OT: how is ableism an -ism?

[oddtail]

This thread is not, admittedly, directly related to the comic itself in any way. However, it touches upon issues and questions undeniably connected to prejudice, discrimination and ways to deal with those. Given that what I'm going to ask about is very much prejudice-related, I think that's a "close enough" in regard to the forum rules. Also, I think people in this forum might have both relevant opinions and valuable knowledge/insight to offer on the matter.

Since I'll be touching upon a complicated, serious and rather sensitive issue, I can't stress strongly enough that I am not aiming to upset or insult anybody. I just want to figure out something that I don't think I can understand on my own. Heck, if I seem judgmental, it is only because I have a hard time voicing/phrasing my doubts about the issue.

With that necessary disclaimer out of the way, let me get to the main point.

One could say I have a problem with the concept of "ableism". Now, I very emphatically do NOT think that people do not suffer from discrimination, persecution, prejudice and lack of understanding from the society at large due to their disabilities. They most certainly very often do. In that respect, ableism is as real and as serious as racism, sexism or any other -ism (even if I don't know the exact scope of it). I also am as far as possible from thinking that the Western culture handles disabilities and people suffering from disabilities (I'll come back to my use of the word "suffering" later) perfectly. I also don't think that being disabled makes one either less of a person or of less inherent value AS a person. And there are people who think so, for reasons I can only vaguely imagine. So, ableism is very much a "thing".

What I do have an issue with is not whether ableism exists or even whether it is a serious problem, but rather the fact that, as I perceive it and to my knowledge, it is far too all-encompassing to be reasonable. Let me explain why.

From what I've been able to learn, the idea is that "ableist" thinking includes the attitude that a disability is wrong, undesirable and that steps should absolutely be taken to overcome it. While on some level I think I agree, this idea honestly puzzles me.

I agree that there is no need to force or even pressure a disabled person to deal with the disability. People can try to find a way through/past the disability in their own way, by their own pace, or even not at all. I get that. It's about freedom, and it is also very much about not letting the person be defined in terms of their disability alone, like not being disabled has to be one's lifetime goal or something.

Where's my confusion come from, then? I honestly don't understand how thinking that a disability is "bad" is somehow ableist. Thinking that a disability is "bad" or undesirable or unfortunate has no bearing on what one thinks of a disabled person. Is a disabled person worse for their disability? No (well, duh). Are they worse off? Heck, yes.

It seems common-sense to me that a disability, which by its very definition is the inability to do something, is not a good thing. Everything a person can do is a degree of freedom that makes for more options for the person. While taking one or some of those options does not make for a worse person, it limits freedom and, in my mind, freedom is always preferrable to lack of freedom. As a result, I think that not being able to walk, to see, to hear, to do anything that most people statistically can do IS a good thing. From what I gather, this makes me somehow prejudiced, ableist.

The beef I have with this is that disability sort of receives special treatment here, compared to other ways a person might be unable or incapable of doing something. Imagine a person who claims ignorance is just as good as knowledge and there is no reason to improve knowledge, no betterment inherent in it. Am I "knowledgist" for claiming that the pursuit of knowledge is desirable and that ignorance is, after all, worse than knowledge? Again, it very much does NOT mean that everyone needs to pursue knowledge, OR that an ignorant person is worse than a person who knows something. But ignorance in itself is not a desirable state.

This reasoning applies to every skill, ability and capability - it's not necessary to pursue or choose a particular one, but having a capability is better than not having it. It's actually the very definition of "better"! Not everyone has to be a chess player, learn history, have social skills, now how to cook or ride a bicycle. But a chessmaster is a "better" chess player than me, judgment of him and me as a person aside. Same with a sociable person, a wonderful cook or a bicycle rider. I am rather socially awkward. This does not make me a worthless person than someone who easily makes meaningful social connections. Am I worse off? Hell yes. Do I need to pursue and improve my social skills? Not necessarily. Would it be better if I had them, one way or another? Yes, I think so.

