http://alternatives-economiques.fr/blogs/daubenton/files/opposition.jpg
I have once again seen political maneuvering being done in the name of autism advocacy. One group of advocates got the idea to have a day declared Communication Shutdown to raise awareness of autism. Another group (Obviously unaware of the entrapping nature of competing against political ghosts) decided to advocate against this event with an opposing event called Autistics Speaking Day. This is (despite the appearance of the name) a closed group that has a narrow political agenda.
I am participating in the organized opposition group and yet what's advertised in the name of free speech is not only false advertising, but it is the opposition to free speech. Nothing threatens the attainment of democracy more than the claim that it is already existing. In the U.S., we play a political game where we imagine this as a right in order to deny most people the privilege.
These advocates responsible for this Autistics Speaking Day event are well schooled in the art of deception and politics but as with most pawns, duplicating how the important advocates' work is a trap. If you don't have a view from the top you can't see how corrupt it is and how you're being used.
Character is based on the decisions we make, and we must first choose boundaries for ourselves. I have a friend who often says "people who don't respect boundaries don't like boundaries." I understand that better more all the time. I (like I'm sure many others do) will end up making excuses for people over and over thinking that somehow they aren't really wanting to be disrespectful. However, people accustomed to boundary-less environments must want to leave that atmosphere before they adjust to a new one. No one can make that choice for them and enabling it will encourage the same behavior in the enabler.
Humans have the ability to plan in a unique way and that ability isn't stifled nearly so much by neurological configuration/nature as it is by politics and societal grooming/nuture. If you teach a person to play a game that requires and allows for no unique individual planning on their part, it's not likely that you will lose. This is how politics is taught to advocates. Very few can truly change things within the political system because the first lesson learned is that compromise is more important than creativity.
The house always wins. You can't fight against tyranny with a tyrannical approach. and this is becoming my favorite quote:
"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House"- Audre Lorde
(this quote is repeated on this blog site many times)
The race may indeed be to the swift, but if you don't plan where you are going to it's not likely you will appreciate where you end up.
Viktor E. Frankl said:
"Everything can be taken from a man or a woman but one thing: the last of human freedoms to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
Frankl challenged the very foundation upon which the entire US political system is based. The constitution claims that citizens have to right to pursue happiness. But the very nature of the claim would lead people to a vain existence based on idolatry. The stimulus of the US economy is a chase and a race where the reward is unattainable. Politics is not a tool. It's fantastic folly. The people will benefit from it are already established. Again the house always wins.
If I ever gave people the impression that neurodiversity advocates weren't opposed to disability rights, I apologize. Until the last couple days, I didn't know that anyone was so underhanded and ambiguous as to fight for the right of so-called Aspies at the expense of others. I have learned unfortunately that indeed this is happening. What's worse is that it's disguised as bluntness (that being the subject of a later blog post is the only way to do that topic justice).
A political group encouraging neurodiversity is a contradiction. The inclusion of diversity by definition is respect of different goals and different motives. Politics by definition is the adherence to narrow set of methods and goals set by an inaccessible authority. If peoples unique abilities and what they have to offer are to truly be respected, political environment is the surest place that will make that impossible.
On Nov.1 st autistics will communicate as they always do and people will attempt to silence them as they always do but beware the solutions. Gramma ain't supposed to have a long snout and sharp teeth. If you see that, take your picnic basket and head for the forest! There is no comfort and support in that house despite the appearance of the surroundings.
Furthermore, there is nothing empowering about fighting against an enemy that wants to have you for dinner. That kind of fighting is only for protection. Try not to confuse and abuse what you do to survive....and quit investing in ships that will never sail.
Hello. This is my first visit to your blog and I am intrigued. (which is cool) I don't think I quite understand what you're saying here. It seems that what you're saying is that the Communication Shutdown is bad, but the Austics Speaking Day is just as bad. Is that right? If so, is that because the Speaking Day isn't really being organized by a couple of women in their living rooms? I'm a bit naive about all of this.
Posted by: Laura | October 29, 2010 at 12:03 AM
Hello Laura, Welcome to The Standard Review blog. I apologize for not responding to your comment earlier.
Generally, autism advocacy of any kind is not expected to be held to the same level of standard ethics as that of another advocacy that works to fight discrimination and abuse.
