Life, Autism, Disability, and More

Tag Archives: asshole

assholeOn the 15th of January, the Daily Mail (which admittedly doesn’t have the highest journalistic standards) published a lovely little piece by a woman name Carol Sarler with the lovely little title “Why can’t we face the truth? Having an autistic child wrecks your life…

Let me just start by saying…wow. Seriously. A big wow.

This piece is written by a woman who *does not* have an autistic child. Nope. She has a friend who has one, though, so, like anyone who has stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, she’s an expert.

She says that “brave and devoted mothers…have clung to the positives brought into their lives by their children” because when one child with autism is born, then “three generations of lives – I include his own – [are] wrecked, for ever, by his cussed condition.” Yep. Thanks for telling me, dear sweet Carol, that my life is now “wrecked.” It’s good to know that I’m “brave and devoted.”

That’s not enough for her, though. She points out that the parents can’t lead a “normal” life – “how many shops – or, indeed, how many customers – are going to tolerate a child who screams, bites, defecates and destroys everything within reach?”

Ah, I love people like this. The assholes. The ones who believe that anyone with any abnormalities should be locked up, hidden away. Let’s not modify ourselves and help those who are in need. Instead, we should force them to leave the public life and hide themselves away. A Kennedy at heart, perhaps?

Carol’s point is that she believes in eugenics. “…As the debate rages over the possibility of a prenatal test for autism, with abortion then optional. And, so far, most of the argument leans towards such a test being undesirable and unethical.” She even goes on and states that she never asked her friend for her opinion because “…it is hard for a mother retrospectively to wish away a living child who, come what may, she loves. But looking on, as a relatively dispassionate observer; looking at the damage done, the absence of hope and the anguish of the poor child himself, do I think that everyone concerned would have been better off if Tom’s had been a life unlived? Unequivocally, yes.”

To her, it seems to a simple equation: she doesn’t want her life to be “ruined” by her friend having a seven-year-old autistic son. And while she claims that their lives are ruined, we never hear from them and we never see their point of view. It’s her points. Her opinions. Her being a total fucking asshole.

Not sorry for the language. It needed to be said.

When people like Carol can go around making statements like this, we’re mere steps away from letting people with disabilities be sterilized or put in camps or killed. Why stop by letting them be removed from the womb before they’re born?

I’d like to ask her how she feels about testing people for other diseases. If we know a child is going to have cancer, should we abort it? Because, you know, why let the parents get attached if the kid is just going to die later? And what about physical abnormalities. Those make people’s lives harder, too. Why should parents be forced to use wheelchairs for their children? Hmmm? Perhaps we should develop a test to help us determine who is most at risk for Alzheimer’s and dementia. Because, you know, those people are also a burden on their families and society as well. Why let them live?

Oh, wait, because we’re not a barbaric society who kills what it doesn’t understand. We don’t destroy for the sake of our own ease. We learn to accept and work with what we’re given in life. We love our fellow men and women. We support those who need support and spend our lives in the service of others, not constantly worrying about ourselves. At least, that’s in an ideal world, right? The kind she wants to create through hatred and fear, not love and compassion.

 

 

 

Advertisements

I belong to a lot of mom groups online. They range from funny to scary to informative. In one of them, though, there was recently a post that first made me giggle and then made me think. Sadly, it has been deleted, so I can’t share a copy of it here, but I wanted to at least share the content.

A mom posted because her mother-in-law had warned her that she might be turning her son gay by painting his toenails. The mom felt that what she was doing was okay because it was only his toenails, and she only let him pick from green or blue. She wanted input on if this was acceptable behavior or not.

I had to wonder – what about painting his fingernails was going too far? Would he suddenly snap and start liking boys? And what about the color choices? If she let him choose pink or purple, would he start cross-dressing? What kind of rules had she created, and what was the logic behind them?

I went back to look at the posting again because I wanted to see what advice the other moms had offered up to this woman.

As for me, I hadn’t – and didn’t plan on – leaving any advice because it would have been wasted.

Anyone who worries that they will “turn” their child gay – honestly, anyone who worries that their child will be gay at all – has their own set of issues, and they aren’t going to listen to me.

But maybe you will.

Let me tell you a story.

Be careful!  Looking at an attractive man might make you gay!  Image stockimages via freedigitalphotos.net

Be careful! Looking at an attractive man might make you gay! Image stockimages via freedigitalphotos.net

When my son was about two or three years old, he found a greeting card at the store that had a picture of a super-muscled up man, naked from the waist up. My son loved the card. We bought it for him, and he would carry it around, propping it up wherever he was so that he could stare at it.

We didn’t worry about it or stop him from looking at it in fear it would “make” him gay. We didn’t worry about it or stop him from looking at in case he was feeling same sex attraction (albeit at a super young age). What we did worry about was how his autism would affect his future relationships if he continued to have the same level of communication and sensory issues that he already had, as well as other problems that we knew he might run into as he got older.

Because, let’s just be honest here, what’s wrong with being gay? How is it bad? Why is it something to worry about?

Worry about making your kids judgmental.
Worry about making your kids cruel.
Worry about making your kids insecure.
Worry about making your kids rude.
Worry about making your kids ignorant.
Worry about making your kids assholes.

Those are all valid thing to worry about. Worry about them.


Lately, Simon has been on a Christmas movie kick. He watches “Christmas Eve on Sesame Street” (one of my favorites), “Elmo’s World: Happy Holidays” (not one of my favorites), and “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.”

I have nothing against Rudolph, except…well, the messagesimon with mom - small is a bit disturbing. Rudolph is forced to fit in – to literally cover up who he is and what he is (by donning a black cap over his red nose). And when it’s revealed that he’s not “normal,” i.e. not like all the other reindeer, then he’s shunned and kept from participating in society.

Until, of course, Santa needs him.

Then suddenly his difference is worthwhile and acceptable. More than acceptable, really. It’s something to celebrate! Go different people! (But only if that difference it helpful and benefits us!)

How is that any different than what Richard Dawkins said in his tweet when he declared that only some people with disabilities shouldn’t be selectively weeded out through eugenics?

Haven’t heard about it? Here’s a little piece from Huffington Post

Dawkins tweeted that if someone found out that their fetus had Down Syndrome, they should “abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”

When someone brought up the Autism spectrum, he said, “People on that spectrum have a great deal to contribute. Maybe even an enhanced ability in some respect. DS not enhanced.”

Seriously? Seriously? We get to decide which disabilities should be allowed and which ones shouldn’t? And what about people on the spectrum who do not have “enhanced” abilities? What about people who are more severe on the spectrum and need help to live?

Dawkins says that he thinks that there’s a “profound moral difference” between deciding to abort a fetus and stating that “this person should have been aborted years ago,” but I struggle to see the difference. Is his position that, once the person is born, then it’s okay to deal with the disability, but if it’s known, we should avoid it? What about physical disabilities? What about being an asshole? When will we get a pre-natal test for assholes?

(Please do not take this blog as any sort of stance on abortion as a whole…this is purely about eugenics and those who believe that we should chose who lives and dies based on their perceived value to society…)