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.

Accepting Imagination Deficit

Autistic people are said to have an imagination deficit. At first, when I heard that, I outright rejected it, saying things like 'the people who think autistics lack imagination are the unimaginative ones'.
In my case, I've come to realize that I actually have a form of autism in which imagination is usually a talent, certainly not a deficit. Based on that, I've been researching 'creatively gifted' kids, to better understand what that actually means.
But it just occurred to me that if, as I believe, there are some people who are inherently more creative, there must also be people who are inherently less creative - just as the presence of intellectually gifted kids requires that there also be developmentally delayed kids. Whether these unimaginative children are autistic or not, they, too, are part of neurodiversity, and should be accepted for who they really are and viewed as valuable individuals. But whereas I have no trouble accepting both gifted and delayed kids, I find it hard to accept unimaginative kids.
What would unimaginative kids be like? Well, according to this study, they'd be tolerant, practical, reliable, dependable, responsible, logical, understanding, appreciative, good-natured and sincere. To me, that sounds mostly like a mix of good organizational skills and being a people-pleaser. I can accept that people like that are useful, that they counteract some of the problems creative people tend to have, that while creative people tend to be better at coming up with ideas, these people would be better at actually implementing them. But I think of the joy and beauty of creating something new, and I don't really feel that those things make up for not having that.
Now, I'm sure I'm not being fair to them. Likely, things that have little appeal to me bring a similar kind of joy to them. I know I'm doing exactly what Amanda Baggs criticized here, but I don't know how to stop from doing that. Or, as Zilari explained in a comment on the above post, part of my checklist of things someone must have in their life to be happy is 'creating things'. It's certainly part of what I need in my life to be happy, but clearly not that way for many other people. But I just can't imagine how someone could be noncreative and happy that way.
I'll just have to keep working on it.

Tropic Thunder

After much searching, I finally found a trailer of Tropic Thunder that actually used the word 'retard' that so many people complained about. After watching that trailer, I'm incredulous. No, not because it's offensive. But because it isn't.
Mark Twain's book Huckleberry Finn was banned from some schools because it uses (very frequently) the word 'nigger'. Never mind that Nigger Jim, one of the main characters, is probably the most moral person in the entire story, and that young Huck Finn learns a valuable lesson about slavery, morality, and his friend Jim. The message didn't matter to those schools, just what words were used.
Here is a transcript of the Tropic Thunder trailer 'OK to be Stupid':

"There were times, when I was doing Jack, that I actually felt retarded, like really retarded. In a weird way I had this sort of just free myself up to believe that it was OK to be stupid, or dumb."
"To be a moron."
"Yeah."
"To be moronical."
"Exactly."
"An imbecile."
"Yeah. When I was playing the character."
"When you was the character."
"Yeah, I mean, as Jack, definitely."
...
"Everybody knows you never go full retard."
"What do you mean?"
"Check it out: Dustin Hoffman, Rain Man, look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Count toothpicks, cheat at cards. Autistic, sure, not retarded. You know, Tom Hanks, Forest Gump, slow, yes, retarded, maybe, braces on his legs, but he charms the pants off Nixon, win a pinball competition - that ain't retarded. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard."

Excuse me? Have these people protesting this movie paid no attention to the actual content of this trailer? First, the actor is talking about feeling like it's OK to be stupid - being able to stop worrying about coming off as smart. Secondly, his friend is pointing out a stereotype in Hollywood, one that really needs to be looked at - a variant of the 'autistic superpowers' problem Lisa described, or the 'making up for difference' I discussed on this blog. Both of these are very good things to say.
I don't think you should pick at words like this. It's the message that really counts. I don't think people should say 'that's so retarded' to insult other people, not because they said 'retarded', but because they're saying it's a bad thing to be. If they said 'you're acting cognitively disabled' instead, that wouldn't be any better. And I don't think Tropic Thunder's use of the word 'retard' is a problem, because their message is not offensive. We have plenty of real problems to deal with - this is not one of them.

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.

