Positive Stereotypes 2

In reply to my recent post about seemingly positive stereotypes that are disliked by the people they're applied to, one person brought up the problems with the 'Asians are good at math' stereotype.
This brings me to another type of positive stereotype - one that does readily allow you to take the perspective of the person being described, or ask their perspective. And this is the type of stereotype I see some people actually liking and accepting for themselves. In the autistic community, an example would be the stereotype that autistics are good with computers, or have excellent spatial skills. I've seen several autistics link their 'autistic pride' with these stereotypes, so clearly these are stereotypes that can be used for positive self-identification.
But these stereotypes, too, have problems with them, and some people dislike these positive stereotypes. It's my impression that the people who tend to dislike such stereotypes are the people the stereotypes don't fit. The Asians who are average or poor at math and the autistics who are average or poor at computer skills or spatial skills are the ones who tend to complain about these stereotypes (and others on their behalf).
I think there are two parts to this. Firstly, inaccurate stereotypes, whether positive or negative, can lead to misunderstanding. For example, an Asian getting C grades in math might be criticized for not working up to full potential, when in fact xe is doing the best xe can. Or an autistic might be encouraged to look for a career with computers, when xe has be constantly retaught how to start one up. If people don't realize that this individual doesn't fit that stereotype and never will, then there will be much frustration and angst when they try to make that person be what they aren't.
But there's a deeper issue than that. Many times, these positive stereotypes are an attempt to assert the worth of a devalued group. Certainly, that's the case with autism - I've even seen people use the stereotyped autistic talents to argue that we shouldn't all be aborted when or if they develop a prenatal test for autism. (Personally, I suspect that developing a prenatal test for autism will turn out like it has for MR - we'll find out autism is a multitude of different condition, some of which can be tested for and some cannot.) In a context where these stereotypes are used to prove our value and justify our very existence, there is an implication that a person who doesn't fit those stereotypes is not valueable, and should not exist. This implication, naturally, is very concerning to those who don't fit the positive stereotypes, and to people who care about them. As an autistic with low-average spatial skills (Raven's Progressive Matrices score 80), this is something I have personal experience with.
I've written about this before. I always think of Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer in this context. It seems that rather than just saying 'difference is not a bad thing, and everyone is valueable', some people try to prove the worth of various differences by finding some special talent associated with that difference. But that does nothing to assert the worth of people who lack the talent you've named, nor does it challenge the underlying idea that difference is a bad thing.

Seemingly Positive Stereotypes

Some people may be surprised at how rights activists sometimes object to stereotypes that seem positive, such as the 'noble savage' or 'innocent retard' stereotypes*.'Why would they be upset about being portrayed positively?' people ask. In reply, many activists fumble with comments about not wanting to be seen as different or wanting to be viewed as people, which often don't clarify much.
I think I've figured out one of the real problems with those stereotypes. It's a matter of the perspectives they suggest. When you think of a 'noble savage' or an 'innocent retard', you typically don't think of that hypothetical person from xyr own perspective. You think of these people from the perspective of an observer. And how would you go about understanding their perspectives? You can't ask them - the 'innocent retard' would probably not understand the question, while the 'noble savage' would reply in some riddle you can't understand. At least, that's the perception, and comments from people viewed in the lenses of those two stereotypes will be interpreted in those ways.
Native people and disabled people are not like nondisabled whites. We all have things in common, sure, but there are also differences, and often the stereotypes catch an element of those differences. But they hide the most important perspective on that group - their own. If your stereotype is of someone you can't imagine being, yet can predict the actions of, then it's probably not a stereotype that the people described will be happy with.

Wanting to be What You're Not

[Note: In this article, 'transgender kid' means any kid who fits the societal roles for the opposite gender better than they do those of their own gender. 'Transsexual kid' means a child who truly considers themselves to be the opposite gender, not just as a transient phase but as a lifelong identity.]
I just found an article by Feministe about 'gender identity disorder'. At one point, she quotes Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist well-known for his attempts to train transgender kids into fitting gender roles, who said:

"If a 5-year-old black kid came into the clinic and said he wanted to be white, would we endorse that? I don’t think so. What we would want to do is say, 'What’s going on with this kid that’s making him feel that it would be better to be white?'"

I agree. I would consider that black kid to have a problem* which is best solved by helping him accept his own race rather than changing his appearance. But there are some big problems with Kenneth Zucker's analogy.
Firstly, if I was trying to help that black kid accept himself, I would go about it completely differently. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that this boy is insisting on being white because he's not very musical, he does well in school, etc, and that just doesn't fit with his idea of what black people are supposed to be like. Rather than pressuring him to enjoy music more and be less committed to his schoolwork, I'd encourage him to broaden his concept of what it means to be black (actually, if I was his therapist, I'd probably refer him, because this is better done by a black therapist who can be a role model for him). I suspect at least some transgender kids are basically like this - they don't realize people can break gender roles and still be clearly of that gender.
It's possible, of course, that the hypothetical black kid is wanting to be white because 'white is better'. In that case, I still wouldn't try to make that kid act more conventionally black, because that's irrelevant. I also wouldn't denigrate white people, because racism isn't any better if you just switch targets. Besides, if this kid not only wants to be white, but actually on some level actually views himself as white, then denigrating whites would just make his self-esteem issues worse.
And that leads into another problem with this analogy. Whereas black kids who want to be white usually don't consider themselves white already - even on the inside - transsexual kids don't just want to be the other gender, they feel that they are the other gender. They just don't look like they are. That's an important distinction. The most important thing is for these kids to accept what they are, and transsexual kids are not cissexual kids of their natal gender. They are transsexual kids.