If being able to do things, and to do them better, is quite common-sensically better than not being able to do them, how does it somehow spell prejudice if I apply the same reasoning to disabilities specifically? Heck, I think that the apparently "ableist" attitude is not only logical and quite natural, but also beneficial. I am wary of extreme anti-intellectualism, seeing it at its core as the worship of ignorance. As a result, I have the same approach towards every other area a person can excel at or improve themselves at. It's important to see aiming higher as essentially better, even if one cannot or will not pursue a particular area of such betterment.

At its core, yes, I see disabilities as undesirable and "bad".

I might add that, on some level, I think that the attitude "disabilities are not inherently a bad thing" is a sort of a defensive mechanism. When facing very real prejudice and discrimination, people tend to be rather extreme in the other direction. I imagine being called a bad person spurs the obvious reaction of "there's nothing wrong with me. In fact, this thing is actually good!". But I think that's going too far. In fact, treating disabilities like they are equal and parallel to the "norm" (yeah, I hate that word too, but there's no better way to express it here) sounds, to me, like taking refuge in what is comfortable by claiming it's actually good.

Heck, come to think of it, asking a blind person if losing the ability to walk, or hear, or asking if it's better to be able to see of a paralysed person might produce pretty unusual results. I suspect that many people who'd otherwise accuse me of ableism would find it pretty common-sensical that disabilities are undesirable... if that's not THEIR disability I'm talking about. Not the one they are used to having.

I admit, I have no way of understanding anyone with a serious disability, not having first-hand experience of such myself. But there are many ways I am at a disadvantage from the "average" person. I am short-sighted enough that I would not be able to function properly without glasses. After breaking a collarbone once, my right shoulder is kinda screwed up - I can use my arm just fine, but my strength and stamina when using it is considerably diminished. I don't treat either of these things as a disability - they are too minor to be more than an occasional annoyance - but I find it mind-boggling that someone would consider me regaining perfect eyesight and properly-aligned bone structure NOT to be an improvement.

Why am I writing this long-winded rant? Am I trying to preach that the concept of "ableism" is somehow stupid or wrong? Well - no. Here comes the fun part. I can find no logical or emotional reason why the concept of "ableism" would make any sense if it's so all-encompassing. I can actually point to reasons why it is harmful for a disabled person to have such a mindset. It doesn't make sense to me and I don't see how ableism is a "thing".

But.

I get pissed off really easily at prejudice of various kinds. I consider myself bisexual, and it makes me furious how ridiculously marginalized my sexual orientation is. Gay people have it even worse, depending on how you look at it. I f'n hate anti-gay bigotry. Same goes for racism. Same goes for sexism - actually, in what I imagine is an unusual way, I am very strongly feminist. Religious bigotry? That might be one of the worst, actually. Being a religious person myself, I find that religious bigotry (and, for that matter, atheist bigotry) is one of the worst things in modern Western societies.

But what do all these things have in common? They are not always directly harmful, and they are NOT always attitudes of closed-minded, dumb, evil people. Sometimes these things are subtle. And people who are slightly and subtly bigoted based on race, sex/gender, religion, belief, nationality often don't see the point. Not every person who smirks at my feminism in a condescending way is a wife-beater. Not everyone who is subtly anti-gay is a gay-basher. Some people shove their religion into other people's faces with such force, and yet they ARE trying to be good people. They just don't see obvious (to me), glaring flaws and holes in their worldviews.

And they all have the same rhetoric they use. "Oh, I'm not prejudiced". "I have nothing against women/black people/atheists/religious people/Germans". "Oh, you're all right. You're just silly for making such a fuss about those non-issues". And the all-time winner? "But..." there's always a "but". There are thousands of "buts", nay, millions in every conversation about how things are subtly or not-so-subtly screwed up for one group or another.

And the funny thing is, when I talk about ableism and how I just don't get it, I find some of what I say eerily similar to what those people say - including the ubiquitous "but". And if it walks like prejudice and quacks like prejudice, then I have at least consider the possibility that I am prejudiced, just not being able to see it.

The fact remains that the wide-scope definition of "ableism" makes no sense to me on either the intellectual or the emotional level. I acknowledge that I might be wrong, but I would very much like for someone to point out just HOW and where I am wrong. Honest.

