Reasons Aspies don't join/leave WP?

Post Reply New Topic

You seem to be disregarding the entire possibility that people simply don't agree with your assessment of their statements as "sexist" and are behaving accordingly.

My point is there needs to be firmer boundaries in order that people get their point across without putting noses out of joint (so to speak)



Check out the general discussion currently, there is a thread about "Autistic qualities in Dogs". This is one of many illustrations of a phenomena that I observe here on WP.

If people want to describe head banging, stimming, low IQ or lack of speech they of course emphasize these are "autistic" qualities, On the other hand if they describe high intelligence then it's Aspie. Savantism is Aspie and even Temple Grandin (a classic example) was low functioning but now is a success story so therefore she is now an Aspie!

I think there is a subconscious tendency to denote "negative" connotations to people on the "lower" end of the spectrum and thus write off them off. The reality is many of the amazing skills and qualities that all people on the spectrum have are because of autism. You ask me for examples? I think for starters this type of bias needs to change right here on good old WP.

No, I do not discount the possibility that they disagree. I just don't take such disagreement seriously. I don't run around calling everyone sexist or looking for sexism everywhere, but when I see something that looks like it's sexist, I usually point out that it is sexist. The disagreements tend to be things like rationalization as to why it's perfectly natural to say such things about women as a category, or how the person who said it doesn't see it as sexist, even though said person is likely not really in a sufficiently informed or sympathetic position to make that determination. Someone who is inclined to view women negatively and as inferior to men is not likely to question his own attitudes toward women because he is likely to think they are justified.

A common sexist assumption, incidentally, is that men's opinions should be seen as authoritative over women's, even when it comes to matters that have more of an impact on women and women have more experience dealing with. One example I can think of was a man lecturing a woman about a book they were both at the release party for. It turned out she was the author, but she still got lectured.

Having a man explain what sexism is and is not falls into a similar category, and I don't accept men as experts on what is and is not sexism. Especially not the man who said the sexist thing in the first place.

How would you propose doing that without massive censorship?

We are also talking an across the board communications disorder here, I can say something in the most innocuous way possible and still manage to offend a dozen people simply due to various internalized structures that others have that I have no way of knowing about. There was a guy somewhat recently who actually had to be banned because he simply could not abide that I held a certain political belief and was "allowed" to talk about it on the forum, not really a whole lot that can be done with people like that. Similarly, I can recall an instance where I made a post about a recent romantic conquest in a tongue in cheek fashion, and immediately got flamed for "waving food in front of starving people", among other things. Completely positive post, but people were "offended" because I was successful at something they were not, and that made them feel bad about themselves. I suppose my point here is that there are people that you just can't win with, that you're always going to offend someone no matter what, and that it's not worth putting a whole lot of time or energy into worrying about what other people will think of your opinion, someone will still manage to find something to have a problem with.



Eh, I was diagnosed as having Aspergers, but I describe myself as Autistic, I personally don't attach a lot of importance to which term people use. I think you may be reading a little too much into people's choice of terminology, it's sort like those people who say Aspergian instead of Aspie, I think it really comes down more to personal taste and what feels comfortable than any kind of dismissiveness or bias.

I would like to point out though that I don't really see any reason that Autistics as a group are any more likely to relate to one another than say, white people or Canadians, that we have a neurological condition in common doesn't actually go all that far.

Are you not aware that what you just said is incredibly sexist?

The stuff not in bold is just plain arrogant, but man, that last one that is, I don't feel like I even need to add anything to that.

This could run and run as I think you're evenly matched in terms of 'level of desire to win the argument'!

Nobody wins in this kind of argument.

I think that was my point

Said humourously, so I can understand why it might have confused people

It is an interesting one though, they are both capable debaters and I've been following all of it. As I read in a book recently, things sren't always so simple as pne side being completely right and the other completely wrong.

Of course - there's truth in what both are saying

Both are also adept at wearing their opponent out though because they're determined to have the last word

That's a flaw in my opinion as more based in ego than a search for the truth

I kinda think that my opponent making an openly sexist argument to justify their beliefs constitutes check mate, given the topic. We'll have to wait and see if she tries to walk that one back.

I found that so called "sexist" line and I'll explain how I didn't see it as sexist.

"and I don't accept men as experts on what is and is not sexism."

I agree with that. I wouldn't accept men as experts on what is sexist any more than I'd accept white people as experts on racism or nonhandicapped people as experts on ableism, or strait people as experts on what it's like to be a target of homophobia. They haven't experienced it and probably don't understand it the way an actual target of it would.

So there is no such thing as racism against white people or sexism against men?

There is but usually when people refer to sexism they are referring to it being against women and when they refer to racism it's about nonwhite people. Maybe I should have been more specific.

It would have been more accurate to say "and I don't accept men as experts on what is and is not sexist against women."

I do believe that is a sexist statement. I am sure an individual man can, after imforming himself properly and giving the matter the thought it deserves can know more about sexism against women than the average woman.

^^^

That.

Hanyo is correct that I was referring to sexism against women. As I pointed out, one element of sexism against women is the insistence that men get to be the experts on everything, including women's experiences. I don't accept men as experts on women's experiences, and that includes sexism leveled against women by men. If a man insists that he did not say something sexist, I am not going to be inclined to take that statement as true, even if I assume that he believes it is true. This is because I have frequently been told that something sexist is not really sexist, and the rationalizations and excuses that usually accompany such a claim are rarely anything more than deflection.

A key point here is that racism vs. white people is not institutionally or economically supported, whereas racism vs. people of color is. A white person is significantly less likely to suffer hardship and discrimination based on skin color that impacts them on a more than personal level than a person of color. Sexism vs. men is similarly not institutionally supported whereas sexism vs. women is. A man is significantly less likely to suffer hardship and discrimination based on gender bias that impacts them on a more than personal level than a woman is.

Another key point is that people tend to sympathize with and defend power structures, especially power structures that benefit them. Men are under little pressure to do much about sexism because it doesn't really harm them directly, and white people are similarly under little pressure to do much about racism. This is why women are behind feminism and why people of color were behind the Civil Rights Movement. This does not mean that men or white people cannot ever understand racism or sexism sufficiently to discuss it, but it does mean that it's hard to accept denials of the occurrences of racism or sexism from such people because they are arguing in favor of a system that benefits them.

When a guy complains that men aren't allowed to complain about women without being told they're being sexist, this looks like numerous other discussions I've seen in which guys have expressed their frustration at being held accountable for what they say about women. They always have excuses and explanations. In this case, despite the fact that it's autistic men saying similar things to what NT men say about women, it is somehow the consequence of a communication disorder. Somehow, the fact that the women who object to these statements have the same communication disorder is not mentioned.

Nessa, my participation in this thread doesn't have anything to do with "ego" or "trying to wear anyone down." My participation is because I am arguing from principles I believe in, and I believe that Dox47 has advocated for a situation that would benefit men who participate in L&D at the expense of the women who participate in L&D. I do not believe that he has influence over how L&D will evolve over time, but I think the arguments I make may at least be helpful for others to read, or at least to see the patterns at work and how they are reinforced. It's not about "winning" or "losing" because as cilantro pointed out, there is no winning. It's about expression, at least for me.

I had also largely abandoned this discussion last night and my last response was intended as a clarification of some points that I felt needed clarifying based on one response from Dox47, rather than trying to engage him as fully as I had. However, it is difficult for me to avoid responding when I see my statements have been twisted and/or mischaracterized, whether or not such twisting or mischaracterization is intentional.