* I'm assuming it's been determined that this kid actually understands what black and white, as racial terms, actually mean. Lots of young children don't. I've heard of light-skinned black kids saying they're white because their skin is almost the same tone as the white people they know, or white kids expressing fear of black people because they're imagining someone whose skin is truly black (like a kettle) instead of dark brown.

It's a Gift, You're Not Owed Anything

I'm just finished attending a conference by the Association for Research on Mothering, where me and my mother presented regarding the 'war on autism'. I've got a lot more comments to make that are inspired by this conference, but here's one.
Very often, parents of autistic kids talk about feeling 'cheated' out of something by having an autistic child. Here's an example:

"I prayed before I ever had kids that god would give me children that have no mental or social problems. I believe that god ruined him. What if the best my child can do is work as a greeter at Wal-mart, how does one accept your child is doomed, ruined, a waste of human life?"
http://autism.about.com/b/2008/09/16/an-autism-mom-says-god-ruined-my-child.htm

At ARM, I've been hearing about the concept of matriarchy and the gift economy. A gift economy is based not on exchange, but on gifts and fulfilling needs. And according to the advocates for this model that I've just met, the prototype of the gift economy is a mother raising a child.
And this really clarifies a big problem with statements like the above quote. You are not owed anything by your child. You are giving them a gift, a profound, life-creating gift, with no strings attached. They may give you a gift in return (and I think all children have the potential to give their parents such gifts, if their parents can see it) but you are not owed anything.
My younger brother has a tendency to interpret 'maybe' as a solemn promise (although he seems to be outgrowing this). And that's exactly the mistake that these parents are making, when they feel cheated by a child not being like they expected.
You are not promised a normal child. You are not even promised a child. You are giving the gift of life to your child, with no guarantee as to the results of this gift. Your child could live only a couple of weeks in utero. Your child could grow up normal and then die unexpectedly at 17. Your child could grow up to be a greeter at Walmart rather than the high-powered executive or whatever that you'd hoped for. You must remember that your hopes for your child are just hopes, not guarantees. You have not been promised anything, you have not made a contract with your child, you've given them a gift. And that's what it means to have a child.

Insults to Discriminatory People

I've heard many people who support cure and prevention of autism say they find the word curebie insulting. Recently, I found a man who thinks white men are best saying he finds the words racist and misogynist insulting. As an autistic rights activist, he compared those words to the word retard, that so many autistics find insulting.
Instinctively, I dismiss those ideas. It's nothing alike. But then, I stop to think. Is it similar? Is calling a discriminatory person a hurtful word because they're discriminatory morally equivalent to calling the target of discrimination a hurtful word?
On closer reflection, I come to the same answer. No. But now I know why they aren't really the same.
Firstly, being a racist, a misogynist or a curebie means you are hurting others. When you show your opinions to other races, women, or disabled people, you hurt them. This is a fact. A big part of people's dislike for these terms seems to me to be an unwillingness to admit they are hurting someone. But that's why Native people have such high rates of alcoholism, child abuse and suicide. It's because they are harmed, systemically harmed, by racism. That's why women are more often depressed, more often victims of sex crimes, and make less money on average than men. We are also systemically harmed by sexism. And that's why adult autistics have such high rates of depression, why some autistic people wish they were never born, why prenatally diagnosed autistic people very well might never be born. We are systemically harmed by disablism.
Secondly, it is a choice, to a certain extent. Your beliefs largely depend on what you have been exposed to, but if you decide to accept that your beliefs are hurting someone and make a commitment to change, you can. You are born with your race, your gender and your pattern of abilities, and those are extremely difficult to impossible to change. I know it's possible to have facial surgery and bleach your skin, but you don't become a white person that way - though you may be able to fake it. Technically, people who've gone through a sex change surgery aren't exactly the other gender - they're physically in between, and genetically their natal gender. And there are no cures for autism, even though some autistics can learn to pass as neurotypical. It's harder than it sounds, too. Even I have trouble passing perfectly, and I'm only very mildly autistic. But even mild autism pervades how you think and by extension, how you behave.
There are some things very hard to change that hurt others. A good example is pedophilia. It's probably about as hard to change as being gay. And there are a bunch of ways people are working on preventing and curing pedophilia, and that's valuable research, for the sake of the children that pedophiles are attracted to. Your beliefs aren't easy to change, but compared to your sexual orientation, it's no big deal.
And one last thing. Autistics, black people and various other groups have chosen names for themselves, that offend no one. Curebies, misogynists and racists haven't. They don't seem to just want a different name - they don't want any name for what they are (except maybe 'normal'). I can't accept that. I need to be able to name those attitudes, and the people who hold them. That's how we can stop the harm these attitudes cause - by looking at it clearly.

Disability History

Here's a great overview of disability history I found.
Recently I've been looking at developmental disability in the 1700-1800s. Google books has some of John Langdon Down's stuff and Edouard Seguin's stuff (both 1800s). That was really a fascinating time - special education was just beginning. John Langdon Down was a man I have a great deal of respect for - antiracist (he used disabled people as proof that nonwhites were human), very antisexist (he said it was 'lunacy' to deny women equal education to men) and an advocate for disabled people (he spoke out against isolation and denial of education to 'idiots').
Two things John Langdon Down is quite well known for - describing what he called Mongolism, now named after him, and coining the term 'idiot savant'. By the way, many people claim 'idiot' was a misnomer because savants don't generally have an IQ below 25, which is what 'idiot' meant. But that classification is from a later period - IQ tests weren't even invented when John Langdon Down coined that term. He used 'idiot' if they were mentally disabled from childhood, and 'imbecile' if their condition was adult-onset.
He divided idiots into congenital, accidental and developmental. The latter two categories are interesting. The accidental category looked normal, except that some had 'paralysis' (I suspect cerebral palsy). He attributed their condition to brain damage in infancy. His description of their behavior sounds a lot like autism - they were 'bright in their expression, often active in their movements, agile to a degree, mobile in their temperament, fearless as to danger, persevering in mischief, petulant to have their own way'. They did not speak, loved music, and were 'in a world of their own'. He described them as self-absorbed and engaging in repetitive movements. He said many people held more hope for them than for congenital idiots, but they were actually less educable.
The developmental category sound like a mix of regressive autism, Heller Syndrome and schizophrenia, these individuals developed normally until either the first dentition (later infancy), the second dentition (mid childhood) or puberty. He felt they were unusually prone to stress reactions at those times, and had a 'prow-shaped' skull. Those with onset at puberty were described as 'suspicious and reserved' and prone to making incorrect statements or phrasing them wrongly.
So anyway, here's some stuff about the history of developmental disabilities.
PS: I have just found the Disability History Museum.