And that, not ranting or preaching (although being able to rant about that DOES kind of help), is why I made this ridiculously long post. Please, explain to me the reasoning behind the concept of ableism, or at least point out where my knowledge, reasoning or understanding ifs faulty or flawed. Because I haven't talked to a person who could explain the issue to me - not to mention that I have yet to even HEAR the word "ableist" in Polish media or talked about by a Polish person. I'm not even aware if the Polish language has a word for it already.

[Trefle]

I cannot offer you an answer, but this is a very interesting piece of thought, especially relating to prejudice and how it's created.

I'll offer you my musings.

In terms of the nature of disabiltiies itself, and why 'ableist' exists;

Would the idea that for quite a LOT of people with disabilities it's not their fault nor want to be disabled affects how people are thinking?
Just like how black people are born black, gay people are born gay, and Japanese-Mexican people are born Japanese-Mexican; a lot of disabilities have been there since born. Or it's a result of accidents, which..well, generally isn't something you want (when it's something you want or actively get. Well, there's Darwin Award)

Is ableism exists because of a result of repetition? Disabled people that have constantly being ridiculed, pitied, laughed at, etc; developing a more sensitive skin, so to speak? Like "I cannot deal with this shit again. Why people keep seeing me THIS way?"

Would this be a form of ....empathy? In a sense of, unlike race, or gender, or sexual preferences, or nationalities; disabilities ARE something you can get later in life, despite / maybe because of what I'd said above ? By acknowledging that everyone can get it, it become in some ways a more sensitive issues..?

I dunno, I'm just rambling.

[Valerie]

Oh wow. This thread was made for me.

I have a mentally retarded brother, a sister with Asperger's Syndrome (which I am hesitant to call a "disability" rather than a "difference in mental processing," though it certainly has its disadvantages), and a husband in a wheelchair.

Thinking that a disability is bad is not ableist. I've never heard it referred to as such. It's a disability, which literally means "lack of ability." My brother cannot live a full and complete life, and that is wrong. My sister is going to have a very hard time adapting to society, and that is wrong. My husband cannot walk on his own, and that is wrong. We wouldn't call them disabilities if everything were hunky-dory.

The beef I have with this is that disability sort of receives special treatment here, compared to other ways a person might be unable or incapable of doing something. Imagine a person who claims ignorance is just as good as knowledge and there is no reason to improve knowledge, no betterment inherent in it. Am I "knowledgist" for claiming that the pursuit of knowledge is desirable and that ignorance is, after all, worse than knowledge? Again, it very much does NOT mean that everyone needs to pursue knowledge, OR that an ignorant person is worse than a person who knows something. But ignorance in itself is not a desirable state.

This is not a reasonable comparison. An ignorant person is able to learn. A mentally retarded person, such as my brother, is unable to learn most things. A person who has an ability and takes it for granted cannot be compared to a person who lacks an ability.

In any case, your definition of "ableism" seems to be a little off. There are disadvantages to being disabled, and there's no harm in acknowledging that. "Ableism" is more the idea that disabled people are somehow less human and that it's acceptable to make fun of them. Ableism is saying, "Stop being retarded" to a friend when she does something incorrectly, the same way "That's so gay" is homophobic and "You hit like a girl" is sexist. There are disadvantages to being mentally retarded. There are disadvantages to being female (such as periods). There are disadvantages to being gay (such as being unable to have your own children, if that's the sort of thing you want). No one is denying that these disadvantages exist.

Also, I want to say thank you. You found out about something, reflected on it, and are now in the process of making sure you aren't hurting anyone as a result. That's a very important thing to do, and the world would be a better place if we could all do it.

[Artemisia]

I do have some issues with how disabilities are treated or abused. I sometimes think that just some of the various disabilities that get over diagnosed or have people claiming them as their own even if they don't have them. I worry that the abuse of disability diagnosis ends up distracting from or preventing those who really need the help from getting the help that they need.