Abuse: Disability Blog Carnival #36

Alright, I've got a lot of interesting (and sad) posts for this one.
Laurie Toby Edison describes the use of allergies for bullying. The victim is a girl severely allergic to peanuts. To get her to stop sitting with them, a group of girls all brought peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. It's a very shocking case, and her take on it is quite interesting.
Kay Olson describes an experience she had with institutional abuse. There are three aspects of this story that are quite important to highlight: firstly, the attitude that doing her job is an annoyance and unduly burdensome (reminiscent of the description of answering call lights in My Contaminated Smile); secondly, the power to deny the opportunity to communicate, which is such a big issue in the lives of assistive communication users; and thirdly, the 'catching' someone doing something they said they needed help with, something I've experienced as well. Another important aspect of her account is the reasons she didn't report it to that woman's superiors. She was afraid she'd be left in the care of a woman who not only was abusive, but who had a grudge against her in particular because she got in trouble with her boss.
David Hingsburger talks about a movie he's been involved with regarding the sexual abuse of developmentally disabled people in a group home. This movie has an important aspect of education, because it vividly shows the steps involved in reporting abuse.
Cusp describes the feelings evoked by the rejection of her application for DLA. Many of these I can relate to, even though I haven't been in that particular situation. When I was signing up for the disabled youth group I belong to, the form asked what I needed assistance with, and I was at a loss. I'm so used to just struggling on my own with the things I struggle with, telling no one or only my family. I finally told them that I tire easily from physical activity, that I have no sense of time, and that I find it hard to navigate by bus, but with each of those, similar things ran through my head. "But after all, I manage don't I?"
Athena, The Integral and Ivan describe their definitions of abuse. Much of this sounds like abuse from the environment, not from other people (although The Integral's stuff certainly is). An interesting idea. Does that meet the definition of abuse?
Bev describes the point of autism awareness. Another, more recent post I stumbled upon on her blog just now is a humorous description of how we need a cure for autism awareness. She discusses Donor X, a sperm donor who has fathered several autistic kids, and how, despite the positive view of autism that one of the parents has shown, the sperm bank removed his sperm. Not just identified it, added a marker stating he's had many autistic kids - they removed it. Can't have those people, even when one of his children has incredible memorization, reading, math and musical ability.
Casdok didn't submit a blog post, but she shared with me a comment posted on her blog (which she'd deleted):

“C isn't special to the rest of the world, he is only special to you. He is a burden to the rest of the world and if he was another part of nature, like an autistic fish for example, would have died long ago. You just use others to keep him alive.
And C is not the kind of high functioning autistic that will ever contribute anything to mankind. But that's okay, if something happens to you they will just control him as they wish with drugs, like you should have allowed them to in the first place. He is not a complete person, he is an autistic that shits all over everything. Get over it.
You made him, put on your big girl panties and deal with it, and stop being so self centered."