Religion and Morality

I remember reading a story by a Christian woman who had an ADHD son. At one point, she said that she'd read that ADHD kids were more often abused, and she could believe it, because if it weren't for her religion, she'd have abused her son.
As an atheist, I was deeply offended. If that's really true of her, I'm glad for her son's sake that she's a Christian. But I don't need to be afraid that some diety will punish me in the afterlife to avoid hurting a child. All I need is an awareness of how my actions will affect that child. The thought of breaking that child's trust, betraying that child and the pain it would cause, is enough to make me think I shouldn't abuse that child.
There's this stereotype among many Christians (and probably people of other religions) that you must be religious (preferably the same religion as them) to be a caring person. I could point at the religious people who do terrible things - the sexually abusive priests, the people who ran the Inquisition, etc - but many people claim those aren't really doing what God wants. Instead, I point to the people who don't sin, who in fact do good, but only because they want to be in heaven instead of hell. How moral is it really, to act good only for a reward?
If I knew for a fact that I'd go to hell if I didn't torture and kill a child, I would hate the God who set that rule, and feel that the moral thing would be to disobey Him. (I can't promise I would disobey him, but my idea of an ideal person certainly would.) But in the Bible, God allegedly told someone to kill his favorite son, and the man was about to carry it out when God said the equivalent of 'just kidding'. God was 'testing this man's faith', apparently, and the lesson is to trust that God knows best even if you really don't like what he's telling you to do. I'm not willing to give anyone that kind of power over me. (Certainly not the ordinary human beings who claim to speak for God.) I don't think someone so easily led into disobeying their own beliefs is a good person.
And those people who avoid doing something they want to do only because they think they'll get punished - they often don't really avoid doing it. They do it in secret, or they do borderline things which they excuse by emphasizing the differences (or simply deny). The first is not feasible if you really believe you've been told what to do by an omniscient being, but the second option is very likely to be done by devout believers who obey only because of heaven and hell.
So maybe that ADHD boy was being abused after all. Not by being hit or made to do sexual acts, but by his mother's looks, her comments, her rules, her body language. If a child has been taught, by their parents' behavior, that they are bad and don't really belong in their family, then they have been abused - even if such teaching is not deliberate. And you can't avoid that abuse just by thinking you'll be punished for it. You avoid it by cherishing your child, by working with yourself to avoid feeling so angry with them, by learning to enjoy being with your child.
Sadly, it's considered normal for parents to dislike spending time with their children. My father is excited when he has time off work to look after us. My mother misses us if she goes away to a conference without us. But recently I saw a joke in which a 6 year old boy who had two older brothers was asked what his mother did all day since he entered school, and said 'cartwheels' (turning cartwheels out of joy, because she doesn't have to look after him all day anymore). Children are considered a burden, worthwhile mainly because we grow up into 'real' people and can look after our parents in their old age. Parents say 'I wish you have a child just like you someday, so you know what it's like' and mean it as a curse instead of a blessing.

Letter To a Kid Like Me

Here's something I wrote awhile back. It's what I wish someone had told me when I was 10-12 years old.

Don’t let them tell you you’re not OK. You’re a wonderful person - everyone’s wonderful, even if they’re hurt, even if they do bad things, even if they don’t think they’re wonderful. You need to remember that. Use that knowledge as a shield between you and anyone who tries to hurt you, or says you need to be someone else.
Try to remember you’re not the only one fighting this. You may be surrounded by people who all seem to want to tear you into pieces and rebuild you as someone totally different, but chances are there’s someone on your side. You may not have even met them yet. Keep looking.
You’re not the only one in the world like you. There’s others whose minds work in similar ways, who understand how it feels like you’re an alien in human morph[1], like you look just like everyone else but inside you’re totally different. There’s a name for how you’re different. You may not even understand what’s so strange about you, but there’s still a name for it somewhere, and someday you will find out what it is. You’ll learn what kind of person you really are.
And it’s not your fault if you feel powerless, if you can’t avoid something bad. It’s not your fault if they threaten you and you give in. But fighting back can help you hold on to your power, can help you hold on to yourself. And if you figure out the right way to fight, you can help someone else. But remember, you don’t need to put yourself through more than you can handle to fight the wrongs of the world. You need to learn to take care of yourself as well. You need to find someone you can trust, someone you can be vulnerable around without them hurting you.
Don’t punish yourself. They’re punishing you too much already, and it’s not fair. You need to respect yourself, and love yourself instead of hating yourself. It’s OK to make mistakes. You don’t have to be perfect to be an OK person. You don’t have to know everything to be proud of your mind, and you don’t have to be good at something to like doing it. Don’t let them kill your love of things by making fun of how you do them. Find your own way to enjoy them.
Remember to love yourself. You need to take care of yourself. You’re not selfish if you need things. And there’s more than one right way to do things, doing it differently isn’t the same as doing it the wrong way. You don’t have to do it their way, even if you only want to do it that way because they say it’s wrong. And don’t be afraid to be yourself even when others will think the wrong thing. If they can’t kill you, then you’ll survive, and the only danger is that they’ll damage your self. And the only way to fight that is to be yourself.
Love yourself. It’s not your fault. You don’t have to be serious all the time, don’t let them take your fun away from you. Being silly is not a betrayal of the pain people are going through, it helps you cope. Don’t feel bad if you react the ‘wrong’ way, as long as you care about other people’s pain it’s OK to react in a strange way. It’s OK to laugh from fear if that’s what’s natural for you. It’s OK to find things funny even in the midst of awfulness.
Don’t let anyone tell you you’re a bad person. Everyone is valuable, everyone has some good in them. No one’s perfect. Normal isn’t perfect, in fact you may have noticed normal has some problems with it. But they can be fixed by nice normal people who like diversity. And it’s OK to be white even though white people have done bad things to the other races. Racism isn’t unique to white people, and it’s not counter-white to be nonracist. Same goes for any other difference.
Don’t be afraid to seek help. You can’t fight the world alone, find the people who can help you fight the good fight. Find someone who’ll get angry on your behalf when you are hurt. It can help remind you that you don’t deserve to be hurt.
[1] When I was around 9 years old, I was obsessively interested in a book series called Animorphs, in which five kids get the ability to turn into animals from an alien.