[EagleEye]

I do have some issues with how disabilities are treated or abused. I sometimes think that just some of the various disabilities that get over diagnosed or have people claiming them as their own even if they don't have them. I worry that the abuse of disability diagnosis ends up distracting from or preventing those who really need the help from getting the help that they need.

I think this is a very real concern. A friend of mine was diagnosed with ADHD as a child because of what were (to my mind) some completely ordinary behaviors. He was a little boy who ran around a lot and sometimes had a short attention span. He spent several years on medication that, according to him, made him worse off rather than better, and it was only when his mother found another doctor that the medication was stopped, because the second doctor thought the first one had made a mistake. I've read about several studies that suggest that ADD or ADHD are being way, way overdiagnosed and too many children are being given medication they don't need.

If we managed to only diagnose it when it was appropriate, there would be two benefits: (1) the right people would get treatment, and (2) people would not be inclined to doubt someone any time they said they had a certain disorder.

[Valerie]

I would say self-diagnosis is more of a problem. I'm sure doctors do end up diagnosing people who don't need it, but at least they made an educated mistake. There are too many people who read up a little about a disability/syndrome of some kind and start saying that they have it. It's been happening a lot with Asperger's lately.

(On another note, it really miffs me when people dismiss disabilities as non-serious, which I'm sure Art wasn't doing, but on to my story. I explained to a coworker yesterday that autistic people don't have empathy to nearly the same extent as neurotypical people, and he said he wished he could be autistic so that he wouldn't have to care about other people's problems. That is the epitome of privileged behavior.)

[Ollie]

Thinking that a disability is bad is not ableist. I've never heard it referred to as such. It's a disability, which literally means "lack of ability." My brother cannot live a full and complete life, and that is wrong. My sister is going to have a very hard time adapting to society, and that is wrong. My husband cannot walk on his own, and that is wrong. We wouldn't call them disabilities if everything were hunky-dory.

there are people who would not agree with that, and insist on using the term "differently-abled."

It's not always unreasonable, either. Many people in the deaf community consider it offensive to call deaf people disabled, because as far as they're concerned they are not disabled. So they can't hear; so what? Sign language is often seen as more beautiful and expressive than oral communication, too.

It's strange to think about coming from the perspective of someone who can hear, where you'll likely think something like, "How can they not care that they're missing out on something so beautiful like music when they've never even known it?" Well, they don't.

...I had a point here but I can't remember what it was. :c oh well, something to ponder over.

[Artemisia]

Valerie,

I certainly wasn't. My aunt has diabetes, my cousin and I have crippling social anxiety disorders (hers is generalized while mine is specific to men). Because I have a combination of social anxiety and various learning disabilities, I've actually had therapists push for the diagnosis of Asperger's, but I've resisted doing so because I don't really think I have it. I just think that I have a lot of social anxiety issues.

[Valerie]

Thinking that a disability is bad is not ableist. I've never heard it referred to as such. It's a disability, which literally means "lack of ability." My brother cannot live a full and complete life, and that is wrong. My sister is going to have a very hard time adapting to society, and that is wrong. My husband cannot walk on his own, and that is wrong. We wouldn't call them disabilities if everything were hunky-dory.

there are people who would not agree with that, and insist on using the term "differently-abled."

It's not always unreasonable, either. Many people in the deaf community consider it offensive to call deaf people disabled, because as far as they're concerned they are not disabled. So they can't hear; so what? Sign language is often seen as more beautiful and expressive than oral communication, too.

It's strange to think about coming from the perspective of someone who can hear, where you'll likely think something like, "How can they not care that they're missing out on something so beautiful like music when they've never even known it?" Well, they don't.

...I had a point here but I can't remember what it was. :c oh well, something to ponder over.

This is certainly something to consider. I've heard the term "differently-abled," but it sounds condescending to me ("Oh, honey, so what if you can't walk? You're just differently-abled!"), so I'll probably continue not using it (unless a disabled/differently-abled person asks me to refer to him/her as such).

Even then, you have to take different disabilities into consideration. Someone with a physical disability can be capable of working around that problem. Someone with a mental disability, such as severe mental retardation, cannot. So, in this light, my husband is differently-abled because he's still able to do a lot of things (such as transport himself from one place to another, even if he needs the assistance of a chair or cane to do it), and my brother is disabled because his mental retardation does not allow any room to work around the problem.

