Boycott of book - mom wants to vasectomize son

Post Reply New Topic

The mother sounds an utter horror if she is acting under her own volition. It's absolutely no surprise to me though. Self-determination, respect and coexistence for people that presently have disabilities seems to be utterly anathema to the powers that be.

I read a Reader's Digest condensed article by this woman. In one section, she lamented all the things an autistic person would never have: gainful employment, first love, and the like. Very often, this attitude turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. She never set down rules about what was appropriate and what wasn't and pretty much let her son do what he wanted, such as letting him believe he was performing a valuable service when he was really getting in the way of people doing their work. This is the kind of so-called "acceptance" that leads to low expectations and ruin. Everything about this woman seems wrong to me. The article made me ill. I can only imagine what reading her book would do to me. I don't think I could get through more than one chapter without throwing up.

I'm sure a lot of parents will do that to their autistic sons from now on, in addition to never letting them date, let alone have sex, and doing everything in their power to prevent them from having a chance at either for as long as possible, preferably for their whole lives

And here I only thought parents did that to autistic women ...

I thought they did the part you bolded to everyone, and that it was completely normal and expected, but then saw more and more undeniable evidence that most people somehow manage to date and have sex anyway, and that this is also completely normal and expected. So what has always looked impossible to me is expected of a normal person. Normal people might as well be gods to me.

To get rid of Newman's son's ability to have children by forced sterilization is nothing more than a call for eugenics.

Newman is very much an "autism mom". She assumes that every autistic person has the same deficits and is inherently inferior to allistic people. "Autism moms" have a tendency to expose their autistic children in their most vulnerable moments, obviously without their permission. Newman does this. They also attack the use of identity-first language, which Newman does. "Autism moms" like to assume that no living autistic person is capable of having a significant other, go to university, or hold a job, which Newman does. See a pattern??

It's sad how so much more attention goes to these ableist "autism moms" than actual autistic people.

Honestly as much as some of the language to describe this book makes it sound absolutely horrible. I think I might have to actually read the book to determine how bad it really is. I mean maybe she has a good reason to want this...i'd have to read the damn book. I mean on the surface forcing someone to get that operation seems barbaric...but maybe there are more reasons for it that people are assuming. I mean for instance if she feels he can't function in a way he'd be able to care for children I can kind of understand but at the same time not sure she should be the one to make the choice. I also don't know what if any input her son has about this or if in addition to being autistic he has any more severe intellectual disabilities or anything that his mom is concerned could be exploited if he's not looked after. that said I also don't know how severe her sons autism is, or what doctors have concluded about him. So I have to take a step back and not instantly jude the mother as a horrible ableist.

That's what I was pointing out. Intellectually disabled kids who are sterilised may not give consent when they realise it means they can't have kids.

The law appears to protect parents or guardians or institutions who are allowed to make this choice for these people