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?