The Standard Review

Puzzling People

 
Using a puzzle piece as a symbol for autism awareness encourages the idea that our society is interested in support for autistics. Not only is this not helpful but the way the campaigners are falling short of the supposed goal is only the beginning how this causes problems.

Disability rights activists have done much to encourage a better view of disability but bigoted traditions are deeply rooted in our culture. The ways that pity is not only hurtful but dangerous is not something society's leaders have been willing to accept. If you describe a problem in order to provide a solution but then don’t provide one, you have instead defined the people with the problem as needing to be eliminated. This is what promotes autism awareness, and the abuse and neglect of autistics has been encouraged as a result of the campaign.

The puzzle piece symbol encourages people to believe that autistics are mysterious, and that we have some strange disorder. It's believed that there is an epidemic of autism similar to an alien invasion. The way our society deal with an alien invasion is similar to what is taught in science fiction movies. We attack with the goal of eliminating the aliens. Some would claim the goal is to eliminate the source, but this is not the way our culture deals with these issues.

Empowerment is such an obvious concept to people who need it most. It's similar to how someone who is dehydrated in the desert can envision water when there is none. In order to encourage inclusion, we must first accept that our society is not geared to include more people at all. The dominate goal is exclusion and disenfranchisement. When we are willing to accept that we are exclusive and that our traditions encourage presumption and bigotry; we will be in a position to work on changing it.

Similar to the way activists within the disability community have attempted to alter the ablism our society encourages, some autistics have attempted to use the Internet to alter the view of autism. The message has been ignored, politicized, and otherwise exploited in all the traditional ways. This is not only harmful to autistics but it's a sign our society is more willing to choose the convenience of hatred for any uncomfortable differences than to support people who exhibit the difference.

The more fashion conscious politicians would like to change our name, eliminate all labels, or only look at autism in a medical/professional way or for how policies are created. Unfortunately, all these ways of dealing with the how people are being exploited due to something that is disguised as support are following the same tradition of exclusion. Mainly, the people who are leading the way in what is described as a revolution are the professional politicians, educators, and mental health workers.

In this way, every attempt at supporting people’s rights have failed and there is no movement or attempt at revolution that we can follow. It’s wonderful that there are a few people now working to support  inclusion for autistics but there are many traps. We don’t need better advocates, and we don’t only need more. We certainly don’t need to show how some can pass the exclusion test or how autism is just a bad part of an otherwise acceptable exclusionary system. What we need is for more people who are advocating to embrace a type of advocacy that is truly revolutionary and one that unlike any other such attempt begins to create real inclusion. Otherwise, we will continue to be objectified as puzzle pieces and attacked as aliens. Any attempt at inclusion that gets co-opted by any group with a more important agenda will instead promote exclusion.

The Convenient Awareness of Autism

The Autism Awareness Campaign continues to mislead the public about the supposed beneficiaries in a way that is very harmful. There isn't much good that can come from making people aware that a specific group is in need of particular support or accommodation, unless there is also an attempt to provide it. Aspiring to make people aware of a vague goal (which is how I see these campaigns) without also providing the needed support will teach why the acceptance is instead harmful to the supposed important segment of the population.

I often hear people describe a better life which includes some types of people being seen as inferior and the wishes of these types are shown to be insignificant in many different ways. This is indirectly a way to define those who are the most vulnerable as having little or no value. Of course, these standards are always originally set by the least vulnerable people, and their justification is based on the claim that they earned the right to set them.

Overt exclusion is based on the view of limited resources but vague pity, and the subtle way that people are deprived of determining how they are treated also results from that type of view. The people encouraging the myth of limited resources aren’t doing so in order for them to have enough. They can’t comprehend the meaning of enough. They just want more. However, they can’t acquire more unless the rest of us adopts their values. We must engage in the same ranking system in order for their agenda to be realized. We are too many to conquer externally. This must be accomplished by each of us adopting an exclusionary attitude which ultimately serves our oppressor.

Too often the best effort is made only trying to show why yet another group should be accepted. This doesn’t address the more subtle ways that exclusion is accomplished and blatant exclusion is easier to challenge. Understanding and mutual respect are the resources we have plenty of and is the easiest to renew. This is unfortunately the type of resource that our culture sees as the most limited. Once something is seen to be occupying the supposed limit to the amount of time and energy for our limited supply of compassion; people won't seek to do more. 