Disability Identity Survey

I made a survey for disabled people about disability identity. The interface for making it was really clunky, and I couldn't figure out how to get it to categorize questions and calculate results properly. So instead, people who want me to tell them this by hand or are willing to answer further questions can enter an e-mail address.
It's based on a questionnaire I found for Black racial identity. I'm looking to find out how much the model the original was based off of applies to disabled people.
[Edit: link now fixed.]

Autistic Rebellion in a 1930s German School

I've been trying to translate Hans Asperger's 1944 description of 'autistic personality' from German so I can read it. It's difficult, but already I've discovered interesting things about his first case, Fritz V. In many ways, Fritz V sounds like me, only more autistic. He was a clumsy boy, slow and awkward at self-care skills, but said his first word at 10 months and spoke 'like an older' (I think they mean older child). One big difference between us is his ADHD-like behavior - he was noisy, grabbing everything and interested in everything.
What is most interesting to me is his school problems (if you know German, please tell me if I've mistranslated).

"Er war von der Schule eingewiesen: schon am 1. Tage des Schulbesuches hatte sich gezeigt, dass er 'vollkommen schulunfähig' sei." [The school said he was 'perfectly unteachable' after 1 day of attendance.]

"Von klein auf machte er die ärgsten Erziehunsschwierigkeiten; er fügte sich keinem Befehl, tat einfach, was er wollte, oder das gerade Gegenteil des Befohlenen." [From when he was small, he had behavior problems at school; when given a command, however simple, he would do as he pleased or the opposite of what he was told.]

"'sie reizen ihn nur auf', er wird immer gleich aggressiv, schlägt mit allem zu, was er gerade erreicht, ohne Rücksicht, ob er andere ernstlich gefährdet (einmal mit einem Hammer)" ['he just provokes people', he always became aggressive, had no concern for the safety of others (once with a hammer)]

His school problems are much more severe than mine were, but if I'd been attending a 1930s German school, I'd probably have acted the same way. It sounds like he was in full blown rebellion right from the very first day. The school's comments sound like things my teachers might have said about me. In fact, my teachers actually called me unteachable, though not on my very first day. (My father says "she may be unteachable, but boy can she learn!")
It's odd, I'm noticing something I also saw in Leo Kanner's article - they mention things that I know to be true in autistics I've met, but which are either not thought of nowadays or the opposite is considered typical. Supposedly, Asperger Syndrome kids are usually rulebound and trying to be obediant - their disobediance is due to misunderstanding the command, and they'll often try to enforce the rules on other children. They should do very well in a highly controlled school like the 1930s German schools. I'm not like that, and neither is Fritz V. Like me, Fritz V seems to vehemently resist being controlled.
By the way, once I've finished translating it, I'll put it up on the net. Before then, I might put up a text version of the original, so it's easier to Babelfish it.

PS:
I've translated more of it, and even more than Fritz V, Harro L's reaction to school reminds me of myself:

"Er geht während des Unterrichts aus der Bank, kriecht auf allen Vieren in der Klasse herum." (He leaves his desk during instruction and crawls around on the floor.)

I've never heard of anyone else who did that before! I thought I was the only one!

Mommy, There's a Black Person!

This is a message I just sent to the Polskie Radio:

"Hi, I'm writing in from Canada. Last night, I was listening to Radio Poland on the overnight thing, where CBC presents news from other countries. I don't know Polish, so hopefully the people doing the English section will read this.
I'm writing about a story where one news person was discussing offensive ads. The first one she described, showing young women bungling various 'male' occupations, was clearly sexist.
The second one, however, was about a child saying 'look, mommy, there's a black person'. When she described that, I thought OK, now she'll get to the offensive bit. But apparently that was the part she found offensive - the child pointing out a black person.
I haven't seen the ad, but from what I've heard, it doesn't seem offensive at all. Noticing and commenting on differences in skin color is no more offensive than noticing and commenting on differences in hair color (which the news person did when discussing the first ad). The problem is making a value judgment about skin color, not merely noticing it.
I see no problem in calling myself white. I have several black friends, and I call them black and myself white in their presence without offending them. I have a good friend who is an immigrant from Zambia and she and I talk about race as freely as anything else.
In fact, ignoring race is frequently racist, because very often people will assume the person is white unless they know otherwise. Particularly on radio and other communication where you can't see the person described, this erases black people and other groups. Also, ignoring racial differences usually means ignoring cultural differences too, and expecting people to be like you when they really aren't is prejudiced too."