(Also, slightly related, I've been trying to teach myself ASL for a while now. It's coming along slowly. >_O)

[oddtail]

Thanks for the answers. I thought I might clarify where I got my conclusions from, because - as I said - prejudice, discrimination, or even marginalization of disabled people is quite self-evident.

Let me quote the Wikipedia article about ableism, with the parts that make me wonder emphasised in bold:

Similar to many of the assumptions underlying the medical model of disability amongst many clinicians, the "ableist" societal world-view is that the able-bodied are the norm in society, and that people who have disabilities must either strive to become that norm or should keep their distance from able-bodied people.[citation needed] A disability is thus, inherently, a "bad" thing that must be overcome. The ableist worldview holds that disability is an error, a mistake, or a failing, rather than a simple consequence of human diversity, akin to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.

Fiona A Kumari Campbell, Senior Lecturer in disability studies at Griffith University, draws a distinction between disablism and ableism. Disablism, she notes, has been the traditional focus of study within the field of disability studies. Disablism promotes the unequal treatment of the (physically) disabled versus the able-bodied. It marks the disabled as the Other, and works from the perspective of the able-bodied.[4]

Citing prior work (Clear 1999) (Iwasaki & Mactavish 2005) (Watts & Erevelles 2004), Campbell acknowledges that the concept of ableism is, as of 2009, not clearly defined in the literature and has "limited definitional or conceptual specifity".[5] She herself distinguishes between ableism and disablism, defining the former as:

A network of beliefs, processes and practices that produces a particular kind of self and body (the corporeal standard) that is projected as the perfect, species-typical, and therefore essential and fully human. Disability is then cast as a diminished state of being human.[5][6]

Other definitions of ableism include those of Vera Chouinard (professor of geography at McMaster University), who defines it as "ideas, practices, institutions, and social relations that presume able-bodiedness, and by so doing, construct persons with disabilities as marginalized […] and largely invisible 'others'"[7][5] and Ron Amundson (professor of philosophy at the University of Hawaii at Hilo) and Gayle Taira, who define it as "a doctrine that falsely treats impairments as inherently and naturally horrible and blames the impairments themselves for the problems experienced by the people who have them".[8][5]

1) The phrasing "it's a consequence of human diversity (...) rather than an error" is what puzzles me. Gender, race even arguably sexual orientation are evolutionary constructs that serve a particular purpose, biologically. A disability is when something about the human body does not work as intended. Judging by what I'm quoting, regarding blindness as an error is ableist. This is the part I don't get. It's not anyONE's error, but it's an error in how a body developed.
2) the able-bodied "kind of self and body" that is projected as the perfect, species-typical - again, it is the normal, usual capacity. "Perfect" might be going too far, or so would say my transhumanist friends, but I don't see a problem inherent in seeing able-bodied persons as a default. Same way I don't see how seeing straight people as a default is harmful (I'm opening another can of worms here, aren't I?). I agree that it does not follow from this that it's "essential and fully human". But to me, that's a faulty logic, not a wrong assumption that being able bodied is the default and the norm.
3) and thirdly, how is an impairment not "inherently and naturally horrible"? Sure, horrible is a strong, loaded word. But replace it with "bad", which is the same concept to a different degree, and I don't see a problem with the statement. And blaming impairments for problems experienced by people? Certainly not ALL the problems, but it stands to reason that an impairment can be problematic. How is that ableist?

As I said in the first post - it's not the fact that the concept of ableism is postulated that puzzles me, it's the way the problem is phrased (the bolded parts of the quoted article are a good representation of that).