We can't simply support the existing campaigns or hope that the acceptable people getting involved can alter the agenda. The approach that will make things different doesn't fit with the present one. The people who need to be getting involved continue to be seen as insignificant objects, which provide society with the sense their charity obligations are being fulfilled. Once people who need support are also seen as worthy of dignity and respect, we will begin striving for an inclusive society based on equality and respect. Until then, what gets labeled charity is serving the agenda of a few whose ultimate goal isn't charitable at all.

The Politician's Perspective of Autism

When I'm around people a lot that perceive the world in a particular way, and when I take that same perspective, I see myself as worthless; it's important for me to remember that is only their perspective, and that I'm better than that. The particular perspective I'm referring to here is that of a politician. I don't believe that it honors anyone else either, but it certainly attempts to at the expense of myself and many others.

I was recently reminded just how narrow the vision of politicians really is. It’s easy to forget sometimes when the volume of their voice drowns out reason and compassion. It reminds me, of how I can look at the sky when I’m in the city and forget that the reason it’s blue is because most of the earth is covered by ocean. While we as humans may depend on the ocean to survive, it doesn’t require our involvement. Most of what people do in relation to the ocean does more to hurt than help it and most of the ways that people get involved in policy making hurt rather than help those who are claimed to be the beneficiaries.

Autism is something that affects people’s lives but once people begin discussing policies regarding those with the diagnosis; their minds travel into a strange and brutal realm where people, and their needs must be ignored so that politicians can participate in their sport.

People cease being people when what policy which will serve some group of people is decided in something resembling an athletic event. Money and rank are what makes someone less vulnerable, and these are the tools which are used to decide what policies are best for those who are most vulnerable due to their not having money and rank. Therefore, the best anyone can do in a political arena without the proper equipment (the money and the rank) is to find a way to side with the least exploitive team or accept the type of exploitation that is the least objectionable.

A politician will define themselves as pragmatic and describe anyone who challenges the traditions of politics as overly idealist and naïve. This protects their position at your expense. Unfortunately, it also protects the traditions which are harming the majority of people and instead of encouraging dialogue, which could lead to a better understanding of needs, the politicians become more aggressive toward anyone with a unique perspective when their own mistakes become more apparent.

Unique perspectives will also be defined by politicians as selfish. Solidarity is all that preserves their position so anything that is different must be defined in terms of the way it ranks accordingly. The only thing anyone can be seen as is someone competing with leadership in order to lead people in a different direction. By default, this direction represents to them a threat so it must be described as dangerous and the person, of course, must be defined as a villain.

Sometimes politics is nothing more than a fashion show. No one can survive the whims of political fashion without either becoming a bully or a victim of bullies. It's usually a combination of the two.

In this arena, the needs of the autistic person are decided by people who will assume a political position whatever that position may be. They will claim that nothing important occurs from outside the political arena. This ultimately defines those who are outside as also being outside the group that is important. If you are not important, you will not be seen as worthy of having your needs met. Politicians who claim otherwise are often trapped in a maze. Their own exploitation is foreign to them so the way they exploit others escapes their vision as well.
 
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house " ~ Audre Lorde

We can either try to understand and accommodate people and find more ways to include them, or we can find ways that we can out rank them and show that they are insignificant. The ranking will always exclude those who are fashionably less popular, but fashions change. The more practical alternative choice is also the most compassionate.

People are more important than their tools. That includes the tools used to liberate them. If the realm where people are supposedly being liberated isn’t involved in listening to them, learning what they think and what they need because they are seen as worthy of thinking and deciding for themselves, the perspective this realm promotes will most likely cause them to be ranked as also not being worthy of having their needs met.

Acceptance and Murder

Recently, the mainstream media has once again depicted murders of disabled people in a completely irresponsible way. Both George Hodgins, an autistic man, and Daniel Corby an autistic boy, were killed within the past month. Rather than only suggest how unfair the decision of those who ended their lives was similarly to the way other murders are reported; the focus was instead on how these people’s burdensome disability must have contributed to their killer's choice.

It is wrongly assumed too often that our culture is sophisticated enough to demonize the disability without doing the same to the person with the disability similar to the way some describe hating the sin but loving the sinner. Despite each individual’s spirit, we as a culture cannot safely assume that the way we depict particular disabilities will not encourage abuse and even murder. For we who are targeted in this way, the correlation between the two is obvious.

