TH came to me last night and asked, "Is my mouth bleeding?"
Monday, November 9, 2009
The secret's out
Posted by
Emily
at
12:00 PM
10
comments
Links to this post
Labels: anxiety, asperger's, autism, bullies, differences, dubya, friends, interaction, mockery, parenting, school, snakes, TH
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Sugar bombs
I know that "studies indicate" that sugar doesn't affect a child's behavior (they're obviously not including my children in these studies, and probably not yours, either). Regardless of what those folks find, we've seen clearly that sugar--of the refined or high-fructose corn syrup variety--sets off sugar bombs in our household that release so much energy, I fully expect to see only three tiny dense white dwarves left behind once it's over.
Posted by
Emily
at
2:17 PM
9
comments
Links to this post
Labels: dubya, emily, entertainment, family, food, ice cream, little da, parenting, TH
Friday, November 6, 2009
Sigh. R-word still OK if "modern slang"
There is a blog called...get ready...Retarded in Love. (link has been removed). It's written by a very very young person who thinks she can order her life Just. So. She's got a to-do list that includes getting pregnant on schedule and having, presumably, perfect and lovely healthy children. Dust off hands. All done.
It would be thoughtful of you to change the title of your blog...yes, this probably comes across as uptight oldness or just plain uptight, but people who actually are labeled as retarded cannot defend themselves when someone uses this term for amusement. While the word itself should not be used as a label, it is still, and we all know exactly what it means. It's painful to people who love someone who is intellectually disabled to see a word like this used for humor by someone who is patently not intellectually disabled. If you must use a term that refers to cognitive deficiency as a result of being overwhelmed by love or made a fool of by love, I suggest "Stupid, " as in "Stupid in Love." God knows that's enough of a norm to avoid being offensive.
I realize my blog has come up as a topic on Twitter. I am going to give you the same response I just gave to my last e-mailer.
As long as I've had my blog, I'm sure you know you're not the first person to e-mail me something along these lines.
In my previous experience in debates with others, it comes down to this: agree to disagree. Here's why.
I am not calling any person retarded. In fact, if anything, I am only calling myself retarded. I am not even calling an animal, object, or idea retarded. I am using the word "retarded" in the way of modern slang, without directing it at anyone with the intention of harming feelings. So, the way I see it, it's just others choosing to be offended by my title - it is not being offered that way.
There are plenty of "normal" blog titles I could choose to be offended by, but I choose not to be so sensitive. It's really up to my visitors how far they want to take the meaning behind my title - and if they don't like it, they certainly don't have to come back, or support my blog in any way.
Posted by
Emily
at
5:55 PM
14
comments
Links to this post
Labels: blogs, bullies, communication, differences, emily, ethics
Autism moms: Are you girly-girls?
I have a reason for asking this question. For several years, I posted on a community message board using a gender-neutral handle. I didn't do it on purpose...it was just the handle I chose. Most women who posted on that site did use handles that indicated their sex, with terms like "babe" or "girl" or "Mrs" or the occasional "Ms" in them. And for a long time--in fact, until I myself revealed my sex--people assumed that I was male. They never figured out based on what I wrote or the way I wrote that I was (still am!) female.
Posted by
Emily
at
10:52 AM
7
comments
Links to this post
Labels: assessments, autism, bullies, differences, emily, friends, science
Reading the signs
Like a lot of kids, autistic or not, TH is not very good at articulating his feelings. In fact, he may not even be aware that he's having these feelings, yet he shows that they're there in many ways. We always know that something, something is on his mind when he silently materializes downstairs in the evenings, well after his bedtime, just to sit by me and hum or coo. We know there's really something going on when he wants me to come upstairs later and lie down to talk to him. And now we've got a new sign: he wants to come sleep next to me.
Posted by
Emily
at
8:41 AM
4
comments
Links to this post
Labels: anxiety, asperger's, autism, communication, family, parenting, TH
Thursday, November 5, 2009
TH is angry?
If you know TH or have read enough about him here, you know that anger isn't an emotion he expresses a lot or even very clearly. His version of anger is to squinch up his face in a grimace for about 2 seconds. Then, the feeling appears to pass immediately, and he moves on.
Posted by
Emily
at
8:54 AM
8
comments
Links to this post
Labels: anxiety, autism, communication, dubya, exclamation points, friends, obsession, parenting, school, siblings, teenagers, TH, time
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Bullying?
TH may be experiencing a little bit of bullying again at school. There are signs. Yesterday, he got in the car, made some vague allusions to children saying "violent" things to him, and then proceeded to be off the hook for the rest of the day: vocalizing, nonstop movement, flapping, completely out of focus. Homework was quite an adventure.