By the way: the use of words "lame", "retarded" etc. being ableist? I can see it, but I have some concerns about it linguistically. It's inherent in human language to use metonymy and metaphor. We often use words for things that we perceive as "bad" to describe things that are conceptually different, but also "bad'. Disabilities are seen as unfortunate and limiting, therefore it's natural that in the English language, they are conceptually linked to things that are criticised. I'm not sure if this is something to be avoided. Sure, I can avoid saying "that's so lame", but is it ableist too if I say "how could I have been so blind"? The metaphorical meaning of "seeing" is linked to perception, "blind" therefore implies, in this context, the inability to realise something (and in most languages, the concepts of seeing and understanding things are strongly connected). Heck, if I understand something when a person explains it to me, is it ableist to say "Oh. I see"? I remember talking to an online friend who happens to be deaf, and saying "I hear ya" to voice my agreement. I remember stopping and asking "wait, is that disrespectful?" The particular person said "nah, don't be silly". What I mean is - I know some language is obviously ableist, and I go out of my way not to use words like "retarded". But I wonder where the line should be drawn. I mean, there's never a point where things are obvious, even when one goes to ridiculous extremes. To give an example from a different area in life - in theory, I could defend the position that if an asexual person called someone "a fucker", it'd be prejudice against non-ace people. You can see, I hope, how this is extreme and rather, I might say, silly.

Interestingly, my native language has way fewer words for disapproval derived from descriptions of disabilities than English. I wonder where the difference comes from. I doubt it's from the Polish language being somehow more inherently tactful...

[Doc Harleen]

Thinking that a disability is bad is not ableist. I've never heard it referred to as such. It's a disability, which literally means "lack of ability." My brother cannot live a full and complete life, and that is wrong. My sister is going to have a very hard time adapting to society, and that is wrong. My husband cannot walk on his own, and that is wrong. We wouldn't call them disabilities if everything were hunky-dory.

there are people who would not agree with that, and insist on using the term "differently-abled."

It's not always unreasonable, either. Many people in the deaf community consider it offensive to call deaf people disabled, because as far as they're concerned they are not disabled. So they can't hear; so what? Sign language is often seen as more beautiful and expressive than oral communication, too.

It's strange to think about coming from the perspective of someone who can hear, where you'll likely think something like, "How can they not care that they're missing out on something so beautiful like music when they've never even known it?" Well, they don't.

...I had a point here but I can't remember what it was. :c oh well, something to ponder over.

When I started reading this thread, I also thought of the Deaf community (just a note - in the Deaf community, they capitalize the "D" but keep it a lowercase when referring to the condition itself, and I think the individuals with it, but I'm not positive about that bit). I understand their perspective about the fact that the community has its own culture, and that for the Deaf, it is merely a different way of experiencing the world.

Sign languages are indeed fascinating and beautiful (Nicaraguan Sign Language has a particularly intriguing history, for those who might be interested). I have worked with a number of deaf coworkers over the years, and they really do know more languages than many people. One guy I worked with knew four languages: Indo-Pakistani Sign Language, Urdu (written, as he had no speech), American Sign Language, and English (also written). I would NEVER suggest that being deaf necessarily restricts one's ability to learn. (Note: I say "necessarily" because there is debate about success levels for different types of education programs for the Deaf.)

But as Val said, a disability means a "lack of ability," or, as one definition I found puts it, "a condition which may restrict a person's mental, sensory, or mobility functions to undertake or perform a task in the same way as a person who does not have a disability." And the place where it starts becoming complicated for me is on the subject of cochlear implants. As technology has made it possible through the surgical implantation of these devices for a deaf person to hear. There is a great deal of controversy around cochlear implants; there is still not a lot available as far as long-term studies of effects on those who have had them, there are risks in surgery and some various results regarding efficacy, and there are some questions about handling education in relation to a cochlear implant. I've heard that in Ontario, enrolment for children in the cochlear implant program requires enrolment in AVT (Auditory Verbal Therapy) after the fact. While the government will fund the AVT, they will stop funding ASL training for the child. Some say that there should be simultaneous training for the child's best chance at a full, successful development of productive language.

I will admit that the part of the controversy that I don't understand is that the Deaf community see it as a threat to their culture; that it will lead to the decline of sign languages and that deciding that a child (who is a good candidate for it, of course) should have this surgery is suggesting that the child has a disability. I will state that as a person with the ability to hear, it could be difficult for me to fully understand this perspective. I hope I don't sound privileged; I have only just started learning about this issue and I am still trying to understand all sides of it. While I agree that there is a difference between an adult who decides to get the surgery and a child who is getting the surgery because their parent(s) have decided such, I also understand that what the parent is doing is trying to give their child as much opportunity and ability as possible.