Despite the popular impression of how our justice system operates, people with disability and inconvenient cultural diversity aren't treated very differently than criminals. In fact, there continues to be many opportunities to the people with the power and inclination to do so, to criminalize the ways the people of these categories are different.

Convenience is the most valued commodity for many people, and therefore, it is often also the most exploited. Unless the category of people you are defined as fitting is seen to help create more power (or at least the illusion of more power) for the most powerful people; those people are probably working to create laws that will encourage the belief that you are a burden on society.

The categories encourage a place, and a duty for every individual based mainly on how they are seen to add value or the lack of it to the collective. The leaders of industry have the power and opportunity to set these laws which determine your place and therefore, your supposed value. Having a disability means that your ability is completely inconvenient for them. It means that you are seen as needing care and therefore, the care giver (and similarly, the rest of society) will be seen as deserving sympathy for having to tolerate you.

One example of how cultural exclusion was made legal in early America is the way that physician Samuel A. Cartwright defined the desire of a slave to be free as the psychiatric disorder called drapetomania. Black slaves were defined by law as only partially human, and it was claimed that their skin color indicated less sensitivity to pain. This, of course, made their physical punishment appear less cruel so it could then be applied more severely.

The harmful ways the reputation of the medical establishment lent credibility to the descriptions of slaves in order to protect the financial interest of plantation owners is similar to how people with disabilities are cruelly defined by the main-stream media in order to only promote the value of care givers rather than those described as their burdens.

Today slavery in America is mainly only described in terms of our history. However, although the ways that utilitarian attitudes are encouraged may appear more subtle now to most, we still have some extreme ways of discriminating and punishing inconvenient people that our mainstream media refuses to accept responsibility for. Our industry leaders demand that the media continue spreading propaganda, which shows people whom the leaders find inconvenient to have no value at all.

Despite the promises of finding causes and cures for autism, there is little proof. The fear of having to deal with the burden of the autistic person encourages people to treat autistics in the worst possible ways. The spread of lies about our lack of empathy, contributing to financial burdens, and divorce of our parents is what has truly reached epidemic proportion.

The people who can’t understand and appreciate people’s value beyond the strict utilitarian view that industrialists encourage through the mainstream media shouldn’t be involved in promoting societal values. I hope that everyone who does appreciate people's value and can avoid these unfair judgements will work to end the harmful lies being told.

Ability isn't more important than happiness. Besides, emotional stability is an essential foundation to learning. Therefore, nothing is more important than how disability is viewed. If someone's value isn't understood; it's the result of an oversight. To view it otherwise ensures that we as a culture soon won't have enough compassion (which is our greatest resource) for our species to continue.

Disclaimer :I give my permission for this post to be reprinted in order to raise awareness of this issue.

Because We are Different than Them

My goal as a disability advocate is to challenge the current standards which are unfair. The need for this is shown in how both the words ableism and disabilism are used interchangeably.  Both are sides of the same coin (so to speak). It is because we live in an ablest society with unfair standards that we have people who are limited due to their inability to meet those standards.

Within what is referred to as the online autism community, the response of some advocates to unfair standards is not helpful. It can discriminate against autistics for no other reason than attempting to validate a few.

When people use the term autistic, it can refer to a diagnosis given by a professional. That can be extended to include more people and can be used constructively when it refers to a social rather than the medical model. However, once autism becomes Autism, a new set of standards are set in place so that once again some will be excluded and discriminated against.

The same is true for the word neurodiversity. It has so much to offer in the concept it can be used to represent but when it becomes Neurodiversity, lines are drawn and decisions are made as to who is and isn’t included.

When I hear people referred to as “my people” or “one of us," I’m reminded that the person using the term is no longer simply looking to include some people where they have instead been excluded or challenge the current standards; their goal is then to show how they can meet the standard and exclude others. This not only contradicts the moral reasons I believe that advocacy is necessary and important; it is impractical and won’t work.

Politics (the environment public policy is decided) is an extension of the law which demands more attention be paid to subtlety and nuance. There must be a method of differentiating between what roles, we who are in need of support need to assume, and ones we need to either delegate or make exchanges in order to obtain. Without recognizing this, autism politicians (both the autistic variety and the guardian) have built a wall (metaphorically speaking) around the arena where policy is decided, which excludes mainly those who are claimed as being the benefactors.

