Hi guys it's FALLACY WEEK! Every day you get some fallacy action from a post I made a super long time ago at LOVE-NOS.
The Contest Fallacy
JOHN: It makes me upset when my parents always say that they wish I wasn’t disabled.
MARY: But that’s totally legit. It limits what you can do with your life and it means things are going to be harder for you.
JOHN: I mean, I get that, but how would you feel if your parents were always saying they wish you weren’t a woman because things are harder for women?
MARY: That’s so stupid, John. Being a woman and being disabled aren’t the same thing!
or
JOHN: I’m not saying that parents don’t have a right to say if they’re upset about their kids being autistic, but, like…it’s basically like if every time there was something on TV or in a magazine about gay people, it was gay people’s parents saying that they wish their kid could be straight and how depressed they are.
MARY: Can’t you explain how you feel without doing Oppression Olympics? People try to make their kids straight all the time. Haven’t you ever heard of Love in Action?
Rebuttal:
In both examples, John tried to explain how he feels about something as a disabled person by replacing disabled people with a group that Mary belongs to; but Mary either turned it into a contest between the two groups, or thought that John was trying to have a contest.
The first example is easier to take apart because it’s obvious how much of a subject change there is from John’s analogy to Mary’s response. John was trying to explain that your parents can imagine an easy life for you to an extent that makes your real life much harder. Mary responded as if John was saying that because women and disabled people both have harder lives, they are exactly the same.
The second example is more tricky to discuss because it involves an accusation of Oppression Olympics. Oppression Olympics basically means that you say that your minority group has it worse than another minority group. Sometimes people do it intentionally in a conflict, but other people just have a lot of trouble understanding that the problems of the group they’re advocating for are not worse than the problems of everyone else in the world. Hence the astonishingly self-centered, and astonishingly common, declaration that whatever prejudice you care about it is “the last acceptable prejudice.”
Basically, Oppression Olympics is really annoying. You don’t want to do it. But was John doing it? Let’s think back.
Did John say that gay people aren’t oppressed?
Did he say that people with autism are more oppressed than gay people?
Did he say that gay people’s parents never try to make them straight?
No, he didn’t say any of those things.
He did state that the majority of media about gay people is not about parents wanting to cure their gay kids, which is true. Such a statement could be used in Oppression Olympics, if John was trying to argue that he is more oppressed than Mary–but in fact, rather than trying to “win” by convincing her that their oppressions are on different levels, he was trying to explain his experience in a way that would be accessible to her through her experience. It’s perfectly likely that his intentions were to connect with her, not to be malicious and deny her experience as a gay person.
I do think this can be a little dodgy, and the best way to make this kind of analogy is by comparing two groups that you belong to. However, not everyone can do this; and while John made a risky comparison, he was not wrong.
Showing posts with label oppression olympics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oppression olympics. Show all posts
22 June, 2011
16 June, 2011
What should I know about autism that I'm not learning from pop culture?
from my disability page here
I feel like American pop culture is obsessed with autism. It is obsessed with two kinds of autism: very severe autism, which it thinks is kids hitting their heads, and mild autism, which it thinks is people who act weird and are socially impaired. In America and some other places, a person with autism can make a ton of money writing a book about having autism, especially if they make it sound as exotic as possible.
I'm a pretty good writer, and I have autism, but I think I will try to make money in other ways. I find it hard to write about having autism, especially if I have to make it sound exotic. It doesn't feel exotic to me since it is my life.* Also, as everyone knows, being asked "What is it like being gay?" or "What is it like being a middle child?" is very confusing, because you don't know what a lifelong situation is "like" because things have never been any other way. I feel like it's kind of a betrayal of yourself to write a really sensational book about a disability you have always had.
Anyway, I'm just trying to say that I'm not going to spend a lot of time writing about "what autism is like for me" or "what autism is." There are lots of places you can read that (some of them good). But this one page is an exception because I really just want to talk about the pop culture portrayal of mild autism/Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism and AS are not really synonyms, but whatever, pop culture thinks they are). I want to explain why it's not correct.
