those supports, and then people who are supported in ways that are considered "unusual" and therefore they are considered "dependent" when they use those supports.
Pushing toward using primarily the "invisible/usual/independent" supports and few of the "visible/unusual/dependent" supports is not always good for an autistic person, either. Even when possible, the strain should be weighed against the benefits, as often we need more (or simply *different*) support from our societies than the usual supports.
To paraphrase what someone writing about developmental disability outside of autism once said, "Yes, we could spend the rest of people's lives putting them on behavior programs to train them how to make their beds, but WHY?"
So I didn't even see your original way of dealing with that issue as actually working -- I don't think that training autistics to "function at the highest level" is always best (especially when what constitutes "highest level" is defined by someone else, may deplete functioning on more important levels, and may not be sustainable).
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 02:50 pm (UTC)As I once heard a gay man refer to heterosexuality, this stuff isn't normal, it's just common.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 02:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:12 pm (UTC)It's normal to have acne as a kid, too. Doesn't mean that it's desirable. It's normal to want to blame other people for your problems, but that doesn't make it an impulse you should cultivate.
It's also normal to bathe regularly and to not murder your mother with an axe. Which are good things.
So you really can't make "normal" mean "acceptable behavior" and nothing more or less, and you make yourself look stupid when you try: like this lady.
Acting enough like your peers that they don't beat you to a pulp or lock you away is normal, yes. It's also sane and rational, because the alternative is expecting your entire culture to conform to you, which is unrealistic.
But acting a bit weird is also normal, because people aren't identical, even the ones who often seem like they are :P
I will never understand why more people can't just live and let live.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 03:50 pm (UTC)It's not really unrealistic, any more so than black Americans (from a black culture) expecting to be able to act in accordance with their culture instead of assimilating fully into white culture, or people in wheelchairs demanding and getting wheelchair-cuts on virtually every sidewalk corner. It's also a whole lot better than trying to "fake normal" until adulthood and then going into a total psychological collapse (with subsequent suicide/attempts), which is what typically happens to autistics raised to behave that way.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 09:04 pm (UTC)The thing is that, truly, almost no human being in the world is self-sufficient. There are merely people (including many NTs) who are supported primarily in ways that are considered "usual" and therefore they are still "independent" when they use those supports, and then people who are supported in ways that are considered "unusual" and therefore they are considered "dependent" when they use those supports.
Pushing toward using primarily the "invisible/usual/independent" supports and few of the "visible/unusual/dependent" supports is not always good for an autistic person, either. Even when possible, the strain should be weighed against the benefits, as often we need more (or simply *different*) support from our societies than the usual supports.
To paraphrase what someone writing about developmental disability outside of autism once said, "Yes, we could spend the rest of people's lives putting them on behavior programs to train them how to make their beds, but WHY?"
So I didn't even see your original way of dealing with that issue as actually working -- I don't think that training autistics to "function at the highest level" is always best (especially when what constitutes "highest level" is defined by someone else, may deplete functioning on more important levels, and may not be sustainable).
no subject
Date: 2004-04-08 11:51 pm (UTC)