Different Types of Social Skills

Awhile back I was chatting with my father about social skills. As an autistic person, I'm considered to be disabled in social skills, but really it's more like being a foreigner. I speak a different 'language'.
Anyway, the way I see it, there are three categories of social skills:
a) social skills based on applying your self-knowledge to others, on the assumption that they're like you. This is one of the big areas autistics have trouble with, not because we're unable to do this, but because it's ineffective. Unless I'm relating to another autistic person, chances are they don't feel the way I would in their situation. Actually, using this type of skills inappropriately is a big problem for many people, and one of the big reasons most people have no idea how to relate to an autistic person. Most people find early on that when they assume others are like them, they're often right. Other people differ from them in a few ways, but most of the time, doing unto others what you'd want done to yourself is a good idea. So when they meet up with one of the few people who really aren't like them, in fairly substantial ways, they have no clue what to do.
b) social skills based on observation of a certain person or group of people. This is one of the big ways that autistics tend to compensate for being different. Temple Grandin describes herself as an 'Anthropologist on Mars' because she is analyzing people similarly to an anthropologist in her attempt to figure out how to relate to them. Neurotypical people also do this, as they learn cultural traditions, but not quite as pervasively.
c) the last set of skills are ones that apply to everyone. Partly, these are skills in paying attention and noticing patterns. Also, allowing other people to define themselves, listening to them however they communicate. And treating them like an individual. These skills, incidentally, contribute greatly to your ability to develop the b) skills for a particular person.

Radical Feminist Therapy

I've read a lot about various therapies. My biggest problem with many of them is that they take society for granted. They assume that what the majority likes is probably good, and what the majority dislikes is probably bad.
Which is why I was excited when, in a local used book place, I saw a book on Radical Feminist Therapy (by Bonnie Burstow). I thought 'they won't take society for granted'. I was right.
Although I don't agree with everything in that book - for example, the claim that the majority of women are naturally lesbian and are socialized into heterosexuality, or that autonomy should take precedence over preventing suicide - there's a lot I found very valuable.
Firstly, she discusses what she calls the 'just-like-us' scripts. She describes three types. The first, the 'liberal just-like-us' script, is described as such:

"The paradigmal liberal-scripted woman sees all ideology as dangerous and believes that she has no ideology. While acknowledging that injustice exists and occasionally fighting against it, she believes that society is essentially just and that for the most part we need only point out injustices and appeal to people's better nature and everything will be okay. Insofar as she acknowledges and protests against severe injustice, it is generally in some other part of the world and in reference to an oppressed group to which she does not belong. She believes that all positions are equally flawed, that there is equal right and wrong in just about everything anyone says, and that everyone has an equal burden to bear."

The part about how liberal-scripted view injustice is a good example of what I call 'taking society for granted'.
Regarding everyone having equal right and wrong, I think everyone is right about some things and wrong about others, but not to equal degrees. Some people see the truth better than others, often because the others are taking society for granted and won't or can't challenge basic assumptions.

"A second type of just-like-us script I call 'honorary just-like-us scripts.' The woman with this script has been assigned and has accepted attributes that are traditionally identified with the oppressor. She has been treated like an 'exception' by one or more significant others who belong to the oppressor group. And she has been rewarded for joining with them in belittling the oppressed group to which she actually belongs... The honorary guy is in an enormously precarious and frustrating position. Being even more critically divided from women than the traditional woman is, she has no women friends on whom to rely. She keeps finding herself fundamentally betrayed. 'Inexplicably' she is periodically robbed of her 'male' status and is demoted to 'women' again... As counselors we need to understand and validate this woman's pain and her anger. She has been harmed dreadfully. Her very ability to question traditional women's roles is being used to deceive her."

Though the comparison doesn't fit exactly, this reminds me a bit of the 'shiny autistics'. Many 'shiny autistics' are among the relative minority of autistics who have the most mainstream views of autism. For example, in Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone, the autistic in that book who had the worst view of autism was one of the only two who are relatively well-known by 'curebies' - Sue Rubin. Most of the autistics in that book were much more positive about their autism. All agreed that inability to communicate is a big problem, but many described wanting to be accepted as they are instead of hoping for a cure, and many mentioned positive aspects of autism.
Regarding the 'ability to question traditional women's roles', the 'shiny autistics' are often held up as breaking stereotypes because they are viewed as 'able disabled' instead of 'unable disabled' (or, as Cal Montgomery put it, as Mary instead of Bruce).
One important difference is that 'shiny autistic' is a less voluntary position. Many autistics may be forced into that role, and rather than not expressing controversial views, they are just selectively ignored or misinterpreted when they do. As I get to know more of Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadyay's (the other relatively well-known contributor to Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone) writing, I see that his view on autism is much more accepting than the way he is typically portrayed. Partly because of his unusual way of expressing himself (like many nonverbal autistic typists, his language differences are evident in his typing, and there is also a cultural barrier for Westerners because he is Indian) and partly, I suspect, for political gain, many of those who discuss him and review his books portray autism as much worse than he does while appearing to agree with him. To a lesser extent, Amanda Baggs has also experienced this, though she fights it well. If you look at how CNN portrays her, it is more mainstream than how she describes herself. (For example, Amanda Baggs never refers to herself as being trapped inside herself, which is a comment the reporter gives when she hits herself - 'such a bright woman, so trapped'.)

"The attributes that the 'liberal' members of the dominant group impose on people with keep-it-hidden scripts are fairness, discretion and the attributes of the dominant liberal group. Injunctions and other messages that are given include the following:

• Act like us 'in public.'
• You are totally okay only as long as you act like us 'in public.'
• All members of your group are totally okay only as long as they act like us 'in public.'
• Not acting like us 'in public' is unfortunate, indiscreet, and blameworthy.
• We are bing nice by accepting you the way we do.
• If we did not accept you or you did not appreciate us for accepting you, you would not be totally okay, so do appreciate us for being nice and compliment us when you can.
• Although you can see or imply that your group is being oppressed by other members of the dominant group, do not see or imply that you are being oppressed by us liberals."