 "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house."  ~Audre Lorde

I wish that the guardian portion of the online autistic community (the parent, professionals, presumed supporters, etc.) would realize that by following the medical model tradition of separating autistics into categories of levels of functioning and adhering to age appropriate standards, they create more unnecessary pressure on everyone. These standards were never meant to help the majority of people succeed, and they do more to demand unreasonable level of performance by a particular age and have people ignored or accused of abhorrence or laziness if they don't meet the standard. It also supports needless labels of high or low functioning in order to dismiss people so that they are conveniently considered unable or too disobedient to be taken seriously.

When a child is born with four limbs and twenty digits everyone will claim they are a blessing. Some mistakenly also believe that we as a culture can look at someone who doesn't as something other than a curse. I appreciate that many don't see things this way as individuals but as a culture, I don't believe we are so sophisticated.

As children grow the age-appropriate  standards begin to take their toll and fortunate children receive support while the less fortunate have their abilities categorized in terms of unable (which NEVER completely escapes moral judgments) and moral choices such as lazy and unwilling to be responsible. However, these standards were set by industry leaders who lobby for laws that ensure profits for their investments, and they influence mainstream publications that teach attitudes, which encourage bitterness toward each other among the less fortunate class.

The only reason most of us has any rights at all is because someone before us won that right in court. If your ability isn't one that automatically serves the industrial objectives, by default, your value becomes to them (and then our culture adopts this view) is the same as if you are disabled. These are the standards that determine disability.

Furthermore, being diagnosed with an ailment which is categorized as a physical may be the beginning of the support you need. On the other hand, being diagnosed with any abnormality, which is associated with behavior may instead be the beginning of how people other than your family are provided the right to mistreat you, detain you with less sufficient cause, and subject you to therapy, which has little scientific support.

Furthermore, in the same way as a church will dismiss and/or exclude those whom they find inconvenient as being in possession of bad spirits, medical professionals and therefore, other supports available to the general public will demonize a person who is considered to have behaviors that result from exposure to environmental toxins. Because people with a diagnosis that includes inconvenient behaviors are devalued in society, claims of disorders being caused by environmental toxins are publicized though they have little or no scientific support. Again, this also leads to more people being labeled as either high or low functioning and either will be used interchangeably in different circumstances to justify ways your rights are denied.

All this indicates to me that autistics need (based in part to the label and in part the behavioral differences that our culture will recognize as inappropriate) to have exclusive standards challenged. This does not mean that we need to make a place for ourselves (metaphorically speaking) at an already established exclusionary table. As long as we are working toward equality, there is a morality involved in our efforts, which will provide us with rights. However, if instead we create exclusive clubs and follow similar exclusionary practices at the expense of others in similar ways as what was done to us; I see little value in our efforts.

 First they came…

“"First they came…" is a famous statement attributed to pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.”

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Many during this were too willing to allow neighbors and even family to be persecuted because they were among those who initially passed the acceptance test. Unfortunately, when a category that defined them was also included as one which was seen as unacceptable, all those who would have been there to protect them had already gone. I hope this can serve as a reminder of how fragile our privileges are and how important it is not take them for granted. It’s important not to do things, which provide for what are considered our own rights, which ultimately come at the expense of someone else’s.

Improved Behaviorism and Worse Behavior

Policy makers and their supporters claim that people's behaviors are becoming worse. More specifically they claim that children's behavior is becoming worse. However, these same policy makers and supporters are claiming that behavioral products, and the techniques are advancing.
 
For the purpose of my focus here; whether their evaluation of behavior is correct doesn't really matter. My point is the claim behavioral conditioning is advancing or that the products are become more sophisticated and humane doesn't fit how the attitude toward the people receiving them is becoming more desperate. This desperation is causing more severe and dangerous methods of control along with those who implement them often becoming less empathetic toward those receiving them.

The behaviorists in the U.S. are involved in turf wars, which include how Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is marketed. The kinder and gentler Positive Behavioral Support (PBS) is being marketed by some as the answer to outdated and no-longer-appropriate "old school" ABA. However, the foundational principals set by earlier behaviorists who found ways to market the application of this new science provide the newest products their legitimacy. Now that it's been established that people don't possess what their treatment harms, there are fewer objections.

You of course can't read much about how the entire approach of behaviorism is inappropriate at best and very dangerous at worst because there is no market for such criticism. In the same way that the mental health industry is designed to improve the lives of everyone but the one who receives treatment, behavior modification is evaluated by those who live with, educate, and implement the treatment rather than those who receive it. This means that professionals and other authorities are prohibited from knowing the harmful effects as well as prohibited from sharing views that would harm the marketing potential of the product.

