Autism and prejudice

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, but I think they are demonstrating my point as well. We are calling this prejudiced person(s) on thier bigotry (its not ignorance, its bigotry). They are a bigot(s), chauvinists and misogynists. The people on this board are doing a very good job of instantly and logically deconstructing those opinions. The person is showing it full blast, but at the same time you have the opposite reaction to such opinions being put forth, somebody coldly and logically making the person who is a prejudiced aspie seem utterly and completely illogical and asinine.

Actually this is a particular sociological effect, its called community shaming. When somebody is outrightly intolerant and it is not accepted because it is intolerant people and recognized as such people are much more likely to call them on their behavior. With Aspies, it happens much more quickly sometimes. We tend to go against the grain in both ways, our black/white thinking also means we have people who are much more likely to stand up to social justice issues as well, and call people on bigotry and prejudice as well. Basically, its a double edge sword, the reality is it is less subtle because we have less of a filter. It is not that we are more or less prejudice, just everything is more out in the open and more blunt, we don't hold things back as much. This may be why we sometimes alienate people no matter the opinions, people like the filter to be there. For something an aspie is passionate and cares about there is less of a filter. I would take it most of the aspies on this board don't even think about these issues and are mostly focused on computers or whatever else their interest is. That is flipping beautiful. There may not be prejudice there to be honest. Thats why "Aspies are less prejudiced" comes from, I think they are just as capable, but usually the focus is in other places. Those of us who have an interest in social justice, which it has been a lifelong special interest for me, are more likely to examine these issues. Its that many are more atypical, in that they just don't care or focus on this because its not a special interest. But when they do, thats when this bluntness comes out one way or another. But sometimes the lack of a filter is helpful, and even the way we construct arguments.

You are seeing the views of the minority in this prejudice. To me the majority is they just want to talk about their interests, and this is not one, and there may be no views there. I have met many aspies, and they are not as absolutest on these issues as you think. I am because policy is my primary special interest.
For example, I have no fear in calling the obvious bigot a bigot, a misogynist, and a racist. Why? I am blunt, and that is what I am seeing.

Um, yeah, some of us are really slow at working numbers in our heads. It doesn't make us stupid. Actually, my math homework is really funny. One time I answered a problem with "8 = 3." Calculators were invented for people like me. It's really okay to be bad at math. It doesn't mean you're stupid. I am not an embarrassment to my country for this. (Maybe for other things.) You weren't talking about me because I've never been on TV trying to do math, of course, but I am indeed THAT BAD. But luckily, I don't have to do math. That's other people's job. I'll stick with correcting their grammar when they inevitably screw that up.

Personally, I don't think the standards for letting women join the military should be any more lax than for letting men join. Just have one set of standards and then don't bother to worry about gender. Then whatever ratio you end up with doesn't matter; you can staff them interchangeably because they have the same abilities.

Your reasoning for why women shouldn't join the military holds true for men as well. ANYONE who joins the military could get sent off to war. No one, then, should want to join. So... why should that be more of an issue for women? Why shouldn't it be an issue for men? One would assume that men join the military because they believe that their country is more important than their lives. Why can't women believe the same?

Verdandi, let me just say that that behavior is definitely wrong and unprofessional. Are you sure that men don't face equivalent stuff? Because that's only evidence of sexism if they don't. (Sexist or not, it's wrong.) Anyway, I had no idea that kind of thing happened. That's not acceptable.

I mean, like, just for an example... I'm mixed race and I have never had anyone give me grief over that. I usually have to tell people I'm not white. They fail to even notice, which I guess isn't surprising; I look pretty much like most white people. I've seen very little racism, mostly consisting of stupid internet comments from black people who hate whites, my (white) mother who says impolite things about Hispanics and Asians (but has never behaved any more unkindly toward them than toward whites when actually interacting with them) and one (white) friend of mine who would go on and on about how wonderful black people were (meanwhile heading off the inevitable parody by being too ridiculous to parody).

What I do notice, though, is "minorities" (this term doesn't really make sense, since they aren't necessarily actual minorities-- like, women make up nearly half the population) immediately valuing people more because they belong to the same group. Like black people supporting Barack Obama (I'm not saying that every black person who supports him is doing so only based on his race; plenty of people, probably plenty of black people, really like him for other reasons, but I know that SOME black people only like him because he's black-- and one white person, but see above) or women supporting Hilary Clinton. (Again, I'm not saying that every woman who supported her did so because of her sex.) I see it in autistics, too (even in myself on that front-- immediately becoming more favorably disposed toward someone because they're on the spectrum, although in general I still end up mostly only disliking people I'd dislike anyway and liking people I'd be at least neutral toward anyway).

This thread so far is really enlightening.

Men can face sexual harassment too, but women are far more likely to face it than men are. It's like how men are raped, but far more women are raped than men. Or men can earn less money than women, but in general, women earn less than men for the same jobs. And so on.

I mean, not everyone's going to have the same experiences with all this stuff as everyone else. Some people seem to not experience much at all while others experience quite a lot, but this is where statistics are important - by showing how many people experience these things and to what extent. Where it may not show in individual experiences, it will show in larger trends.