Anyway, it seems like a complicated and interesting issue, and if anyone knows more about the controversy, or has any opinions about this, I'd definitely love to know more.

[Lia S]

[offtopic]

I explained to a coworker yesterday that autistic people don't have empathy to nearly the same extent as neurotypical people, and he said he wished he could be autistic so that he wouldn't have to care about other people's problems. That is the epitome of privileged behavior.)

Valerie, I know you mean well, but please don't give people a too simplistic explanation of the difficulties autistic people have with empathy.

There are some who match the stereotype, who are unable to read body language and who cannot imagine the emotions of others. Then there are many who only have the first of the two problems. On the other extreme there are autistic people who are unable to ignore the emotions of others, who get overwhelmed and confused - too much of the sensory side of empathy isn't good.

Imagine you really love people, but you have to hide from them most of the time because interacting with them is too overwhelming and tiring. And then some [expletive] tells you your social problems are caused by your lack of empathy, you're unable to imagine the thoughts and feelings of others, and you couldn't possibly feel lonely.

But you did get the most important thing right, the difference between not understanding others and not caring about others. The latter is called psychopathy.

Yes, I do have some type of autism, but I try to avoid using that word exactly because it makes people assume all kinds of things that aren't true about me. I have to avoid very noisy environments, have lots of difficulty hearing in places like bars, and can't handle certain types of chaos. All of that makes me disabled in interacting with people, but my empathy actually is pretty normal. Even therapists I see for other reasons than my autism won't believe I am autistic :/ ...
[/offtopic]

[Valerie]

[offtopic]

I explained to a coworker yesterday that autistic people don't have empathy to nearly the same extent as neurotypical people, and he said he wished he could be autistic so that he wouldn't have to care about other people's problems. That is the epitome of privileged behavior.)

Valerie, I know you mean well, but please don't give people a too simplistic explanation of the difficulties autistic people have with empathy.

There are some who match the stereotype, who are unable to read body language and who cannot imagine the emotions of others. Then there are many who only have the first of the two problems. On the other extreme there are autistic people who are unable to ignore the emotions of others, who get overwhelmed and confused - too much of the sensory side of empathy isn't good.

Imagine you really love people, but you have to hide from them most of the time because interacting with them is too overwhelming and tiring. And then some [expletive] tells you your social problems are caused by your lack of empathy, you're unable to imagine the thoughts and feelings of others, and you couldn't possibly feel lonely.

But you did get the most important thing right, the difference between not understanding others and not caring about others. The latter is called psychopathy.

Yes, I do have some type of autism, but I try to avoid using that word exactly because it makes people assume all kinds of things that aren't true about me. I have to avoid very noisy environments, have lots of difficulty hearing in places like bars, and can't handle certain types of chaos. All of that makes me disabled in interacting with people, but my empathy actually is pretty normal. Even therapists I see for other reasons than my autism won't believe I am autistic :/ ...
[/offtopic]

I apologize if I upset you with that. I've read up on the subject before, and one of the primary symptoms is the inability to figure out how a person is feeling. Autistic people aren't jerks, but sometimes they seem like it because they can't pick up on a person's feelings. My sister, being an Aspie, is a good example of that. When I say, "I love you," she says, "Okay." When I say, "That's a cute outfit," she says, "I know." It can be very taxing on a neurotypical person to deal with what feels like constant rejection of our feelings, but that doesn't mean my sister doesn't care. She just doesn't realize that she's being a little rude.

And there are plenty of Aspies that learn how to work in social contexts by studying, memorizing, and breaking down what this facial expression means or what that tone of voice could mean.

To the coworker, I said that it's not an ability to be uncaring, it's just an inability to always understand how someone feels. He continued being a jerk by saying, "I want the ABILITY to NOT CARE." (For the record, this coworker already drives me up the wall, so this was the final nail in the coffin for that work-friendship.)

