Jenny McCarthy opens her idiot hole again

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't seen any recent videos of her son, but I think he can show affection.

If you've seen no videos of the boy, how can you know anything about him?

I've seen a video of him.

He looks EXTREMELY high-functioning, if you ask me.

So on top of everything else, Jenny is some kind of bad mother, too?

Maybe there has come a time to re-examine the "refrigerator mother" myth.

I certainly do not ascribe to the original idea: that a mother can cause autism by being cold toward her children. I also see no reason to attach blame to a mother instead of a father.

However, can not parents make their autistic child's, already difficult, journey far worse, by failing to accept them as they are?

By continually referring to them as "diseased"; by employing abusive "interventions"; by dangerous medications; by ignoring their attempts to communicate on their own terms: do not all of these serve to exacerbate a child's situation?

I see two camps. There are the parents who look for assistance, but ultimately just get on with the difficult task of raising their autistic children. However, there are a minority (I hope) who seem unable to do that - they look for someone to blame for their child.

I feel that this latter group, confronted with their child, can cause them to exhibit stronger autistic symptoms, purely by a lack of willingness to accommodate their child's behaviours. They can then subsequently "cure" them, by shear force of will - brainwashing them into "acceptable" behaviour.

Unfortunately, the former group do not have much spare time for "campaigning" and the like. The latter group... well, some of them certainly seem disproportionately loud.

However, I'm sure the desertion rate is quite high - as parents become more informed, they can recognise their children for what they are. Autistic children are not some damaged road-kill, but just people with a different way of seeing the world.

Interesting question, Lau, and I do think parents can affect whether or not certain autistic traits "trip" into existence or not, but I see the hows and whys quite differently than you propose.

First of all, curabie parenting is exhausting. It is hardly less work. I think it is more ... or, well, at least different. It is very outward, looking to things outside of the personal relationships within the family for answers. Following the diet is a huge amount of work just by itself, requiring most meals be made entirely from scratch. Then there are the therapies, doctor visits, etc... I get exhausted just thinking about it.

And that is why I think it's bad for the kids, that approach. If thinking about it exhausts me. imagine what it does to the kids. AS kids prefer a simple life, as far as I can tell, full of structure, low on sensory input, low on stress. But at least the curabie program is high on structure. Trying to figure out what works in the program for some kids despite all that is an important question.

But there are other factors of common NT thinking that may contribute more to a "trip." I have begun to formulate that turning off certain interactions may be something a very young As child does subconsciously and in self-defense, much the way the immune system trips into allergies. So imagine NT parents introducing a baby to the world, and then a toddler, exposing the baby to every stimulation imaginable because it is supposed to help brain development. Baby seems interested; exposure increases. Picture a scene I saw last summer, with two preschoolers being put on a carnival ride by their mom. One is crying, doesn't want to go. Mom insists and turns to her friend, saying to that the child has to get used to this sort of thing or he'll miss out on life. Imagine an NT mom being that careless about the reactions of a child born AS. In defense, the AS child may eventually turn himself off in those situations, go inside his own world, won't he?

Just a theory.

I don't think so. I think you just elaborated exactly what I was suggesting.

The cur(e)bie spends so much time on the mythical cure, they have no time left for the things that do matter.

Also, forcing a child to "do proper eye contact" is just a form of torture. Explaining to them why most people find a lack of eye contact uncomfortable - that's fine.

=========
Sorry... I've just started reading "Look Me in the Eye"... the prologue of which commences with:
=========

PS. diet's one of the things I'm fine with, to an extent. By all means, use diet to help with some of the fairly common co-morbids. Just don't try to say that they are a cure of the autism.

Eye-contact as torture? I don't think so. Even I am sometimes uncomfortable with making eye contact, but I wouldn't call it torture.

BTW lau, we never got to hear about your miracle cure for death.

Eye contact IS torture and really stupid.

Not true. Parents can do almost anything they want to their kids, especially if the kid is too young to understand and consent to the procedure.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.

For you, but you can only speak for yourself. Personally, it depends on the situation for me. I can stare into my partner's eyes for hours without blinking and not feel uncomfortable at all, ditto close friends and family. People I don't know so well, I absolutely can't do it. I wouldn't say it's torture though, in my case anyway. It's all down to the individual.



Lau and DW, I agree completely with what you're saying about their being two groups of parents and how it could affect the child. I think it's the same as parenting affects any child though, NT or ASD or whatever else in between. If a parent is always stressed, then the child will pick up on that and be stressed too. I really wish there could be some kind of an in-between.


Lau, how do you cure death?

You don't stick your tongue out at people and you learn some science.

LeKiwi, how do you prove the Riemann hypothesis?

I've got dyscalculia; even thinking about it makes my head spin and want to explode. So I'm not sure, but I am sure it won't be me who does it.

I'm basing the thought that we all die based on the fact that... every single living thing/person/animal/plant/whatever that's ever been born has died. Physically speaking, anyway. And not counting the redistribution of our molecules/atoms/etc into the soil and later into other living creatures.

I'm not being necessarily skeptical; I'm genuinely curious. The suspense is 'killing' me!

Die-contact topic


Withering Away and Looking Toward have so much in common in this thread.

Facing the Reaper and Avoiding the Other.

Opposites attract. Gotta love WP.

Have you called Jenny yet???

haha horse hockey!