autism & target to meaness

Fox

Wed, Aug 21 2013, 3:24 pm

chocolate chips wrote:

Fox from your posts it sounds as if you almost rather you would have rather brought up your child 50 years ago when sick kids were locked in a small play pen and left alone hidden where no one would see them. And no one knew about them.

I really fail to see what is so controversial about all this.

It's great that things aren't where they were 50 years ago.

Now, everyone stop congratulating yourselves on what wonderful, accepting, enlightened people you are. The original letter that prompted this conversation hardly set a very high bar!

If people are really as tolerant and accepting as they claim, they will be open to having their hidden biases revealed and will be willing to change language or approaches that are offensive to many vulnerable people.

And if they're intoxicated on their own righteousness, then they aren't quite as tolerant as they claimed.

sequoia wrote:

And almost nothing in life is neutral, alas. Every bite of food we eat either helps or harms our health. Similarly, every word we say wounds or caresses.

Yay! You're back! I was getting worried . . . almost ready to start tracking you down!

Beautifully said!

Words can wound despite the fact that we mean well. And "meaning well" isn't really an excuse for being hurtful. Ignorance, however, is. But it takes a lot of inner strength to say, "Wow! I never thought about how someone might take that or how that might make them feel." Our first response is to defend ourselves and our intentions no matter what.

Perhaps part of my perspective is that I believe wholeheartedly that all of us are "ists" to some degree. We may be racists, agists, beauty-ists, ablists . . . but I believe that none of us is completely immune from biases and stereotypes of some sort. The danger, however, is in refusing to acknowledge this -- not in confronting it. If I can acknowledge my limitations, I can work on them. If I can't admit to them, I'm stuck forever.

Barbara

Wed, Aug 21 2013, 4:28 pm

Fox wrote:

chocolate chips wrote:

You seem to believe that anyone who expresses distaste towards intolerance is patting herself on the back, and is nothing but a blowhard who really, in the privacy of her own home, is intolerant and says nasty things.

Indeed, you seem to believe that YOU are the only tolerant person and the only true judge and arbiter or how one ought to treat others. And if THAT is not patting yourself on the back, I don't know what is.

I'm not that great a person, truth be told, and I fight my own prejudices and demons. But at least I try, instead of demonizing everyone else and holding myself out as Little Miss Wonderful.

shlomitsmum

Wed, Aug 21 2013, 5:37 pm

I thank you for defending the child GF .

And Amother in case you are still around .... I did read what you wrote and found it offensive because I am not sure you took the time to read that horrible letter and actually reflect on how it made us parents of ASD children feel .

You said you disagreed with it .. I got that . but then went on to imply that we should keep our kids away or adapt plus other stuff I can't remember since the post is gone but your tone in all honesty lacked compassion and sensitivity ! It hit a raw nerve ..Then citing some clinical german coined term/theory does not a sensitive explanation make ...

You confused some of us with this Autism= Selfish thing ( FWIW the kids don't choose to act out , it is a involuntary sensory response that also causes THEM distress) .

Please, before you call me vicious think about what you wrote under Amother because you said yourself that you knew it would be unPC . Had you been less defiant and left that line out ...I would have been DLZ and assume you are either from a older generation , felt imposed by someone disabled or were just not deeply familiar with the condition.

The link I posted was meant to illustrate what happens when a society /culture advocates that the disabled should be socially marginalized and not included...It started with the disabled/different and it ended with 6 million innocent murdered .

Parents of ASD children are very concious of social situations , but even with the best planning a child with ASD can melt and be disruptive ! many of us have left places shamed and tearful because something in a carefully planned outing backfired or failed miserably . My child looks like a regular yummy 4 year old talks (after a year of intense ABA and speech and OT and a MIRACLE from Hashem) wears clothes but only outside and not for too long ...

But she bolts, at 4 still wears a diaper ,melts for an average of 43+ minutes if anything changes and has zero sense of danger (saw a squirrel across the road and bolted for the street and was saved by DH catching her by the hair) will not hesitate diving head first to the pavement during a tantrum.

She is gifted too but at 4 it is the disability aspect that takes center stage , it is socializing her within her tolerance level that drains us and pushes us at times beyond our limits of endurance .

And trust me having a child who is HF has plusses and minuses too as described above , people are harsh critics of both us the parents and the child Sad

since many of the kids on the spectrum ( I feel like all kids are mine) look physically "normal" , we encounter a tremendous ammount of rudety , unsolicited parental advice , judgement and dirty looks . Nerves are raw.

my HF child can't do carnivals , birthdays , crowded ,malls , pools /fountains or even shul.... Sad

.

For many parents this constant consideration of others also imposes limits on our other kids and limits the "fun " we can have as a family . So do you understand my shock ,anger and pain at reading the hate letter followed by your comments . I grieved for those parents whose son is not HF and whose challenges are bigger than mine .

The boy targeted by the hate filled letter is very disabled but deserving of compassion and tolerance !
Most canadians are at work during the day so the family was within their right to let him play and stim outside as the bylaws permit this in the same way that playing loud music ,a barking dog, or having a loud party ok from 9-11 pm.

It was this boys human right to be outside not a special treatment ! the woman who wrote the letter had a choice and she choose to be heartless and cruel.

