A Reminder on Comments Policy

(This is not in response to any particular individual. I just thought I would review the comments policy.)

Comment moderation on this blog is based on the content of posts, not the identity of the posters. In general I ask that commentators be polite to myself and other commentators. Express disagreements with ideas; don't focus on individuals. Please, please, please do not take conflicts from other places on the Internet to this blog. There are plenty of other places to carry on with that. In general, try to ask these questions when posting:

-Does this post have any personal insults?
-Does this post address the general content of the original blog post, even if in a tangential way, or does it simply address conflicts carried over from elsewhere?
-Do all disagreements within this post focus on ideas, or are there comments about personal character?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, you may want to reconsider before posting.

No one is categorically banned from posting, with the exception of a single individual. And this person never, ever follows these guidelines anyway, so it's a moot point.

I have in the past approved comments from people who I generally disagree with, and I've also not approved comments from people who I generally like and agree with.

I exercise a certain amount of discretion in approving posts and I don't claim to have the system down perfectly. But these basic guidelines do, IMHO, a great deal to improve the level of discourse here.

Links & Things

A collection of links and some odds and ends that I don't feel like giving their own post:

Why Glee Makes Me Want to Kill Someone by zhenya

Recognition at FWD/Forward

Interview with an Autistic Child at A Life Less Ordinary

Age of Autism Exploits Tragedy at Rethinking Autism

(Shocking, I know)

Autism Women's Network at blogtalkradio: Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Autism and Cross Disability Communities

I have issues with some of the ways in which this material is presented, but it's great to see people talking about this.

-After missing last week's episode of Parenthood, I watched this week, only to be annoyed and un-entertained again. More "woe is me, I have an autistic child" dramatizing, more cliches and sappiness.

But I have to admit that I was personally hoping that Sydney would turn out to be on the spectrum, too.

Why? Well, because having more than one autistic character in one work shows audiences that not all autistic people are alike--including those who share an "Asperger's" designation. It also helps to avoid stereotypes, as perhaps writers won't feel compelled to shoe-horn every single autistic trait into one character, as so many do. I actually think the Parenthood writers have been doing a fairly good job in presenting a believable character so far, but it can't hurt to have another character. And a girl! Girls and women on the spectrum are so rarely represented and I was kind of hoping there'd be a concrete example. Alas, no.

Some people might say that Sydney's characterization thus far isn't consistent with being on the spectrum, but I wouldn't be so quick to make that judgment. In particular, her experiences with the intolerable Harmony (daughter of the intolerable Raquel) remind me of my own early social experiences being domineered by other girls. Always being, figuratively, the servant to the other girl's princess feels eerily familiar to me.

The reactions of the parents when they heard Sydney was "gifted," and the contrast to the fears that something was "wrong" with her were very telling (and obnoxious). I guess it's better to have problems in school because you are Super Special and Gifted than it is to have a disability. Just...no. I personally consider giftedness to be a special need of a kind, but I loathe the ways in which society treats giftedness and disability so differently. When really there are numerous similarities. Gifted students, students with disabilities, and those who are both, all need a more individualized education than that which is typically provided.

-On another distressing Parenthood note, I found out from a commentator on a previous post that an upcoming episode will feature an "Autism Speaks" walk. This move is sure to take the show from being patronizing of autistic people to being downright insulting. Good work, guys.

-As April winds to a close, I realize there have been relatively few outright Horrible and Terrible "awareness" campaigns. Have self-advocates finally gotten through to the "awareness" brigade? Have we reached a media saturation point on autism? Hard to say.

Children Made to Order

I have been quite troubled by the media coverage of the recent tragedy involving a seven-year old Russian adoptee whose adoptive mother sent him back to Russia--on a plane, with no one waiting for him at the other end. In addition to the explicit disability-related issues which are being poorly handled, I can't help but notice the parallels between the adoption discourse and the autism discourse. In both cases the focus is ostensibly on "children," but really ends up being more about parents. The voices of adults with first-hand experience (of adoption or autism) tend to be absent.

As an adult transnational adoptee blogger at Harlow's Monkey writes:

Why are no mainstream media outlets asking how this is going to affect the child in question? Why have no media outlets asked an adult person who was adopted internationally and "disrupted?"

ADOPTEES HAVE FEELINGS! Plus, guess what? Some of us are experts in adoption disruptions. Want to know what it feels like to be an adoptee who was kicked out by their adoptive parents? There actually are a lot who could answer that question for you.

This is the essence of what many autistic adults have been saying as well. For both adoption and autism, there is a prominent cultural narrative which treats parents as saints and martyrs, often refusing to acknowledge that said parents might sometimes make mistakes. Would it be socially acceptable for a parent to put any other seven year-old child on a transcontinental flight with no one waiting at the other end? Would it be acceptable for a parent to decide to return another child like a car that doesn't work correctly? Yet because this child is adopted, and coded by his adoptive mother as "violent," "unstable," and "disturbed," the ethics of the situation are apparently up for debate. Defenses of the mother's actions appear in mainstream publications. The actual child's perspective? Well, apparently that's just not very important. Most of the coverage I've seen quite explicitly identifies itself with the "mother," by which I mean that it looks at the situation from the perspective of adoptive parents exclusively, being inherently sympathetic towards them. But not towards adopted children themselves, apparently.

This is one more example of how children in general--and "abnormal" children in particular--are objectified as commodities. Like commodities, children are intended to fulfill parents' fantasies of happiness and "normality." When a child turns out to be different than expected, they can expect to be treated as "broken"--and, as in this case, even returned to the sender. (For another example of the normality-fetishizing discourse, see this thread on WrongPlanet.)