It's important to understand how those who receive behavior modification are trained to be compliant. Therefore, it's likely that someone who would otherwise tell how abusive the treatment has been will be concerned about the likely punishment that results from doing so.

The work of behaviorists could not become more humane during the same time that the lists of types of people who are seen to need the service is growing, the behaviors being treated are seen to be more severe, and the laws which provide protection for the treated are increasingly aiding the treatment providers with protection instead.

There are reports that advocacy efforts have increased during this time. However, this has not been nearly sufficient to meet the demand  for the protection needed. While institutions over the years have added carpet and air conditioning, this has been disguised as and substituted for the needed protection against abuse. Furthermore, protection agencies which have been developed during this time have primarily provided more power to a specific subset of parents of children with disabilities while providing the disabled with powerful sounding names like consumer as a substitute.

More people are being incarcerated now than ever before and there are a broader set of laws for which they can be punished. Behaviorists work toward providing children with particular grades and labels, which will determine their path at earlier ages. Their goal is to have more rules (and have only a single set) and have them be applied to a broader set of people. It's ideal to believe that morality and ability won't be lumped together, but it's not practical.

The same type of marketing specialists who promote Fruit Loops and Apple Jacks by using fruit names and describing how including oats will benefit your heart will use positive names and the endorsement of well compensated scientists to sell behavior modification. Until or unless those who receive the treatment begin to be consulted and continually monitored and questioned as to its effectiveness and potential for abuse, you can be sure that along with better behaviorism you are buying sugar-coated law enforcement at the expense of the heart, mind, and soul of the most vulnerable people.

What They Don't Say About Us

The most important thing I've learned from newspapers, television, and the Internet is that only a few people are being discussed. Most are thereby defined by this discussion as insignificant. Of course, the standard for a persons significance is constantly changing because the people which have the distinction of being important need to maintain the illusion by exclusive means.

In the discussion regarding diagnosis such as autism, I believe that nothing is more important than finding more ways to include the voices of people who have been disenfranchised. As I see the leadership in the United States has recently voted to launch more powerful weapons in the war against the poor, I'm reminded that nothing defines the economic poverty more than disenfranchisement, and a behavioral diagnosis is similar to a box that allows others to place you on a shelf where you can be more easily criticized and ignored.

The most critical problem I see with this exclusion is that when people begin to advocate against it, they tend to set up a similar standard. This becomes even worse when the methods of exclusion are copied from those who are described as opponents of their goal. Political agendas often become more important than the people the agenda's leaders claim they are aiming to help.

So much of our culture influences the belief that success is always earned.The way this is taught tends not to include the details of how our standards of success are based on commercial branding.Too often the belief leads to the humiliation and distrust of people who fall below the standard. Most are even ignored altogether as a result. Unfortunately, the standard is rarely explored and criticized, and therefore, many myths are maintained and used as weapons.

This makes learning how to encourage each other very difficult. We tend to imagine a commercial price tag on every human attribute and expression and rank each other accordingly. Many expressions which could be accepted and even celebrated as eccentricities are instead judged as substandard. This encourages recovery and overcoming of too many aspects of the human experience. It even happens to such a degree that it can lead to us forgetting how to enjoy life and appreciate each other.

Our guidebook of standards is like a product catalog that ranks our worth similarly to the way price tags are used. We then can't appreciate each other appropriately and because the value is seen in such a narrow context, our communication is very limited. Therefore, since we tend not to trust what we don't understand, we become unnecessarily defensive rather than empathetic and compassionate.

The cultural divide many of us experience is very real. It's important to recognize how these divisions occur so that realistic solutions can be found. To avoid acknowledging this often encourages simply another political agenda that widens the gap even further and excludes those who are in the biggest need of inclusion. The problem with identity politics isn't identity, it's the politics.

Human communication always includes labeling and ranking. Although the writers of the DSM and the industry that supports them cannot be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the people who are diagnosed based on their suggestion, I can't think of any system of labeling and ranking, which deserves unreserved and unregulated loyalty and trust. We can, however, use any label far beyond the intentions of those who have formed standards, which create harm.