Well, that's certainly abusive!
She also makes an interesting comment: 'abuse stems from ignorance.' I wonder about that. I may blog about it later.
Dorry Carr-Harris at the Torontoist discusses an art exhibit about the history of disability discrimination. They presented 13 objects, including a closet with sixteen identical sweatsuits for institution residents to wear, a billboard listing 'four types of mental deficiency' and a bassinet belonging to a 'funny looking kid' who was given a digoxin overdose without her parents' knowledge.
Jeff McNair discusses the horrifying statistics regarding the rate of sexual abuse of developmentally disabled people, and the protective role the Church could serve. He says that ministers should watch out for this, and if they suspect abuse, they should report it. He also discusses the resistance to inclusion that he's encountered when doing activities with developmentally disabled group home residents.
Astrid asks the important question of whether you should pressure disabled children to achieve at a normal level in every area. She discusses reading speed for blind children - Braille readers tend to be slower. Her discussion reminds me of my old post Milestones, in which I argue that a disabled person's achievements should be celebrated based on how hard they were to achieve, rather than undervaluing milestones met later than normal (or overvaluing things which really aren't that hard).
William Peace discusses rich priviledge and a quadriplegic man who can afford state of the art technology and all the best care, and doctors are 'amazed by his progress'. It reminds me of all these people who pay enormous amounts to cure their autistic children, while moaning about the economic burden and ignoring the families just struggling to survive, who have trouble keeping food on the table, much less getting expensive therapies. Another thing I've noticed is the 'perfect lives' phenomenon - if practically everything's gone in your favour for most of your life, as soon as something doesn't, it's an absolute tragedy. The parent quoted in A Work in Progress said that having a developmentally disabled child must be 'every parent's worst nightmare'. Tell that to a refugee mother. Hey, you could even tell that to my mother, who found out her daughter was getting sexually abused in her own home. Clearly, if you think developmental disability is 'every parent's worst nightmare', you have led a sheltered life.
Shiva submitted an excellent post called The Thing Itself is the Abuse, about the common pattern of portraying 'misdiagnosed' people who were abused in a way common for the group they were mistaken as like their treatment would not have been abuse if they really were a member of that group. In my opinion, this is the best post contributed. I was going to give Shiva the blog award I'm supposed to pass on, but xe already got it. I've certainly noticed that as a problem myself. My teachers thought I had ADHD, and treated me badly based on that. Had I really had ADHD, if anything, it would have been worse, because their treatment of me would seem to me to be more 'justified'. In some cases, it is true that the misdiagnosis is the biggest problem (for example, a bipolar child misdiagnosed with ADHD will generally be given medication that is helpful for many ADHDers but induces serious manic symptoms, rapid cycling, and raging in many bipolar people) but it's really important not to assume that, or act as if certain categories of people are okay to abuse.
Knitting Clio posted an entry Good Cause, Bad Idea for Fundraiser about a 'Jail n' Bail' fundraiser for the special olympics. I'm kind of baffled by this. Where did that idea for a fundraiser come from? What did they mean by 'Jail n' Bail'?
Ruth posted about road rage against wheelchair pedestrians, clearly a terrifying situation for the pedestrian. Sometimes I really wonder about people, and road rage is one of those things I don't understand. I actually understand a parent killing their disabled child better than I understand road rage (note: understand is very different from agree).
The Goldfish will be hosting the next Blogging Against Disablism Day on May 1st, and has written a comment about terminology in preparation for it. And the next Disability Blog Carnival will be at cripchick's weblog. The deadline is May 4th, the carnival will be up on May 8th, and the topic is 'Disability Identity' - something I know I will be able to blog insightfully about, as this is an issue I've pondered a lot.
Lastly, I have my own comments. Firstly, I notice that all the posts seem to be primarily about real abuse of disabled people. Although this is an important issue, I'm a bit disappointed that no one discussed the following:

• things wrongly perceived to be abuse of disabled people, such as the belief that denying autistic, ADHD or other disabled children treatment to make them more normal is abuse; the attitude that it's abusive to deliberately have a disabled child, or even not take 'sufficient' measures to prevent their birth; and the assumption that if a disabled woman is pregnant, she must have been raped.
• stereotypes about abuse by disabled people, such as the belief that developmentally disabled men are sexually abusive (because they have 'animal urges' that most of us supress and they don't); the identification of certain disability-related characteristics as indications of a criminal or potential trouble-maker (such as the tale of a bipolar middle-eastern man who was mistaken for a terrorist, or the 'walking while developmentally disabled' crime that Amanda Baggs has gotten in trouble for); or portrayal of simply being exposed to a disabled person as a form of abuse.
• lastly, real abuse by disabled people (especially mentally ill/developmentally disabled abusers), how it is viewed, why they do it, and so on. A certain proportion of abuse survivors go on to perpetuate abuse (such as the autistic mother I heard about with seriously low self esteem who verbally abused her autistic child for being too much like her). Disabled abusers, if they abuse in ways society generally recognizes as wrong, may be more likely to be caught. They are also viewed differently, either as 'can't help it' or as much worse than a non-disabled abuser. And lastly, the existance of disabled abusers feeds into stereotypes regarding disabled people, and is used to justify abusive treatment of disabled people.

Regarding that last category, a study I found recently is relevant. They studied sexual abuse of developmentally disabled people by developmentally disabled or non-disabled men. Firstly, they found that almost half of the reported cases of abuse of a developmentally disabled person involved a disabled abuser. The disabled abusers were more likely to have abused men, more likely to have done sexual touch or masturbation instead of attempted or actual penetration and more likely to have done only a single episode of abuse. All in all, it sounds like they were probably much more often reported. Possible reasons are suggested by the fact that others had witnessed the abuse three times as often if the abuser was disabled, suggesting the disabled abusers were less sneaky when abusing others. Another fact is interesting: though the disabled abusers appear more likely to be identified, they were also much less likely either to be charged or have charges considered. Almost all of the disabled abusers either had no action taken, or in-service action such as warnings to staff working with them, whereas 'only' about 2/3rds of the non-disabled abusers were treated this way.