Examples she gives are 'apples' (Native people who act white) and lesbians who downplay their sexuality when around straight people (eg by not being affectionate to their partner in public). I think this pattern is extremely common among disabled people. One woman with a spinal abnormality describes doing this until she became pregnant. I have experienced the pressure not to act autistic, particularly with those who don't know I'm autistic but even with those who do. The only people I stim in front of without it being an effort and scary are my parents and some developmentally disabled people.

This post is getting pretty long, so I think I'll stop and comment on other parts of the book at another time.

Fantasy Violence Isn't the Real Problem

My Dad showed me a thing about Mr Rogers talking to the US senators about children's TV. I agree with a lot of what he says, I think.
I don't think violence in TV (or any fictional violence) is necessarily a bad thing. What I think is bad is a) violence as an effective solution to problems, and b) good guys and bad guys.
My favorite stories are ones that either portray internal conflict, or portray conflict between two people where both sides have a valid perspective and the ideal is to find a way to take into account both sides.
From the perspective of educational children's TV, that has the added benefit that you can directly model effective conflict resolution. In The Explosive Child, Ross Greene talks about three stages of problem-solving. The first two are to get both sides on the table - he advises getting the more agitated party's side out first so they can be calmed by being heard and better able to cope with hearing the other person's perspective. The last step is to find a mutually satisfactory agreement.
I read City of the Lost, one of my brother's Bionicle books, which confirmed my dislike of Bionicle. Besides the fact that the work strikes me as poorly written, with uninteresting dialogue and uncompelling descriptions, it is a prime example of a book that uses good guys and bad guys rather than portraying a real conflict where both sides have valid perspectives. And they could so easily have done it.
One group, the Barraki, were exiled to the bottom of the sea, where they magically turned into water creatures. They lived there awhile in peace until a contructed island of the Matoran suddenly sank. The Matoran settled there, harvesting 'airweed' to maintain a giant air bubble around their city so they could survive. But they happened to have unwittingly settled directly on the Barraki lands.
Now, this is an interesting plot so far. Two groups, one who have lived there for ages and have a very good claim to owning the land, another who have taken their land, but can't really go back to where they came from. It echoes the conflict present in so many places between the colonizers and those they colonized. Most Canadians may have descended mostly from Europeans, but we don't really belong in Europe anymore. The Native people are the rightful owners of this land and we stole it from them, but we live here too. It's become our home too. It is a conflict without an easy solution.
But the Bionicle tales don't give any good advice for this. Instead, they designate the Barrakis the 'bad guys', and suggest that the ideal is for the Matoran to drive them out or destroy them so they can live in peace in their new home. I can't really remember the ending, I don't think it really had a resolution (it is, after all, only one book in a series), but certainly you are encouraged to root for the Matoran and revile the Barraki.
The City of the Lost is a very violent story, ending with a giant eel going around eating people indiscriminately. But that's not my big problem with it. My big problem with it is that it suggests an unjust solution to a complex and legitimate conflict.

Don't Hit Them When They're Down

On the Autism Speaks forum, someone posted saying he hated being autistic and wished he'd never been born, and advising parents with a high likelihood of having an autistic child to avoid having children. Another autistic person replied by attacking him and when scolded for that by another person, pointed out how serious the implications were of what the first person had said.
My instinctive reaction, when hearing an autistic person saying they think autism is a bad thing, is 'Oh, no, what will the curebies make of this?' I suspect that was why the other autistic person attacked him for saying that. Statements like that by an autistic person can literally cost people their lives.
A similar problem was described in the book The Courage to Heal regarding ethnic minorities. A Jewish woman and a Latina women both described being afraid to admit that they were sexually abused by their parents because they worried it would feed into negative stereotypes of their people. Muslim women have been discouraged from discussing spousal abuse for the same reason.
But we can't attack the victims, nor can we pretend there's no problems and no diversity of opinion. We can't censor people. I know I feel the temptation sometimes to pretend I have no problems, or that my problems are all unrelated to autism. But doing that leaves my problems unsolved, and feeds into the idea by curebies that 'we don't know what real autism is like'.
I've never connected this with autism, but I've certainly felt like a terrible, worthless person on occasion. I have not found being angrily contradicted and told that I shouldn't say those things helpful. Even worse is people agreeing with me. What works is to reach out to me and tell me that I'm a valuable person and that things won't always be so bad for me. Here's an example of the three ways to reply:

Depressed person: I'm a terrible, worthless person and I wish I'd never been born.
Other person: You're right. You are a terrible, worthless person. Don't worry, we'll find a way to make you worthwhile.

Depressed person: I'm a terrible, worthless person and I wish I'd never been born.
Other person: How dare you say such terrible things! No one is terrible or worthless. (except maybe you, the depressed person hears)

Depressed person: I'm a terrible, worthless person and I wish I'd never been born.
Other person: It's so sad that you feel this way. I am convinced that everyone is valuable, including you. I wish you could see how valuable you truly are.

There is no definite way to help someone like that feel better, but the last choice is the one most likely to work. Note that the last two choices both involve disagreeing with the person, but the last one diagrees by affirming the person's worth, which feels much better than being scolded for expressing yourself. It's important to remember that people who say such things about themselves usually have a long history of being criticized for things they say, do or are. That's why they feel that way. Intellectually, choices 1 and 2 are quite different, but the emotional impact is similar, and someone denigrating themselves is not speaking from intellect, but from emotion.