Some people are bad at math, but the stereotype is that women are generally worse at math than men, and this isn't particularly true. I mean, just anecdotally, I can do mental arithmetic easily, and if I relearn it, I could probably do algebra in my head as well - I used to get lower grades because I wasn't able to show my work, but I often just knew the answers. I'd just flip through the problem very rapidly and have the solution - although I wasn't all that good at algebra, I could just do the stuff I knew very quickly. Obviously, this can be related to autism, but my point is more that minor differences are inflated into massive definitions. I think someone mentioned the book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine discusses this process, especially how it's been used throughout the history of neuroscience.

I've always wondered why insist I do math in my head when a good soul invented the calculator? I endured unnecessary mental strain when relief was just a few buttons away.

I preferred to do math in my head rather than with a calculator because, uh, I DON'T KNOW.

Seriously, though, I remember in one college math class the instructor insisted I use a calculator despite the fact I always instantly had the solution just by looking. Since it was one of those scientific calculators, I used it to pass notes instead.

But you're an Aspie; where'd you find anyone to pass notes with??

It was my mid-20s, possibly my most socially successful period. I had several acquaintances and a few friends.

Last edited by Verdandi on 11 Mar 2011, 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

I didn't mean to make you feel sad; I was trying to make a joke. Sorry.

I edited my post to try to make it clearer. My response was meant to be a joke too - but thank you.

Well, men have some drawbacks too. Think about it... if you're a man and you get raped, how do people react? How likely are you to report it? How likely is it that the offender will be punished?

And compare that to what happens when a woman gets raped...

Sexism does work both ways; men get it occasionally too.

Actually any decent feminist, not the really bad radical second wave types, but more the modern third wave and fourth wavers, will tell you sexism and privelege does in fact effect men as well, and gender and privelege is a bit more complex. Many do not exclusively see men=privelege, that is an antiquitated late radical feminist second wave construct. Just men are more likely to recieve certian types of privelege that are beneficial to advancement, but only certian men. One of the priveleges women do have is a wider variety of gender and emotional expression, this is a modern privelege in some ways though. Men who are outside the very narrow construct of masculinity are more likely to be a target of violence. In addition there is a preditory assumption with men and children. Being able to interact and work with children freely is a female privelege. With men, because of a few bad actors, it gets branded as creepy or worse if they have an interest in teaching or childcare. That is why men have almost been unilaterly pushed out of teaching and childcare.

I think it was already mentioned that women see a hostile atmosphere in engineering departments. I had to explain this to my boyfriend. Engineering is more valued than teaching, largely because it is predominately male dominated, but the behavior of men in those departments keeps many women away. This is a male privelege. It is not that teaching is not valuable, it is that because it is predominately women working in it, it becomes "less valued" by certian types of men in power.

I can go on, but this is an issue with alot more subtlety than people think. Its not that that all men have access to male privelege, but certian men do. It is also the sense of entitlement some guys have and dismissiveness of a womans worth. This is not exclusively an aspie guy thing, but an aspie guy who has such an opinion is more likely to be unfiltered. To me its better, it is easier to identify the misogynists and call them on thier bigotry. The truth of the matter is people on the spectrum are an open book.

Last edited by starygrrl on 11 Mar 2011, 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Thank you.

I know of so many feminists who idiotically think men just have it better. Most any man can tell you there is a load of garbage men have to deal with that women don't, and you make an excellent point of how some men get all the perks because they happen to fit the mold that culture expects of "men." Anyone who falls short doesn't get the same consideration.

Men have it different...not necessarily better.

Men do not have all the perks, but in general, being male and masculine is valued over being female and feminine. This doesn't mean all men have it better than all women, but it does mean that's the tendency when all else being equal.

I agree with what starygrrl said on the topic.

I'm a woman who joined the military for stability and economic opportunities. They've treated me just fine. I even serve openly with AS. And the pay is quite good if you add in all of the benefits and then compare it to what most people make with only a high school diploma. For instance, my college degree is paid for.

Women have every right to serve in the military. If I wasn't allowed, I'd fight for my right to join. Whether or not you'd personally like being in the military is irrelevant as to whether or not women "should" want to be in the military. I'll decide for myself if I want to risk going to war, thank you very much.



Military physical fitness standards exist to establish a baseline for physical fitness. These standards are arbitrary. Aforesaid standards for men and women are based on comparative fitness levels, meaning that a woman who can "only" do half as many push-ups as a man is at a comparative level of fitness based on female verses male upper body strength.

These standard are not meant to reflect the "strength requirements" for every job. Many jobs in the military require little raw physical strength can be performed by overweight, unfit people who can't do a single push-up. I've worked alongside civilian contractors who were doing the same job as me, but they were not held to any fitness standards, and many of these people couldn't run a mile if you paid them a million dollars. To repeat, basic military fitness standards establish a fitness baseline for military personnel. That's all.

Jobs relating directly to combat, such as special forces, have additional standards and training that must be passed, and women are barred from these specialties.



Irrelevant. People join the military for a variety of reasons. The benefits are a perfectly valid reason for joining, and having to go to war is part of the job. I joined for stability and to get out of a bad situation. The fact I have to be ready to go to war doesn't negate my reasons for joining.

///Back on topic........