Lots of people think "Asperger's" is a purely social disability.
According to pop culture, people with "Asperger's" do some strange/geeky things, and don't understand other people's feelings, and don't have any friends. And that's all that "Asperger's" is.
This is fucked up because it's not true. First of all, it leaves out some really difficult parts of living with autism, and leads people to think that mild autism isn't a real disability. Second of all, it means that the severity of an ASD person's disability is often judged by how socially successful they are. This means that if a person has friends and/or seems "normal," other people won't believe that they are disabled, even if the person has a lot of other problems.
What are those other problems?
Well, one of them is called "executive dysfunction." I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on dysexecutive syndrome, which is a disorder caused by a brain injury, but is very similar to what ASD people experience. Executive dysfunction affects many people with developmental disabilities and is a huge issue for every Autistic person I know, but it hasn't been studied very much and isn't officially considered to be part of autism. (I'm guessing this is because so many studies are done on kids, who have a lot of decisions made for them and therefore aren't going to show executive dysfunction as clearly.)
Also some people with autism have trouble transitioning from one activity to the next, have anxiety problems, have intellectual disabilities, have depression, have sensory issues (get upset by certain sensory experiences, like loud noises or stiff clothes), get upset unless everything is a certain way, or have trouble talking. (Trouble talking can mean a lot of things, like having trouble pronouncing words so people can understand them, having trouble putting together clear sentences, not being able to talk at all when you're upset, or talking in a style that other people react badly to.)
One reason I like to say I have autism instead of saying I have "Asperger's," even though there is a stereotype that autism means severe autism and there is a ridiculous stereotype of what severe autism is: my problems are mostly related to executive dysfunction, anxiety, transitions, and having trouble talking. At least the stereotype of severe autism includes people being upset, not liking change, and not being able to talk or take care of themselves. Even though it's overblown, it's more like what my actual problems are than the "Asperger's" stereotype.
YOU MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS??
Okay dude, here's the thing:
1. Lots of people with disabilities have social problems. Especially people who have developmental delays, because when they're in school, they may not have the skills or interests that other people their age have. Actually, for people with autism, it isn't always that we seem too young; some people with autism seem too old because they are self-educated and know about things that other kids don't know about, or "talk like an old person." But it can go either way. Or both ways in one person. Talking differently or having different interests can make it hard to fit in.
2. Lots of people who don't have disabilities like to ostracize people who are disabled. Some people with mild autism do things that "look disabled" like flapping their arms or clapping their hands when they're excited or running around all the time. This means that many non-disabled people aren't going to want to be friends with them.
3. Some people with autism may want to talk about the same things all the time, or always do activities that are related to those things. There are actually lots of subcultures that are accessible to a person like that, but the average non-Autistic person will want to do a variety of activities, and won't get along with such a person.
4. Some people with autism have very strong feelings and may scare people they want to be friends with, because they are really affectionate and want to spend a lot of time with them right away.
5. Some non-Autistic people may not understand why a person with autism isn't looking them in the eye, or doesn't want to hang out because it would mean breaking their routine. This means that they may think the person with autism doesn't want to be friends with them, when the person actually does.
6. Some people with autism may be shy and anxious as a result of being bullied when they were younger. They may also be kind of self-conscious and distant if they're trying really hard to hide the fact that they are disabled. This can make it hard to make friends.
I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure autism doesn't cause people to have trouble sensing other people's emotions, but there a lot of aspects of autism that could keep someone from being socially successful. I think it's very reductive to say that "Asperger's means a person is socially impaired/doesn't understand other people's feelings/can't make friends."
When I was 16, I was kicked out of a study of ASD kids because the study was about how to make someone better at reading facial expressions, and I was judged to already be good at reading facial expressions. But despite that, I had a lot of social problems at that age, and still have some now.
What is a better way to think about autism?
(In making up this fake question for myself to answer, I'm thinking about a better way than really sensational books and very special episodes of TV shows saying that people with mild autism are super genius geek robots who don't care about other people's feelings, or don't know that other people's feelings exist.)