This is in keeping with how autistics have generally been treated. Unfortunately, there are few choices for those looking to promote human rights for this population from within an organized group. Asking that people choose between the groups established based on each group having different philosophies and approaches is misleading.
I've found the leadership of the Autistics Speaking Day to be misrepresenting their agenda and claiming to be inclusive when they aren't interested in that at all. In fact, the intimidation I received from the leadership of this event, and their representatives was very similar to the ways of ASAN (Autistic Self Advocacy Network).
In the past two years, some bloggers such as me who were attempting to promote a better understanding of autism and discourage the harmful effects of sensational mainstream autism advocacy by referring to the term neurodiversity were intimidated by those with political aspirations. Neurodiversity (capitol letter N) is now a political movement and the methods the leadership exercise to promote their agenda is the same as the other substandard autism advocacy groups. This event (The Autistics Speaking Day) is meant to be supportive of the Neurodiversity movement, and I see events leadership following the same bad policies.
Ironically (contrary to what the name would suggest) the Nerodiversity Movement is encouraging exclusion and discrimination against minorities as well as discouraging individualism and creative thinking.
Posted by: Ed | October 29, 2010 at 02:56 PM
So sorry, I'm just now checking in. Thanks for your response. I've been curious about what the "Neurodiversity" movement really is. I'm not normally someone slow to catch on, but I find myself struggling to understand. Can you explain how "the Nerodiversity Movement is encouraging exclusion and discrimination against minorities as well as discouraging individualism and creative thinking?"
Posted by: Laura | October 30, 2010 at 08:53 PM
Now I'm not sure the point of your inquiry. I feel I've been very thorough in explaining the points I'm attempting to make for this blog post. My views about the Neurodiversity Movement aren't any better or worse, more accurate or less, than anyone else. I'm just writing about some ideas I have. What are your ideas about that subject?
Posted by: Ed | October 30, 2010 at 09:36 PM
Yes, I'm sure you have been thorough in explaining it. Sorry to be slow. It appears I've made you feel defensive. I'm sorry about that. I didn't intend to imply that I found your views better/worse, more/less accurate. In truth, I would not be able to make such a determination, because while I understand that you have a negative opinion of those in the capitol "N" Neurodiversity movement, I have no understanding of why you have that opinion. As such, it would be foolish of me to make any judgment on your position.
My view is that I'm uncomfortable with people calling Autism a disease that must be eradicated. I don't agree with the idea that helping Auties/Aspies means making them "non-Autistic". I do believe in traditional/ scientifically sound interventions to help us overcome the sometimes debilitating aspects of being on the Spectrum. The rest of my position I am still formulating. Which, was the nature of my inquiry. Sorry to have bothered you.
Posted by: Laura | October 30, 2010 at 11:52 PM
I fell this division in the advocacy community itself it more damaging then anything our opponents could ever do to us. I see it when the parent advocates argue with the self advocates. I see it when self advocates argue amongst themselves. Even when it seems to me that our goals are all the same, we refuse to work together on the things we hold in common because we become overly angered by where we are different.
I hope I don't get flamed for this. But one of the things I have noticed is this sense of over compensating for being overlooked by demanding that we get things BECAUSE we have a disability. For example, when we demand that a company HAS to hire a certain number with disabilities. This goes to far in the other direction!!!
We should want an EQUAL playing field!! I should not be discounted because of my disability. I should also not be preferred to and catered to because of it! I want someone to hire me over others because my qualifications and my manner convinced them that I was the best for the job. If someone without a disability is better, they should get the job! An equal playing field means that my getting or not getting or attaining something has nothing to do with my disability. And a person without a disability attaining or getting something has nothing to do with them NOT having a disability.
I don't want to be discriminated against because of my label, and I don't want preferential treatment either. But that seems like to me what many are demanding. Demanding that buisnesses hire a certain number of those with disabilities, and things of that nature does not help our cause! It embitters those around us and creates resentment, and even more discrimination!
I hope that makes sense.
Posted by: Theo | November 04, 2010 at 11:12 AM
It makes sense as individual unrelated ideas you have. It's confusing as to how it relates to this post or anything I've said (if it is meant to be related). Did you mean this in relation to this post? I won't allow flaming on this blog site. Did you think I would flame? Have you ever witnessed my doing that? This does make your comment confusing.
Posted by: Ed | November 04, 2010 at 01:10 PM