Mild Social Difficulties

"The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome.[2] Individuals with AS experience difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or enjoy spontaneous interests or achievements with others, a lack of social or emotional reciprocity, and impaired nonverbal behaviors such as eye contact, facial expression, posture, and gesture.[1]
Unlike those with autism, people with AS are not usually withdrawn around others; they approach others, even if awkwardly, for example by engaging in a one-sided, long-winded speech about an unusual topic while being oblivious to the listener's feelings or reactions, such as signs of boredom or wanting to leave.[3] This social awkwardness has been called "active, but odd".[1] This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people's feelings, and may come across as insensitive. The cognitive ability of children with AS often lets them articulate social norms in a laboratory context,[1] where they may be able to show a theoretical understanding of other people’s emotions; however, they typically have difficulty acting on this knowledge in fluid, real-life situations.[3] People with AS may analyze and distill their observation of social interaction into rigid behavioral guidelines and apply these rules in awkward ways—such as forced eye contact—resulting in demeanor that appears rigid or socially naive. Childhood desires for companionship can be numbed through a history of failed social encounters."
(Wikipedia entry on Asperger Syndrome)

Descriptions like this make me wonder if I'm really autistic. I have mostly normal nonverbal signals. I make eye contact fairly normally. I talk a lot about my interests, but I'm more likely to notice boredom or discomfort than most autistic people are. I understand a lot of social stuff fairly well.

But descriptions like these are another matter:

"My group has rules and punishments about everything. There are seven of us and there can only be seven. I mean, we have kicked people out for breaking the rules and only then can we add someone.
We have rules about what we wear. You can only wear your hair up (like in a ponytail) once a week. You can't wear a tank top two days in a row. You can only wear jeans on Friday and that's also the only time you can wear sneakers. If you break any of these rules, you can't sit with us at lunch. Monday is the most important day because you want to look your best - it sets the tone for the rest of the week. So wearing something like sweats on Monday is like going into a church and screaming 'I hate Jesus!' when you walk in the door. Friday is downtime. When we hang out that night, we wear sweats, watch movies, and talk about what bothered us during the week.
If you want to invite someone to lunch [from outside the group], you have to formally invite them and the group has to vote on it. We do this because it's like buying a shirt without your friends telling you whether you look good in it or not. You may like someone, but you could be wrong. If three or more people in the group really like her, we offer the girl an extended invitation - for a whole week. That's a trial period - it's like getting a dog at the pound and trying her out before you get her a license and call her 'Fluffy.'
Gabrielle, 15"
(Queen Bees and Wannabes, by Rosalind Wiseman)

That book, about the social complexities of normal teenage girls, really shows me that I'm autistic. I was oblivious to all that stuff. Thinking back, I can identify one Queen Bee and two Targets (including me) from my class in grades 5-6 but the rest I have no idea about. In grade 10, I was a Floater because many of my friends didn't know each other, but I have no idea where any of them fit into the social hierarchy. I didn't even notice there was one!
I remember sitting and wondering why two girls were talking about such boring subjects - who did what to whom and who's in love with whom and who got incredibly drunk at which party. I couldn't keep any of those people straight and I didn't care what they were up to.
Now, autistics form social networks too. But they are looser, because there's much less thought put into it. This actually mimics some cultural differences - my father has noticed many people from India and nearby places are much more into social networking and social rank than Western people.
I wonder how many autistic teens who are supposedly 'indistinguishable from their peers' really are like me - they get the stuff that adults understand about teen culture but not the stuff that adults don't get, and are as out of place as an adult in among the other teenagers.

Why Coming Out Doesn't Apply as Well to Autism

Often, parallels are drawn between autistic rights and gay rights. I agree with many of these parallels (I'm currently reading On Being Gay and seeing many problems described which are also present among autistics, such as the difference between gay community and other minorities who are more genetically and familially distinct) but there's one aspect which is different, which I want to explore. That is coming out.
The first important difference is that autism is more obvious than gayness. It's relatively common for an autistic person to be identified as such by someone else before they even know they're different. And many autistics can't hide it in some or most situations no matter how hard they try. For example, if you watch Amanda Baggs's videos of herself on YouTube, it's hard not to realize she's disabled. Even my father, who seems pretty NT, was recognized as autistic by an educational psychologist because when he quoted Temple Grandin, he quoted her Texas accent as well as her words.
So it's more common for autistics than gays to be given no choice about whether to come out or not, because autism is more obvious. In fact, it's probably much more common for autistics, especially of the younger generations, to be diagnosed by someone else instead of self-identifying. And then it's on record that they're autistic.
Secondly, if an autistic isn't diagnosed, very often they don't know what autistic is. Most people know the defining characteristic of gayness - being sexually attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender. There is no such defining characteristic of autism, or if there is, it's not known. Instead, it's defined by a cluster of traits that are not easy to define or determine. The self-identification of autism basically is 'I feel my mind works similarly to people I know of who are considered autistic' which is certainly not well-defined. And since autism is both less common and harder to define than gayness, most laypeople have a much poorer understanding of how to tell if someone is autistic. So an autistic may know they're different, but have no idea there is a word for how they're different. How do you come out if you don't know what you are?
The normal is less clear too. Most gay people are certainly aware that the norm is to be sexually attracted to the opposite gender. But many autistics think various aspects of their differences are normal. I thought everyone thought the way I did, but for some inexplicable reason were better at handling the world than me. I knew that I was gifted, but thought that just meant having a good memory and thinking fast (and because I didn't remember everything perfectly and sometimes processed more slowly, I doubted I was really gifted).
In addition, gayness primarly affects personal relationships, whereas autism also affects performance in school/work and self-care and things like that. (I know gay people have been fired for being gay, but I'm talking about effects directly as a result of interaction between one's mind and the work environment.) Diagnosed autistics may need to reveal their difference in order to get things like extra time on exams, natural lighting, etc in work or school or else they will have trouble performing. And they may need assistance caring for themselves on a daily basis, such as getting regular meals, although they're less likely to actually get it. In this area, a better parallel are other disabled people.