Too often, people who are caught by the predominant labeling and ranking systems get ranked as insignificant and are therefore ignored by people with an anti-labeling political agenda. This is very unfortunate as well as unnecessary. Advocates can instead use what others meant for harm (or what became harm due to negligence) to empower an otherwise disenfranchised (and unrepresented) group.

Being involved in a society that is so driven by consumerism and bombarded with commercial images has a way of teaching us as individuals that we are also products. What is implied indirectly is that our cultural standard for significance defines most people as less valuable than the food and water we consume. If we as a culture don't begin to recognize the standard and the subtle ways it's taught, we can't begin to combat it.

Viewing things in a different way shouldn't lead to being excluded from discussions. In order to have a more inclusive society, we need to encourage more people to express themselves in diverse ways and thoughtfully consider a broader set of options. In this way, we can begin to introduce new ideas and show less interest in standards, which are designed to empower only an elite few. What these few would like to hide about the rest of us is important to understand, and we are important to everyone's future.

Dunking Autistics

 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_U-iUkbU7acQ/R_joETdbE2I/AAAAAAAAAaM/SMz-wDkl84M/S230/DSC02129.JPG

Though the ideas from early American Putirtan culture are hundreds of years old, some of that type of thinking can be found in today's culture as well with regard to how disability is viewed and more specifically how autistics are treated.

The authority during the Salem witch trials was practically in a state of paranoid frenzy due to the fear of having their authority challenged. They were not only concerned with punishing the accused but wanted no trace of them if the accusation proved false. This would prevent the potential for them being charged with falsely arresting people or with abusing their authority.

 It says here:

"Dunking is a form of torture and punishment that was applied to scolds and supposed witches.

In a trial by ordeal, supposed witches were immersed into a vat of water or pond, and taken out after some time, thus and given the opportunity to confess. This process was usually repeated until the victim drowned or gave up and confessed, leading to them being executed in another way, usually hanging or, more rarely, burning. Also, if they had their hands/feet tied, they would be left under water. If they floated they were guilty of witchcraft, if they sank they were innocent but would have usually drowned anyway."

 
http://www.stronghold-knights.com/site/album/aubergine/ducking.jpg

After the notorious Salem witch trials:

"Reversals of attainder and compensation to the survivors and their families

Title page of A Modest Enquiry Into the Nature of Witchcraft by John Hale (Boston, 1702)The first hint that public call for justice was not over happened in 1695, when Thomas Maule, a noted Quaker, publicly criticized the handling of the trials by the Puritan leaders in Chapter 29 of his book Truth Held Forth and Maintained, expanding on Increase Mather by stating, "it were better that one hundred Witches should live, than that one person be put to death for a witch, which is not a Witch".[67] For publishing this book, Maule was imprisoned twelve months before he was tried and found not guilty."

 

Although, today's courts are often described as favoring the presumption of innocence, factors such as economic status, race, and the presumption of ability and competency heavily influence the outcome of a court trial (being viewed as less competent encourages a guilty verdict). Even social skills and how likeable someone is cannot be ruled out as being influential.

With the overwhelming influence of modern technology and the opportunities that present for networking, communication on the Internet largely impacts cultural views as well as how people vote on public policy. Furthermore, the fear encouraged by eugenist in the past century has greatly influenced our cultural bias against disability. This bias is even more pronounced with a disability relating to competency and mental stability. All this combined with the fear-mongering recently from autism advocacy groups such as Autism Speaks, causes autistics to receive a lot of negative attention.

Similar to the ways supposed witches were presumed guilty of crimes and sentenced without an opportunity to defend themselves, autistics who assert themselves on the internet regarding public policy which affects them are often treated with no respect and little if any opportunity to express themselves.

With that in mind I've written some ideas/questions regarding cultural views about disability and more specifically how this influences the experience of autistics that advocate their rights on the Internet. Here are the questions:

 

 

How often has the person living with someone who has a disability ( a parent, caretaker, etc.) had more opportunities to voice their view about the disability than the person most directly affected?

How often have non-disabled people been justified in harming a disabled person due to the public's empathy of what is seen as the able person's burden? How often is this done in relation to the frequency of the disabled person having the way they were being abused, understood and validated?

How often are the expressions of frustration from the abused disabled person accepted in a public discussion? How often is it ignored? In contrast how often does the person living with someone with a disability (parent, caretaker, etc.) express frustration for their perceived burden and have that be accepted and validated? What crimes against the disabled has this acceptance led to?