PS: Laura, the link you sent me seems to be broken, and I couldn't find the post by searching your blog. Sorry.

Progressive Coercion

There's a pattern I've noticed recently. People, especially parents or service providers, decide that a certain way of treating disabled people is wrong. They speak out about it. And generally that's a good thing. But then it somehow turns into yet another set of rules of behavior that disabled people are coerced into, even if they resist it.
An example: Awhile ago, some people started saying that treating developmentally disabled people, especially adolescents and adults, as if they're much younger than they are (in aspects that aren't necessary for proper care - ie not including things like changing diapers) is not a good thing. Many developmentally disabled people would agree with this. But somehow, for many service providers and parents, they interpreted this to mean that developmentally disabled people should not be allowed to act in ways considered typical of a much younger child. This led to things such as actively trying to discourage adolescents and adults from playing with dolls or other 'immature' interests and play. And that, like pressuring them to act younger, is oppressive.
Another example: David Hingsburger, in his video The Ethics of Touch, said you shouldn't go around hugging developmentally disabled people that you work with. Which I agree with. But then, in reply to a question about the developmentally disabled people who often initiate hugs, he described a method for training them out of that. Because somehow, they're not allowed to want touch beyond what most people their age do. (My policy is to go by mutual comfort. If they seem to want the touch, and I'm okay with it, then it's fine. This means they either expressly consent to the touch or initiate it. For example, I hug back if they hug me, and sometimes I ask children if I can pick them up and twirl them around.)
The biggest problem with this pattern, in my opinion, is that the focus is still on how the disabled person should behave, what the disabled person should do. And it's still being dictated by nondisabled people. They challenge some specific problem, while ignoring the power dynamic of helper and helped, the controlling others 'for their own good' rather than letting them have freewill and choice. The power dynamic, and the focus on the disabled person as the problem, remains unchanged, meanwhile they get to act like they're all progressive and liberal and helping the cause of disability rights.

Social Identity

The next Disability Blog Carnival theme is 'The Hardest Part'. I was thinking about it, and decided I didn't want to interpret 'hard' as 'difficult', because that's standard. I wanted to do something different.
Bill Choisser has an online book about prosopagnosia here. I found it among my printouts yesterday and was reading it again, and noticed how he describes identity. One aspect he discusses is 'core identity' - cores are generally hard, so that's the connection. Pretty tangential, I know. I like being tangential.
I have a regular pattern of treating whatever I'm reading as if it doesn't relate at all to myself. In fact, I don't tend to have a sense of 'myself' while reading. But when I reread things, sometimes I suddenly start thinking about how they relate to me.
Anyway, I started wondering what my own identity would look like with that model. I'm female, so my personal identity (what you actually are) would be female. I consider myself female, as opposed to being transsexual or genderqueer or something, so my core identity would also be female. But maybe close to the border, because being female is not as significant to my identity as it seems to be for most. My personal identity is in my core identity, because I'm fine with who I am, but maybe towards the border rather than squarely in. Actually, my core identity is probably very small, only slightly bigger than my personal identity, because I consider myself very unique.
Type is acceptable mating partners. Therefore, my 'type' is nonexistant, because I have no interest in sex with anyone. As for my tribe, it's several parts. One is 'developmentally disabled people', another is 'highly-educated intellectuals'. Or no, on reviewing the definition, it's probably only developmentally disabled people, and my immediate family. It crosses both genders. My personal identity is towards the edge of my tribe, and my core identity is half in and half out, because I don't fully feel a part of any group.
My core identity is certainly hard. It's hardened and solidified to stand the assaults my teachers gave to it, as they tried to force it to move. It's the hardest part in this diagram, the part most resistent to change (except maybe personal identity). I mentioned above that my core identity is small, that's because it curled up for protection. It's strong because it had to be.
And another meaning of hard - this was difficult for me, to figure out where these things are positioned. The hardest part to figure out was probably my tribe. I don't have much of a clear idea what that even means.