As Harlow's Monkey writes:

We are not packages to be sent back because we didn't come according to standardized factory specifications. Maybe we should start putting consumer warning labels on children:

Warning: Hand made. Each one is different, therefore no two will be alike. Actual product may differ from the one shown in advertisement. NO RETURNS.

This particular case presents a clear example of the intersection between adoption discourse and children with disabilities discourse. Please note that this has nothing to do with whether the boy in question "actually" has a diagnosable psychiatric disability. That's besides the point. The pertinent fact is that the adoptive "mother" has justified her actions on the grounds that "this child is mentally unstable. He is violent and has severe psychopathic issues/behaviors" (direct quote). This kind of dehumanizing, faux-medical* vocabulary is commonly used to describe people with psychiatric and/or neurological disabilities. And, apparently, to justify our being treated in ways which would be unthinkable for a "normal" child.

*"Psychopathic"? Really?

TV Tonight

I think I'll be watching Glee rather than Parenthood tonight. Because while Glee also brings the ableism fail (in addition to the race fail, sexuality fail, etc.), at least it manages to be entertaining while doing so. I can't say the same of Parenthood, sadly.

Constance McMillen and Thoughts on Invisibility

I've been following the story of Constance McMillen, a teenager who was denied access to her high school prom for daring to be an out lesbian, with interest. (Readers may recall that I've briefly commented on the situation previously.)

Constance's story and nerve is an inspiration to us all. It truly illustrates that teenagers from marginalized groups can be powerful self-advocates. Given the rank bigotry and harassment she has been subjected to from many of her classmates, it's certainly important for those of us who believe in equality and justice to publicly express our support for Constance. I suspect that she has inspired other young people to speak out against injustice. While unfortunately the high school and its surrounding community stubbornly refused to allow Constance to exercise her civil rights, I hope this highly publicized incident will cause other high schools to think twice before sanctioning "No Gays Allowed" events.

But Constance wasn't the only student who was excluded by being sent to a segregated prom. As her account of the separate-and-unequal prom indicates, at least two students with learning disabilities were among those who received inequitable treatment. Unfortunately, too many accounts of the situation are focusing exclusively on Constance, a non-disabled student (presumably), while paying little or no attention to the disabled students who were also excluded.

Ableism and homophobia are both harmful, oppressive systems in need of being combated. Everyone has the right to be fully included in society. It's time for people devoted to dismantling bigotry to focus on all forms of oppression and exclusion.

Miscellaneous Thoughts on Parenthood

Some random, unorganized thoughts about NBC's Parenthood: (this may not make very much sense to readers unfamiliar with the series)

-I would not be watching this show anymore were it not for my concern for how we (autistics) are being portrayed in popular media. The show is very trite, cliched, and not particularly compelling in general, after six episodes. It's hard to get that excited about what's going to happen to this (rather uninteresting) family when you know that everything will somehow become (temporarily) solved during the last ten minutes, with sappy music playing in the background. Even the divine Lauren Graham can't save this for me as a story.

-The parts of the most recent episode involving Max receiving behavioral therapy were extremely uncomfortable for me. It just seemed really icky and coercive and geared towards normalization. (With a large helping of more woe-is-me autism mother trope on the side.) Just...urgh.

-Shockingly (or not), the behavioral therapist turns out to be a Magical Therapist who not only helps Max play with another child, but gives soothing advice to his mom--allaying her fears and improving her sex life. All in one afternoon!

It really bothers me to see people who work with autistic people portrayed as saints with no obvious flaws, which is what this therapist character (Gabby) seems to be so far. Because obviously anyone who would choose to work with autistic people must be a saint, by definition. Far too many people actually believe that kind of nonsense, which obscures the very real power which therapists hold over their clients, and the very real potential (and actuality) of abuse. It's just really, really uncomfortable. Pretty Nice Behavioral Therapist Girl holds power over the children she works with.

-I have a serious dislike for Max's parents, thanks in large part to all of the woe-is-me-for-not-having-a-normal-child moping.

-Julia is one of the few adult characters I find myself at all sympathetic to, but the storyline between her and Raquel is just tired and tedious. Why must everything come back down to the stay at home mom vs. career mom thing? When, really, the idea that one should not flirt with someone else's spouse is really quite basic and has nothing to do with all of that crap.

-A love triangle plot between the mom, "rebellious" teenage daughter, and the English teacher? Really? (And why is it always the English teacher, anyway? Why not chemistry or history, ever?)

-I found myself hoping that the show would address the issue of Crosby's son being multiracial and how the lily-white family might react to that. Naturally, this issue has received no attention whatsoever thus far.

-Similarly, I was hoping we might get some commentary about discrimination against autistic people. Last week's episode in which we see several people condescending to Max seemed to suggest such an idea, but we didn't get anything more than a sappy ending, as per usual. Sigh.

Overall, I just don't understand the appeal of this show. Granted I'm not in the targeted demographic, not being a parent, but I can't imagine that many actual parents are enthralled by this trite crap, either. Real life does not magically fix itself at the end of each episode!

To Explain a Bit...

A number of readers expressed confusion at my most recent post. For some clarification as to what's going on, I recommend almandite's take on the situation. (Yes, I'm biased, but aren't we all?)

I hope to resume regular blogging soon, but I just don't have the heart to do so right now.

Direct All Tomatoes Here

I would like to leave a space for people to comment on recent events. Comments are, as always, moderated. Personal attacks on myself and other commentators are unacceptable.