I wish that autism was more strongly associated with intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation). This isn't because some people with autism have ID, although that's true. It's just because I think there are a lot of similarities: a person with autism, ID, or both is born into the world with a certain disability that they will always have. They will develop some skills later than other people. Depending on the severity of their disability, there may be some things they will always need help with. They may have trouble fitting in with other people. They may be abused by other people for being different. They may end up in situations they don't understand (and of course, people may assume they don't understand things they really do understand). They may have trouble taking care of themselves. They may have trouble talking.
This isn't interesting. It's not something to write a book about--which isn't to say that people with autism, or ID, don't often lead interesting lives. But their impairments alone are not interesting. They're just a part of life.
This is not to deny that people with intellectual disabilities are treated terribly in our society, in a different way from people with autism. I'm jealous that they're not seen as curiosities because of their disability, but the awful side is that they are often seen as not interesting at all in a pervasive way. Non-disabled people just want them to be completely kept out of sight. Non-disabled people insult each other using the word "retard" as if it doesn't refer to any real group of marginalized people. Non-disabled people are surprised to learn that a person with an intellectual disability can be funny or cool, and they do their best to avoid finding that out.
However, once people are actually forced to spend time with a person who has ID, such as by being their parent, I think they are more likely to accept the person for who they are and work around the impairments the person has. This isn't really the case with autism. And I think that the movement for people with ID to be treated equally is in a lot of ways ahead of the movement for people with autism, because of this acceptance. At least there are many organizations that encourage people with ID to speak up for themselves--whereas most people with autism are encouraged only to speak about themselves.
*I admit I'm being kind of a bitch what with constantly declaring that I'm not interested in writing about what autism is like. I mean, I know that some people have been recently diagnosed and they are very interested in reading about what autism is and what it's like, which is legit and I don't want to be critical of anyone who's in that situation and happens to wander over here looking for help. I just tend to be really snarky about this stuff because I really don't like the cultural trend of people with autism being expected to educate non-disabled people about autism. But if you actually have autism and want to talk about it, you should get in contact with me on tumblr or gmail or something.
I feel like American pop culture is obsessed with autism. It is obsessed with two kinds of autism: very severe autism, which it thinks is kids hitting their heads, and mild autism, which it thinks is people who act weird and are socially impaired. In America and some other places, a person with autism can make a ton of money writing a book about having autism, especially if they make it sound as exotic as possible.
I'm a pretty good writer, and I have autism, but I think I will try to make money in other ways. I find it hard to write about having autism, especially if I have to make it sound exotic. It doesn't feel exotic to me since it is my life.* Also, as everyone knows, being asked "What is it like being gay?" or "What is it like being a middle child?" is very confusing, because you don't know what a lifelong situation is "like" because things have never been any other way. I feel like it's kind of a betrayal of yourself to write a really sensational book about a disability you have always had.
Anyway, I'm just trying to say that I'm not going to spend a lot of time writing about "what autism is like for me" or "what autism is." There are lots of places you can read that (some of them good). But this one page is an exception because I really just want to talk about the pop culture portrayal of mild autism/Asperger's Syndrome (mild autism and AS are not really synonyms, but whatever, pop culture thinks they are). I want to explain why it's not correct.
Lots of people think "Asperger's" is a purely social disability.
According to pop culture, people with "Asperger's" do some strange/geeky things, and don't understand other people's feelings, and don't have any friends. And that's all that "Asperger's" is.
This is fucked up because it's not true. First of all, it leaves out some really difficult parts of living with autism, and leads people to think that mild autism isn't a real disability. Second of all, it means that the severity of an ASD person's disability is often judged by how socially successful they are. This means that if a person has friends and/or seems "normal," other people won't believe that they are disabled, even if the person has a lot of other problems.
What are those other problems?