So, really, I think I wouldn't consider Asperger's a disability, but... more like differently-abled, as Ollie mentioned. Aspergic people have skills that make up for the trouble with detecting a person's feelings. Many of them are more organized and systematic than neurotypical people, for example. Plus, like someone in a wheelchair, an Aspergic person can work around his/her inabilities by learning the facial expressions, tones of voice, and key words to listen for. I'm positive that's got to be exhausting, but they can work around it, unlike someone with full-on mental retardation.

[Artemisia]

I remember reading somewhere that people with autism can actually be far more epathic than people without it, but they don't know how to process it properly.

I feel like I have a ton of questions about Asperger's, but I don't want to ask them in case I cross a line.

[Lia S]

I apologize if I upset you with that. I've read up on the subject before, and one of the primary symptoms is the inability to figure out how a person is feeling.

Sometimes it's that, and sometimes they are passive in social interactions because they get more empathetic input than they can process. Similarly, some autistic people are bothered by every little sound and you could fire a cannon next to others without them noticing (it's even more common to switch between those two states depending on what one is doing or something else).

I'm not upset, though the oversimplification of autism/empathy issues does annoy me in some situations... so I explain now, so you won't annoy me in the future .

Autistic people aren't jerks, but sometimes they seem like it because they can't pick up on a person's feelings. My sister, being an Aspie, is a good example of that. When I say, "I love you," she says, "Okay." When I say, "That's a cute outfit," she says, "I know." It can be very taxing on a neurotypical person to deal with what feels like constant rejection of our feelings, but that doesn't mean my sister doesn't care. She just doesn't realize that she's being a little rude.

I do have a tendency to say "Yeah I think so too" in response to compliments, the rational part of my brain is a bit slow. I guess I'm lucky my face is more connected to the emotional part and does say/smile "thank you" when my words don't. It does have a downside, I'm a very unconvincing liar.

And there are plenty of Aspies that learn how to work in social contexts by studying, memorizing, and breaking down what this facial expression means or what that tone of voice could mean.

Unfortunately having less intuition in social skills (though I wouldn't claim my intuition is exceptional) makes some other autistic people really get on my nerves. For example, things like LOLing and shout-repeating my mumbled sarcastic remark so the person I made it about can hear it...

To the coworker, I said that it's not an ability to be uncaring, it's just an inability to always understand how someone feels. He continued being a jerk by saying, "I want the ABILITY to NOT CARE." (For the record, this coworker already drives me up the wall, so this was the final nail in the coffin for that work-friendship.)

Your cow-orker wishes for psychopathy. I can imagine wanting the ability not to care in some contexts, but I guess the context you were talking about/in isn't one of those.

So, really, I think I wouldn't consider Asperger's a disability, but... more like differently-abled, as Ollie mentioned. Aspergic people have skills that make up for the trouble with detecting a person's feelings. Many of them are more organized and systematic than neurotypical people, for example. Plus, like someone in a wheelchair, an Aspergic person can work around his/her inabilities by learning the facial expressions, tones of voice, and key words to listen for. I'm positive that's got to be exhausting, but they can work around it, unlike someone with full-on mental retardation.

I'm not organized or systematic, but I guess I can be called differently-abled for thinking outside the box a lot (or rather within a different box). I don't know if that's much of an advantage when at times I'm so far outside the "normal" box it becomes too difficult to explain things to people inside it.

In the Netherlands the term "people with possibilities" is used for the disabled. Of course it's good to pay attention to the things people CAN still do, but I'm offended by it anyway. When I ask for help, I want some practical help, not an able person with more "possibilities" than I have giving a speech about me having possibilities.

I remember reading somewhere that people with autism can actually be far more epathic than people without it, but they don't know how to process it properly.

*nods*

I feel like I have a ton of questions about Asperger's, but I don't want to ask them in case I cross a line. I just really wish I knew why I've had therapists push me to get that diagnosis.

Do you happen to be shy/awkward and a bit weird?

But seriously, I'm sure there must be some Aspergic on this forum who would volunteer to answer some questions through PM?