He experiences bullying for the usual reasons, and he experiences the usual kinds of bullying. Sometimes, it's kids who "trick" him into doing something that he thinks he's doing for its inherent humor but that really is just making a fool out of him. Other times, it's more direct--taunting, threats, that kind of stuff.
So...and now this is about me...given my hyperawareness of bullying and my utter distaste for sadism of any kind, I'm a tad bemused by accusations of bullying I and others have been receiving over on a couple of BlogHer or BlogHer-related posts about vaccines. It's weird to me to be accused of bullying, and I honestly don't even understand how women interacting virtually, with me on one side and a handful on the other, can call anything about this situation "bullying." And how on God's green earth could I, by myself, or other posters, by themselves, be bullying them? I don't know. Where I come from, exchanges involving disagreement are just that: exchanges. Discussions. Conversations. I'm there contributing factual information (sure, I'm blunt, but not personal at all), making the occasional ironic aside. How does that perspective on my part or the part of anyone else cross the line into...bullying?
Curious about the accuracy of the accusations, I turned to Google U to find out what the expert and dictionary definitions of bullying are. I know it when I see it, but...what is it, really? Wikipedia tells us that, "Bullying is repeated acts over time that involves a real or perceived imbalance of power with the more powerful child or group attacking those who are less powerful." Um...nope. That doesn't fit.
An education site quotes Tattum and Tattum (1992; no idea who they are) as follows: "Bullying is the wilful, conscious desire to hurt another and put him/her under stress." Nope. That's not it, either. Hurting people is not my thing. Not even people I almost hate, and certainly not people I don't even know. This site goes on to say that "bullying occurs when there is an imbalance of power." Hmmm. Our powers all appear to be the same. We all seem to be cognitively functional, able to type, form sentences, argue, use the Internets.
Realpsychology.com defines bully thusly: "an intentional act of aggression, based on an imbalance of power, that is meant to harm a victim either physically or psychologically. Bullies usually operate alone or in small groups and choose to victimize individuals who they perceive as vulnerable." Again...no one involved here seems to be a vulnerable population. No one seems to be at some kind of disadvantage. In other words, we all seem to be fully capable. And on my part, at least, there is certainly a complete lack of intention. Yes, we are women arguing, something I've already addressed recently. But bullying? Oh, hell no.
Bullying, in my opinion, isn't a word to throw around lightly. It's serious. It demeans, it degrades, it demoralizes. It's power wielded sadistically against a weaker target, something any one of us has the capacity to do and the choice not to do. It's what happens to my son on the playground or at school or in the swimming pool or at birthday parties, targeted for his vulnerabilities in ways that give sadistic pleasure to the perpetrators. I know bullying when I see it, and sisters, this online exchange over vaccines ain't it.
Posted by
Emily
at
1:14 PM
9
comments
Links to this post
Labels: blogs, bullies, communication, differences, emily, ethics, language, school, TH, vaccines, writing
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Mercola "Facts" poster
OK...there's a huge Mercola article alleging that the H1N1 pandemic is a "massive" illusion (created by, presumably, very large magicians with great big scary magic wands). I'm pondering tackling the entire article, but meanwhile, I think it'd be OK if I took on the "fact" sheet they offer to anyone who'd like to print it and hang it up in their communities. See below each "fact" (there's really only one true--in intent and content--fact on there) and my parsing of it. I'd aver that if this list of 10 "facts" has something squirrelly about it, that lengthy tome accompanying it might have a wee bit o' the rodent about it, too. We could start with their obvious incapacity to understand the definition of "pandemic."
Monday, November 2, 2009
No more Aspergers? Poor Hans.
Forget the vaccine-misogyny thing! They're about to take away my baby's label!
Posted by
Emily
at
10:10 PM
17
comments
Links to this post
Labels: asperger's, autism, labels, news, TH
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Vaccines, feminism, autism, motherhood
In discussions across the Web, a theme that emerges repeatedly is, "Should a mother have her child vaccinated?" Yes, "balanced" media outlets say "parent," but the reality is that this discussion occurs primarily among mothers. A peek, for example, at the comments on this post over at BlogHer gives you an idea of how the discussions percolate, with the mother having the final decision (and leaves me wondering, "How does one keep 'x-rays to a minimum,' exactly?). Interestingly, in my excursions through commentary on the Internets, I encounter quite a bit of "Dad says yes vs. Mom says no" stories.