Well, one of them is called "executive dysfunction." I recommend reading the Wikipedia page on dysexecutive syndrome, which is a disorder caused by a brain injury, but is very similar to what ASD people experience. Executive dysfunction affects many people with developmental disabilities and is a huge issue for every Autistic person I know, but it hasn't been studied very much and isn't officially considered to be part of autism. (I'm guessing this is because so many studies are done on kids, who have a lot of decisions made for them and therefore aren't going to show executive dysfunction as clearly.)
Also some people with autism have trouble transitioning from one activity to the next, have anxiety problems, have intellectual disabilities, have depression, have sensory issues (get upset by certain sensory experiences, like loud noises or stiff clothes), get upset unless everything is a certain way, or have trouble talking. (Trouble talking can mean a lot of things, like having trouble pronouncing words so people can understand them, having trouble putting together clear sentences, not being able to talk at all when you're upset, or talking in a style that other people react badly to.)
One reason I like to say I have autism instead of saying I have "Asperger's," even though there is a stereotype that autism means severe autism and there is a ridiculous stereotype of what severe autism is: my problems are mostly related to executive dysfunction, anxiety, transitions, and having trouble talking. At least the stereotype of severe autism includes people being upset, not liking change, and not being able to talk or take care of themselves. Even though it's overblown, it's more like what my actual problems are than the "Asperger's" stereotype.
YOU MEAN YOU DON'T HAVE SOCIAL PROBLEMS??
Okay dude, here's the thing:
1. Lots of people with disabilities have social problems. Especially people who have developmental delays, because when they're in school, they may not have the skills or interests that other people their age have. Actually, for people with autism, it isn't always that we seem too young; some people with autism seem too old because they are self-educated and know about things that other kids don't know about, or "talk like an old person." But it can go either way. Or both ways in one person. Talking differently or having different interests can make it hard to fit in.
2. Lots of people who don't have disabilities like to ostracize people who are disabled. Some people with mild autism do things that "look disabled" like flapping their arms or clapping their hands when they're excited or running around all the time. This means that many non-disabled people aren't going to want to be friends with them.
3. Some people with autism may want to talk about the same things all the time, or always do activities that are related to those things. There are actually lots of subcultures that are accessible to a person like that, but the average non-Autistic person will want to do a variety of activities, and won't get along with such a person.
4. Some people with autism have very strong feelings and may scare people they want to be friends with, because they are really affectionate and want to spend a lot of time with them right away.
5. Some non-Autistic people may not understand why a person with autism isn't looking them in the eye, or doesn't want to hang out because it would mean breaking their routine. This means that they may think the person with autism doesn't want to be friends with them, when the person actually does.
6. Some people with autism may be shy and anxious as a result of being bullied when they were younger. They may also be kind of self-conscious and distant if they're trying really hard to hide the fact that they are disabled. This can make it hard to make friends.
I'm not saying that I'm 100% sure autism doesn't cause people to have trouble sensing other people's emotions, but there a lot of aspects of autism that could keep someone from being socially successful. I think it's very reductive to say that "Asperger's means a person is socially impaired/doesn't understand other people's feelings/can't make friends."
When I was 16, I was kicked out of a study of ASD kids because the study was about how to make someone better at reading facial expressions, and I was judged to already be good at reading facial expressions. But despite that, I had a lot of social problems at that age, and still have some now.
What is a better way to think about autism?
(In making up this fake question for myself to answer, I'm thinking about a better way than really sensational books and very special episodes of TV shows saying that people with mild autism are super genius geek robots who don't care about other people's feelings, or don't know that other people's feelings exist.)
I wish that autism was more strongly associated with intellectual disability (formerly known as mental retardation). This isn't because some people with autism have ID, although that's true. It's just because I think there are a lot of similarities: a person with autism, ID, or both is born into the world with a certain disability that they will always have. They will develop some skills later than other people. Depending on the severity of their disability, there may be some things they will always need help with. They may have trouble fitting in with other people. They may be abused by other people for being different. They may end up in situations they don't understand (and of course, people may assume they don't understand things they really do understand). They may have trouble taking care of themselves. They may have trouble talking.