Based on what is known about something, in particular, that can be called autism (that which can be cured/removed/fixed), how often are people with conditions with a similar amount of information known about that solution (or the lack thereof) asked if they want that condition cured?

How often does a discussion that involves issues that are most relevant to a particular group of people include having them provided the least opportunity to express their views and have that view be respected? How much more often does that happen when this is related to a disability?  What about with a developmental disability? How about in relation to autism?

How much is understood about the lives of adult autistics when they were children? How much effort goes into learning about that and how much is simply presumed? How do convenient presumptions affect communication? What does making convenient presumptions reflect  about the person making them when someone they live with has a communication disorder? How much better could they (the person with the disorder) communicate with the people in their lives if those people weren't making convenient presumptions?

What role does shame play in someone's emotional development? What about academic development? How much is being done to ensure that autistics will not need to be ashamed in the future no matter how competent they are perceived? What are children learning about the importance of competency and will they feel proud when they arrive at the standard cultural expectations (or the ones of their family) or will they always be ashamed of what they haven't achieved and try to degrade others in order to achieve that sense of pride? Who is ultimately served by this striving to achieve?

What do the money and time spent on the gambling everything on the fix or cure in relation to what is spent on encouraging self-esteem and empowerment reflect about the value others place on these people? What does the money and time spent on the gamble to fix them in relation to what's spent on education and vocational training reflect? What about nationally? globally? community efforts? individual households?

Note: Nothing encourages injustice more than the false claim that justice is being served.

Supporting the Autism Cause

 
http://www.landingonyourfeet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/second-habit-begin-end-in-mind1.jpg

Autism advocacy and the awareness campaigns lack  effectiveness due to how closely it resembles the backwards historical traditions of most disability advocacy. Unfortunately, Jerry Lewis's approach is not the exception. He's just more vocal and less guarded than most.

If people who need more support and accommodation than others can be provided that by any means necessary (in other words, more public policies regarding disability are treated more favorably), it's possible that can lead to some of them having more opportunities for education, jobs, property, healthy relationships, etc., which can then lead to them having a healthier self-esteem.

However, if instead people's self esteem is the top priority and all  efforts for helping them to attain all those things include never sacrificing their dignity, there's a good chance that the public will change many of their negative misconceptions about them, when the help comes it will be the most appropriate type of help, and they will be best able to utilize the help given. Most importantly, when they face setbacks and even failures (as everyone ultimately will) it won't be so devastating because they have more trust in humanity and  belief in their sustainability.

When people feel accepted, dignified, and empowered lots of opportunities are visible that otherwise wouldn't be. When they don't, opportunities have little significance and nothing seems to matter much anyway.

The Finest in Autism Advocacy

 
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6cDt2kcb4gw/TMqTnXSZslI/AAAAAAAAA9M/JoD9WJgmcBc/s1600/haunted_house.jpg

This is the worst of times: :(

Note: Sarcasm warning

 For an autistic person to advocate regarding public policy,social norms, disability rights, etc ., they must sacrifice autonomy as well as any independent ideas they have about these matters and submit to the goals of a single community or ...advocacy group. The leaders are the most qualified to decide what's best for everyone and can make all the important decisions. Anyone who challenges these ideas is a threat to everyone's liberty.

This act of solidarity serves the collective because it reduces the challenges they face with the broader segment of the population. It also empowers the individual because, as everyone knows, autism robs a person of the ability to socially interact appropriately. Submitting to the will of the group in this way teaches compliance (which they need to survive in the real world) and gives them a sense of belonging.

The standards of intellect and appropriate social behavior are set to provide the majority of people with the best possible future. Development is based on a persons ability to meet these standards by the correct age so that the schools can provide the appropriate aid. Appropriate development is essential within 18 years. Otherwise there is little hope for someone's future.

Autism is a developmental disorder. It is divided into two strict categories. Some are low functioning and live devastatingly awful lives and others are high functioning, have a little of autism and are socially awkward geniuses.

 
http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Horror/img/horror1.jpg

The goal of advocacy is to either prevent the birth of autistic children, cure them by any means necessary, or help get behavioral treatments that help them be as normal as possible.

Low functioning autistics can play no role in advocacy. High functioning autistics (most all of them use the internet and are advocates because it's such a friendly environment for them )can be supportive by either being a shiny role model for what the others can one day achieve with the appropriate treatment or instead show the world what a terrible tragedy autism is without proper support.

Is this the what everyone believes?