The opposite of ableism

Post Reply New Topic

Imagine this. That you were born with dyslexia. So you were impaired in reading, but you didnt know that you had dyslexia. Imaging growing up and going through gradeschool impaired in reading, and having teachers, and other kids, and probably yourself as well joining in, beating up on you for lack of character, and for "not trying". And then imagine one day you were diagnosed with having dyslexia, and learning that your problem was not your fault due to a lack of character. Autism can be like that.

Last edited by magz on 26 Oct 2020, 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.: Personal attack removed

I don't understand what ableism is.

Ableism is discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities or who are perceived to have disabilities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism

I've been discriminated against for having autism.

"Ableism," to me, is the inability to understand the struggles people with disabilities go through--especially those with "invisible" disabilities

An "ableist" assumes, for example, might assume that a person is automatically trying to "get slick" with the "system," and only desires "handouts," if they spend their life on "benefits."

To an "ableist," the only reason why I didn't get promoted on my job was because I didn't "try hard enough."

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 28 Oct 2020, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So basically ignorance?

It's a willful ignorance----with the inability to be flexible and adopt a different viewpoint based upon evidence staring them in the face which is opposed to what they believed in previously.

It's the true meaning of "ignorance." It's "ignoring" evidence which is in opposition to their notions about people and their motivations.

That's the accepted definition. I don't know if this would be included in that definition or not, but I tend to see ableism as also being about the attitude that if you're disabled, it's purely your problem. I'm not sure whether discrimination means treating the disabled differently (i.e. worse) than one's own group, or whether it means not treating them differently (failure to intervene by accommodating for special needs) from one's own group.

OUCH!

<comfort my Fnordy>

Well, it is good to know I am good for something/k.

There’s a difference between self acceptance and not hating yourself and complete denial that you have a condition that impacts you negatively.

Autistic people can swing from one extreme to the other. From self hatred to complete denial and rejection of common sense about what autism is. Both are bad.

Myself I separate myself from my autism.Its just something I have and I don’t identify with it I would rather it not be there.

If you choose to be autism you will be driven to defend it because you will feel you are defending yourself.

This is why many autistic people use terms like genocide or menticide at the thought of prevention in other people without considering there’s good reasons why parents wouldn’t want their child to be autistic let alone society. Autism is a disability and can be a serious one at that.

They will be forever be at war with the world, reality and common sense, since we are talking about a brain disorder that results in serious life impediments for many.

You will be forced to take many absurd contradictory positions when it comes to denial of severe autism and it’s consequences and autism prevention and treatment.

Such a position is not sustainable long term in the face of cold reality

Autism has both positive and negative aspects.

Temple Grandin is one who exhibits both negative and positive aspects.

From what I've read,here and elsewhere,I don't doubt you're right. However on a personal level I struggle to see anything that stands out as 'positive'.

Have you ever read the story of Temple Grandin? She's quite an interesting character.

I don't like everything she says---but she sure has done quite a bit using her unique autistically-derived abilities.

Apart from sensory sensitivity, I was fine just being a 'nerd'. I didn't need to know that I had a medical reason for that. I was content in being a 'nerd'. Even when I got bullied, it was by 'non-nerd' kids aka 'chav' kids. I was fine to be different from them, in fact I looked down on them as idiots tbh - they were stupid kids tbh who liked to get drunk at the weekends and have underage sex.

I fit in with other nerds though so mileage might vary.

I even fit in with just regular people as soon as I got to sixth form. I had a group of mates at uni and sixth form and it wasn't til my MA that being aspie came up in a nerdy context (essentially I couldn't be as dull as most people on the course, they hid their personalities better than I hid mine).

When I was told I had a 'syndrome' in a serious sounding voice, it made me stigmatise my own personality.

There's something wrong with having sensory sensitivity. But if you can fit in somewhere, find that place. Or if you don't care, enjoy your own company. There's nothing wrong with just being a nerd.

That's an interesting take.
For myself, I don't feel brainy enough to qualify as a nerd.
(Unless nerd is just a euphemism for someone without social skills?)
From TV shows and movies I think of nerds as being tech whizzes, mathematical geniuses, or scientific types in lab coats. I mean, I have a superficial interest in the biological sciences and I'm an engineer, but I'm no genius, have no savant skills like photographic memory or the like, and have no interest in tech, hence I've never thought of myself as a nerd.