Acting Your Age

I thought I'd posted something about this ages ago, but it seems like I only thought about posting it.
A lot of developmentally disabled people are treated like they aren't really whatever age they are, instead, they're younger. Other disabled people are treated this way sometimes, but it's much more overt when used on developmentally disabled people. Sometimes, especially when the age they supposedly are 'mentally' is extremely young and they're adolescent or older, there is a strong feeling of revulsion associated, as if anyone who acts like a baby without really being a baby is disgusting.
A big part of it, that I see, is the idea that there's only one way to act your age, and that's by acting normal. Even with ages that are often negatively stereotyped, such as adolescence, it is often seen as sad if someone is acting more 'childlike' than like an NT teenager.
But they are their own age. They just don't have the typical way of behaving at that age. Many Down Syndrome kids around 5-8 years or so, for example, have a certain common way of looking and acting, so that it's fairly easy to recognize a DS kid that age as opposed to a different age. Not all DS kids are that way, but most DS kids in that age range that I've met do. But the way 5-8 year old DS kids are is different from 5-8 year old NT kids. They tend to be more playful, more sociable, more adult-oriented, speak less well, are smaller and are less independent. Some of these differences somewhat resemble younger NT kids, maybe around 2-4 years old. But they aren't really like 2-4 year old NT kids, but like 5-8 year old DS kids.

Edit: I uploaded an edit of my changeling lullaby video here:

Abuse is the Norm?

I recently came across a report on Violence Against Disabled Children prepared by UNICEF, and was shocked to hear them say that 90% of developmentally disabled people in one study had been sexually abused, and 80% of deaf people in another study.
I was not able to find the studies they got those rates from, but I found some other relevant studies. In the Journal of the American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry volume 333(4) pages 567-576, they studied developmentally disabled kids in a psychiatric hospital and found that 61% had been abused. In the Journal of Rehabilitation volume 68(1) pages 4-13, they studied disabled women (mostly physically disabled) and found that 67% had been physically abused and 53% sexually abused. In Augmentative and Alternative Communication volume 19(2) pages 125-134, 45% of AAC users reported having been the victim of a crime or abuse. In Sexuality and Disability volume 12(4) pages 297-306, they found that 27% of mildly developmentally delayed adults had been raped, as opposed to 4% of psychology students. They also found that most of the disabled study participants didn't know what incest and rape meant (the words were later defined before asking if they'd experienced it), didn't know what to do if they experienced unwanted touch or were sexually abused (the 'correct' answer was to 'respond assertively' or 'tell someone') and that 27% thought they couldn't say no to sex and 36% said someone else should decide for them whether they have sex or not.
With many of these studies, abuse survivors are actually the majority of disabled people. And in most cases, this is those who say they were abused when asked as part of the study. How many more who were unwilling to talk about it or didn't realize they'd been abused (for example, thinking what was done to them is normal)?
It's shocking. Think of this: it is more unusual for disabled people not to have been abused. I always assumed that having been sexually abused made me a minority, both in the general population and among autistic people. Though none of the above studies gave information on the rates of abuse among autistics, most likely the rates are fairly similar to other developmentally disabled people.
These studies suggest a much needed shift in perspective. You can't just assume they weren't abused until you find out they were. In fact, it may be safer to assume that they were abused, by someone, until you find out they were not.
I figured emotional abuse would be extremely high, near-universal, but these studies didn't look at emotional abuse. They looked at physical and sexual abuse and occasionally neglect. Even those more overt forms of abuse are extremely common among disabled people.

This is What Murderers Are Like?

While searching for stuff on parents murdering disabled children, I found a different case. Three eight year olds were murdered. When they asked a probation officer who he suspected, he named a bipolar 18 year old because 'he wore a black leather coat in all weather and listened to "devil music" such as Pink Floyd and Metallica.'
They questioned that boy and his developmentally disabled 17 year old friend, and the 17 year old confessed that he, the 18 year old and another friend had stabbed and raped the three boys. The problem: the victims had been beaten instead of stabbed (they had what appeared to be stab wounds, but were actually from wildlife), and had not been sexually assaulted.
Despite the evidence against their guilt, they were convicted. The 18 year old and 17 year old were convicted to life in prison, their friend to the death sentence (this was in US). Luckily, before the last sentence could be carried out, the case 'fell apart' and the three teens were declared innocent.
My question is: how much of this is related to the disabilities that at least two of the suspects had? I know of a bipolar man who was shot as a suspected terrorist, and it seems bipolar people often seem similar to the stereotype of a murderer. Was the fact that the one boy was bipolar related to this?