Not Forcing Stereotypes and Conventions

Post Reply New Topic

There's an article in the book Asperger's and Girls by Tony Attwood that talks about how societal stereotypes and conventions, such as dating and marriage, should not be forced upon AS women. We have to define for ourselves what relationship will be. What are others thoughts on this?

Why should conventions be forced on ANYONE, asperger or NT? If it wasn't for these conventions, I am sure women would have been chosing nice guys over jerks because all humans, regardless of their gender, are naturally attracted to nicer people. But due to a convention that a woman has to choose someone confident, she is forced to choose a jerk over a nice guy because the jerk happens to be more confident. Down in her heart she likes a nice guy more, which is why she cries on nice guys shoulder as to how much a jerk has mistreated her. But her social convention requires her to date a jerk.

Another example is a ladder theory. A woman is not a computer, so, just like any other human, she can change her mind and start liking someone she didn't like before. But, due to the social convention that require her to obey a ladder theory, she is not allowed to date that guy SIMPLY because she rejected him in the past. No matter how much she likes him now, she is simply not allowed to do that.

So, I think these conventions are very shallow and they harm equally women (who are forced not to date men they like) AND men (who are being rejected because they haven't passed some "formal" requirenments). So for the good of both genders these conventions should be abandoned, and NEITHER aspies nor NT-s should follow them.

Absolutely brilliant! I always wondered why I was so attracted to jerks. I think this is my first time with a nice guy, my current "friend." I've felt like breaking through a lot of conventions lately. I'm questioning so many of them. I'm wondering even about committed relationships. Doesn't that lend a false sense of inner security?

Why is he your "friend" rather than a boyfriend? Is it because you are still sticking to this convention, even though you SAY you are trying to break from it?

There's been some attention lately on the status of women and societal expectations. Now they're rethinking some of the things they've been telling us for the last 40 years. I always knew that I was incapable of being a supermom and the concept of quality time as opposed to active parenting was b.s. It's comical. On a related subject, now they say greed is bad?
RE: Attwood's book, only recently has it occurred to me that the reason I was so unsuccessful with relationships was because at my core I was resistant. I think there are very few people I could be happy with. My MB type is 1%.

[quote="whitetiger"]There's an article in the book Asperger's and Girls by Tony Attwood that talks about how societal stereotypes and conventions, such as dating and marriage, should not be forced upon AS women.

I remember seeing this in the YouTube video, but it's hard for me to fully understand what is meant by this without specific examples of the specific effects of dating and marriage being forced upon AS women. So far, all I can say is that it is very uncomfortable when the only advice people ever give me for finding a boyfriend has to do with changing the way I dress.

What does Conventions mean?

It's because we don't have a conventional relationship that I referred to him that way. I didn't know how else to refer to him.

In what way is your relatioship with him not conventional?

And also, if he were more macho, would you have been more willing to have "conventional" relationship? If so, it means you are still following dating stereotypes.

I went to Amazon to skim the chapter in question and I found out what Tony Attwood specifically means. I skimmed, but here's the gist of what I got from that chapter:

He says that women in general are assumed to be more socially connected to other people than men, more empathetic than men, and more tuned in to social subtle cues than men. While this isn't true of all women (nothing applies to absolutely everyone in a group), it's true of a lot more NT women than Aspie women. It's part of that "male brain" thing that researchers go on about. The traits of social disconnection, less empathy and not being tuned in to subtle social things are considered masculine. It's considered normal for NT men to have them to some extent. AS men have them in the extreme.

So where does that leave Aspie woman? Stuck unfairly with the label of "cold" for not having the social connectedness and empathy that women are assumed to have. Stuck unfairly with the label of "tease" for not being clued in to subtle sexual signals.

What he's really talking about is a neurological/personality profile that all women are expected to have and negative labels for those women who don't- which will be a hefty chunk of Aspie women. This impacts dating and relationships because an aspie woman will be seen as "too cold, too detached" to date just as an aspie man is seen as "too passive" (too detached is not so negative for men just as passive is not so negative for women).

The book is a series of articles, starting with that Tony Attwood one. The chapter I'm referring to is: Aspie Do's and Don'ts: Dating, Relationships and Marriage by Jennifer McIllwee Myers, who is also an aspie. She talks about not idealizing marriage. Aspie girls like to daydream, often realistically. They need to know that men may have expectations they cannot fulfill and might impinge on their alone time and disrupt their space. They need to know that an equally good solution is not to get married at all.

Parents are encouraged NOT to force dating, even in a 17-18 year old.
She also advised Aspie women to do dating "their way" as opposed to a traditional way, and that each aspie female should do what feels right to them.

This is an interesting thread. I'm curious to hear what kind of pressures the women here feel in terms of what types of relationships they should pursue and with whom.

Er...................................I know I'd rather date the guy with a backbone, no matter what convention says! At least he won't fall to pieces when I do!

I've never felt such pressures, nor were they ever placed upon me, because no NT I encountered during my formative years ever assumed that males (well, NT males, anyway) would have anything to do with me. They were, on the whole, spot-on.

In a nutshell, I'm exempt - for better or worse.

You are not making much sense. The person to cry on fulfils the role the role of somebody to cry on, which is not the same as a lover. If she wasn't really interested in a confident man (not specifically jerk) then why would she cry because of him?

Where do think social conventions come from? They have to come from nature at some point.

Women like men have varied interests. However if you want to talk of the pull of nature, then it certainly does not fit with your account on the whole. Maybe generalising is not such a good thing to do anyway. People have a certain capacity to go against the grain, but the idea of humans as virtuous and selfless beings is a complete fantasy.

You're lucky about avoiding the pressure. I was for the most part the same way, except now I find my ignorance of these things makes it hard to get attention from women, and understand why they act the way they do.

Though I have a hard time seeing how guys don't like you, seeing your appearance, your not being afraid of your sexuality, and the fact that you seem like a relatively interesting person as well. Maybe I don't know something though.