This isn't interesting. It's not something to write a book about--which isn't to say that people with autism, or ID, don't often lead interesting lives. But their impairments alone are not interesting. They're just a part of life.
This is not to deny that people with intellectual disabilities are treated terribly in our society, in a different way from people with autism. I'm jealous that they're not seen as curiosities because of their disability, but the awful side is that they are often seen as not interesting at all in a pervasive way. Non-disabled people just want them to be completely kept out of sight. Non-disabled people insult each other using the word "retard" as if it doesn't refer to any real group of marginalized people. Non-disabled people are surprised to learn that a person with an intellectual disability can be funny or cool, and they do their best to avoid finding that out.
However, once people are actually forced to spend time with a person who has ID, such as by being their parent, I think they are more likely to accept the person for who they are and work around the impairments the person has. This isn't really the case with autism. And I think that the movement for people with ID to be treated equally is in a lot of ways ahead of the movement for people with autism, because of this acceptance. At least there are many organizations that encourage people with ID to speak up for themselves--whereas most people with autism are encouraged only to speak about themselves.
*I admit I'm being kind of a bitch what with constantly declaring that I'm not interested in writing about what autism is like. I mean, I know that some people have been recently diagnosed and they are very interested in reading about what autism is and what it's like, which is legit and I don't want to be critical of anyone who's in that situation and happens to wander over here looking for help. I just tend to be really snarky about this stuff because I really don't like the cultural trend of people with autism being expected to educate non-disabled people about autism. But if you actually have autism and want to talk about it, you should get in contact with me on tumblr or gmail or something.
13 November, 2010
olympics
I remember feeling annoyed by some of the comments on Ari's Wired interview in the ontd_political community on LiveJournal. Basically the interviewer wrote something like, "Imagine a world where most of the public discussion of homosexuality was about curing it." And everybody flipped out and was like, "but that IS what it's like!! Oppression Olympics!"
First of all, the interviewer is gay, which I think matters. His experience as a gay person obviously hasn't led him to feel that most of the public discussion of homosexuality is about curing it, or he wouldn't have made that analogy. I understand commenters may not have known he was gay, but they assumed he wasn't. And I think the fact that a gay person made that analogy indicates that "public discussion of homosexuality is mostly about curing it" is a disingenuous statement in the US. I wouldn't make that analogy just because I don't think it's particularly helpful (plus I'd expect all the Oppression Olympics accusations), but as a gay person I don't think the basis of the analogy is untrue. Of course SSA people are oppressed but I think we moved out of the medical model a long time ago, which is a triumph.
I was also really pissed because at one point one of these people said, "Hey, people get KILLED for being gay, that's not a fair comparison." Getting pissed at someone else for doing Oppression Olympics on what you claim is not a true assumption, and then starting your own Oppression Olympics round based on an assumption that is incredibly untrue, and obviously so to anyone who's engaged with disability issues...is way way worse than what Steve Silberman did.
Oppression Olympics--let's call it "comparing oppressions" to be a little more measured--is a tricky issue. A few months ago I posted about this person who was saying, "Pop culture is so into portraying autism but eating disorders and depression should be portrayed too." That person's post really frustrated me because they obviously didn't have a good grasp on how autism is being portrayed or how people with autism feels about those portrayals. They didn't have the compassion, or didn't do enough research, and ended up complaining about how good people with autism have it in pop culture compared to them and their friends with psychiatric disabilities.
However, I do think that comparing oppression can sometimes be a good thing. Because I'm queer and disabled I'm obviously aware of things straight and non-disabled people do like "trying to explain alternate points of view and get you to think more objectively." (I'm not going into detail on this, but do you know what I'm talking about?) So I think this means that while I definitely don't "get" what it's like to be a person of color, etc., I'm at least a little more aware of my privilege and try not to go all, "But you're being mean! Think about white people!" This term I have also felt sort of weird in my fiction class because I've felt kind of synced-in to classmates of color's stories which address identity and experiences of oppression, but when my instinct is to respond to those stories as a minority, I worry that it will be rude because they may not read me as a minority or as the same kind of minority as them.