Discrimination and Fear of the Unknown

I've often heard people say that discrimination is 'fear of the unknown' and if you educate people about a group and get them to get to know people from that group, they won't be discriminatory.
Recently, my father told me about people working for the Hudson's Bay Company who lived among Native people, married a Native woman and had children, and then when the opportunity came, they just left them to go back to Europe. Now, Native people certainly weren't 'unknown' to these people, but still, they were discriminatory against them to a rather extreme degree.
And what about slave owners? They certainly weren't unfamiliar with black people, yet few nowadays would disagree that they were discriminatory against them. In fact, it was in noerthern US and Canada, where there were much fewer black people, that they were less discriminated against (though they still were).
I think what kind of relationship they have is far more important than how much contact they have. It's a bit like stray animals - they say a cat who was born feral is easier to tame than one who was abandoned, because one cat has little knowledge of humans while the other knows from experience that humans can be nasty. If your interactions with a certain group are with you in a position where you're encouraged to think you are superior, you will tend to learn to be discriminatory against them.
Also, once you've learnt discrimination, it's hard to unlearn. You can interpret almost anything as a sign they are inferior. They treated Native customs as 'primitive'. If you value mass production and industrialization, the Native cultures would seem primitive. But that is by a rigid definition of what is good and bad.
Now, with having said that, is it any wonder that mainstreaming hasn't been a magic solution to discrimination against disabled kids? Their classmates are taught to value conformity, and they see one kid who is different. Often they see adults acting particularly patronizing and 'helpful' to that kid, more so than the others. They may even be explicitly taught to patronize and 'help' the disabled kid - see Hell Bent on Helping. So they bully the kid, exclude them, or patronizingly 'help' them. All three are discriminatory ways of behaving.
Not to say that a person who knows absolutely nothing about a group can't be discriminatory, of course.
Ettina

Is Autism an Invisible Disability?

It's said that autism is an 'invisible disability' because there isn't a distinctive autistic facial appearance, or some easily noticeable aid every (or most) autistics use, or whatever. However, it isn't always.
Firstly, some autistics present as very noticeably odd. Most people can probably tell someone is disabled if they are visibly stimming, have odd movement patterns and do not speak (with the exception of young children). Especially if, like many people who present that way, they have someone with them who is acting very patronizing and staff-like towards them. Some people describe this as 'looking retarded' which is probably what most people tend to think about someone who presents this way. If they can speak, but are doing so oddly, they may be considered retarded or 'crazy'.
Secondly, syndromal autism can be visible in the same way any syndrome is. Many conditions can cause both autism and a distinctive, unusual appearance. Some syndromes cause an appearance that isn't visibly odd, others cause one that is. I have a friend with a kind of syndromal autism, who has an unusual appearance and also walks oddly because of scoliosis and other motor issues. I think he's hypotonic, haven't been told this but he moves like a hypotonic person. Anyway, all those make it that, even if he acted fairly NT (which he doesn't) people would know he wasn't normal.
Lastly, if you know plenty of autistics, you can spot it even in 'mildly autistic' people. When I look at pictures taken of me when I didn't know my dad was taking a picture of me, my autistic mannerisms are fairly visible. The most obvious one, to me, is holding your arms up near your chest. CP people do this too, but it's different with CP - more stiff (I can recognize CP pretty well too). I just find that if I'm not thinking about my posture, very often my hands will be up near my upper body. This is only one example, there are others. It's like recognizing a person from a certain culture by their mannerisms (something I can't do, but lots of people I know can with cultures they are familiar with). My dad has noticed, for example, that Cree people sometimes point with their mouths.

Losing Diversity

I've finally decided what my opinion is about dietary treatment for phenylketonuria(PKU).
Phenylketonuria is a recessive genetic condition in which a person lacks the enzyme for digesting phenylaqlanine, a substance present in many foods. If they don't eat much phenylalanine, this condition has no effect, but if they eat phenylalanine during infancy and early childhood, it affects their brain development. Phenylketonurics fed a normal diet until adulthood are moderately-profoundly developmentally delayed and have distinctive behavioral traits including autistic traits. Since babies are screened at birth for PKU and given a low phenylalanine diet, In some regions the youngest people with untreated PKU are in their 40s.
I used to have an obsession with endangered languages. I came across one language, the name of which I can't remember, which used to be spoken by this one group of Australian native people. The last native speaker of this language died sometime before I was born, maybe in the 1960s? All that is left of that language are tapes of that man telling two traditional stories in his language. I wanted to learn that language, but after awhile realized that there wasn't enough known about it for anyone to become fluent in it ever again. That knowledge was gone, and with it, a central part of that culture.
Most people assume that there isw no value in having people who are severely delayed and autistic. I disagree. And each developmental disability brings a unique experience of the world. People with untreated PKU see the world in a unique way, just like people who know a certain culture see the world a certain way. I think of untreated PKU as similar to a moribund language - one which is not being passed down the generations anymore, and will soon be dead. Of course it will not be lost forever. The genes for PKU are still around. But soon no one will have that kind of mind, at least in certain regions. And that makes me sad.
I think about studies I'd like to do in how people with untreated PKU think and feel this sense of urgency, because if I wait too long, they'll be gone. I want to understand those people. I don't want them to just fade into history, the only thing remembered about them being how 'defective' they were.
Now, I'm not saying that no one should give a PKU baby a low phenylalanine diet. What I'd like to see is people making that choice without viewing untreated PKU as a horrible thing, but instead as another way of being. Right now, it probably isn't really a choice. If I had a PKU child and didn't treat them, how long do you think that child would stay in my custody? After all, people have even lost custody of ADHD kids because of not giving them Ritalin.
Ettina