Had you posted as yourself I would have considered privately contacting you explaining what had been offensive/hurtful in your POV and we could have come to a more civil understanding or (as a worse case scenario ...I could have just put you on ignore and let you say whatever you wanted and not feel hurt by your POV)

Sorry if this post is all over the place .... I am posting while still in early POSTERIOR labor so my train of thought is sorta messed up.

Ok I hope this clears the Air Amother .

I am not vicious (take the time to know me via my posts before you label me) , It caused me pain and shock to read that a frum woman like you shared some attitudes in comon with the letter writer (not to her extreme but still obvious enough to upset many) .... And just so you know ,I took you on because some of my fellow ASD mums had no words to even reply to what you wrote .

chocolate chips

Wed, Aug 21 2013, 8:05 pm

Fox wrote:

chocolate chips wrote:

sequoia wrote:

And almost nothing in life is neutral, alas. Every bite of food we eat either helps or harms our health. Similarly, every word we say wounds or caresses.

So if someone says something that they truly mean to be caring kind and truthful you don't believe them and automatically assume it to be narcissistic back stabbing? That they said that but really said the opposite behind doors?
You must be my neighbor who takes everything that everyone says to be bad. No matter how caring or kind they try to be. Honestly sometimes all we mean is good. Its often easier to just not talk to people like you than to be considered nasty and selfish and wrong for being nice.

Fox

Thu, Aug 22 2013, 12:25 pm

Barbara wrote:

chocolate chips wrote:

When reasoned arguments are in short supply, there's nothing like an ad hominem attack to make your point. After all, it's hard to respond to, ". . . and your little dog, too!" in any constructive way.

C'mon, Barbara! You know me better than that. Did you really think I'd let you get away with framing this discussion by using the fallacy of extremes? You've repeatedly re-stated my position inaccurately, specifically by changing words such as "many" to "everybody."

Then you omit the entire paragraph in your quote in which I discuss the fact that all of us suffer from biases, stereotypes, and misconceptions -- and in which I deliberately use the pronoun "I" to include myself -- thus allowing you to claim that I am guilty of the precise offense of which I'm accusing others.

As for "demonizing everyone else"? No. I am "demonizing" a two particular behaviors that have been frequently exhibited on this thread:

1. Expressing disgust with others while using highly offensive language oneself.

2. Attacking anyone who wants to have a more reflective, nuanced discussion about a topic.

Frankly, I don't usually get involved in threads like this. I find them creepy. They seem to be a bunch of people piling on, each trying to outdo the previous poster in describing how disgusted they are by something. Now, there is no disagreement that the original letter was indeed very disgusting. But it's been posted all over the Internet, and with the exception of a handful of quickly-shouted-down trolls, the response has been relatively uniform throughout literate, Internet-connected society. So claiming to be disgusted by this letter hardly represents striking a bold, brave position that no one else has the temerity to take. But who cares? If people enjoy it, that's fine.

However, I was really disturbed by the fact that several posters responded to amother's post, apparently without carefully reading it and certainly without understanding it. She used the word "selfishness" in a clinical, psychological sense, and people understood it in the colloquial sense. Mama Bear, who certainly has a stake in this conversation, was reflective enough to ask what was meant rather than simply assume the least common denominator.

Now, given that this thread was posted under "Parenting Our Children," I feel a significant responsibility not to let implicit advice like saying, "just be glad you don't have her challenges" or "just be thankful you have the use of your legs and feet" slide by without comment. I have no doubt that the individual who made these suggestions is a wonderful, loving, tolerant person. But being a great person does not give you a heter to say offensive things. And if you're going to call people names because of their alleged intolerance, you have to be willing to take a little criticism when the tables are turned.

And this brings us to Chocolate Chips' argument: if people mean to be caring, it should be taken that way, regardless of what they say. The first problem with this is that we have no idea what these other people are thinking -- we can only base our impressions on their behavior. Granted, we have the responsibility to be dan l'chav zchus as well as avoid bearing a grudge.

But you seem to be making a distinction between "nice" people who say offensive things and "nasty" people who say offensive things. The "nice" people are just doing their best while the nasty people can be legitimately vilified.

My argument is that, when it comes to offensive speech, people are not inherently "nice" or "nasty." Wonderful people can and do say horrible things out of fear, ignorance, or misunderstanding. Hateful people can actually say helpful, supportive things.

When a letters or incidents such as the one we are discussing are publicized, most of us have the immediate reaction of horror combined with, "What kind of person would think such a thing?" My point is that by distancing ourselves from the letter-writer, we all avoid confronting our own less-than-stellar attitudes. We slyly put our names into the "nice people" hat while avoiding any discussion of how we might actually be unconsciously contributing to the hatred in the world.

Apparently, many imamothers picture the letter-writer as a hateful, misanthropic, ignorant ogre. I suppose that's a possibility, but that's like assuming that s-xual predators wear raincoats and skulk around alleys. Chances are much greater that the letter-writer is someone who appears perfectly "normal"; someone we might count as a friend.

Clearly, the letter-writer has a few screws loose, and this is obviously a bit more than a case of someone saying something that just came out wrong. But if all we can do is focus on how disgusting it is, we lose a valuable opportunity to think about how tolerance and understanding are taught and advanced, and that doesn't bode well for how we parent our children.

Chana Miriam S

Thu, Aug 22 2013, 12:48 pm

shlomitsmum wrote:

be sha a tova!