I recently had the interesting experience of saying to someone, "I mean I know comparing oppressions is wrong, but--" and having the other person cut me off: "I don't think it's wrong. I think the only way anyone ever learns anything about someone else's oppression is by having it related to a type of oppression they're familiar with."
Which...damn, I'm sorry, but that is how it's worked for me.
I feel like one way of looking at this is that there are just two different kinds of comparing oppressions and one is trying to prove that someone has it worse than someone else (which I guess you should say is about dividing people), and one is trying to help people understand other people's experiences (which is about allyship and connection), but I think this is really an oversimplified way of putting it, because a lot of the time someone will think they're doing the latter, but other people will feel that they're doing the former. For example, when the Special Olympics did ads where they used racial slurs to try to make people more aware of ableist slurs. That was really fucked up. At the same time I feel like trying to relate ableism to other forms of discrimination can be useful sometimes.
First of all, the interviewer is gay, which I think matters. His experience as a gay person obviously hasn't led him to feel that most of the public discussion of homosexuality is about curing it, or he wouldn't have made that analogy. I understand commenters may not have known he was gay, but they assumed he wasn't. And I think the fact that a gay person made that analogy indicates that "public discussion of homosexuality is mostly about curing it" is a disingenuous statement in the US. I wouldn't make that analogy just because I don't think it's particularly helpful (plus I'd expect all the Oppression Olympics accusations), but as a gay person I don't think the basis of the analogy is untrue. Of course SSA people are oppressed but I think we moved out of the medical model a long time ago, which is a triumph.
I was also really pissed because at one point one of these people said, "Hey, people get KILLED for being gay, that's not a fair comparison." Getting pissed at someone else for doing Oppression Olympics on what you claim is not a true assumption, and then starting your own Oppression Olympics round based on an assumption that is incredibly untrue, and obviously so to anyone who's engaged with disability issues...is way way worse than what Steve Silberman did.
Oppression Olympics--let's call it "comparing oppressions" to be a little more measured--is a tricky issue. A few months ago I posted about this person who was saying, "Pop culture is so into portraying autism but eating disorders and depression should be portrayed too." That person's post really frustrated me because they obviously didn't have a good grasp on how autism is being portrayed or how people with autism feels about those portrayals. They didn't have the compassion, or didn't do enough research, and ended up complaining about how good people with autism have it in pop culture compared to them and their friends with psychiatric disabilities.
However, I do think that comparing oppression can sometimes be a good thing. Because I'm queer and disabled I'm obviously aware of things straight and non-disabled people do like "trying to explain alternate points of view and get you to think more objectively." (I'm not going into detail on this, but do you know what I'm talking about?) So I think this means that while I definitely don't "get" what it's like to be a person of color, etc., I'm at least a little more aware of my privilege and try not to go all, "But you're being mean! Think about white people!" This term I have also felt sort of weird in my fiction class because I've felt kind of synced-in to classmates of color's stories which address identity and experiences of oppression, but when my instinct is to respond to those stories as a minority, I worry that it will be rude because they may not read me as a minority or as the same kind of minority as them.
I recently had the interesting experience of saying to someone, "I mean I know comparing oppressions is wrong, but--" and having the other person cut me off: "I don't think it's wrong. I think the only way anyone ever learns anything about someone else's oppression is by having it related to a type of oppression they're familiar with."
Which...damn, I'm sorry, but that is how it's worked for me.
I feel like one way of looking at this is that there are just two different kinds of comparing oppressions and one is trying to prove that someone has it worse than someone else (which I guess you should say is about dividing people), and one is trying to help people understand other people's experiences (which is about allyship and connection), but I think this is really an oversimplified way of putting it, because a lot of the time someone will think they're doing the latter, but other people will feel that they're doing the former. For example, when the Special Olympics did ads where they used racial slurs to try to make people more aware of ableist slurs. That was really fucked up. At the same time I feel like trying to relate ableism to other forms of discrimination can be useful sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
