Aspies For Freedom

I'm sure the pupils were told many things during the course of the filming.
As the program was about autism, I found no problem with the headmistress' making it clear what the *major*  cause of their problems stemmed from.  At first, Moneer didn't want to acknowledge that he had AS and this being the reason he was at Spa School for autistics.

If the program is about autism, how much sense would it make to tell them their problems are caused by bad parents, teachers, documentary makers, TV channels etc?

It's a shame you felt that way.  I don't think having AS as a part of you, restricts you from being told, 'AS is the cause' of a child's/young adults difficulties. Perhaps you don't, but I think being taken on a trip to do with your special interest (Star Wars) counts as a positive message for Moneer.

Amy, when you were that age, what difference do you think a positive role model would have made?  Would you have comprehend why you were being made to spend time with some stranger because they are autistic, and probably good at something you had no interest in?

I've gone into these kinds of comparisons of neurodiversity with sexism and racism on AI, and I think sometimes they can be instructive.

Autism is like you describe being a woman, in that you were born that way but there are also differences.  You wrote, "period problems" - I am certain 99.9% of woman have periods but perhaps there are women who do not have period *problems*.
Also there are woman born who do not have AS, and they may have other (or even similar) problems caused by being a woman. In their case an aversion to man-made fibres may be a quirk of fate and not caused by having AS.  In your case they may be inextricably linked.

So if a woman is complaining that bras do not fit her because she is AS, but something in her having AS means she is not trying on the *right size* bra, then it is germane to inform her that perhaps "AS" is getting in the way of finding a bra to fit.

True, no harm in trying, but maybe you'll find that she hardly recognises what got to the screen after the programme makers left the school and hit the edit suite.

They would be excited by it do you mean? A big reaction in favour?
Remember, the programme was about autistics/aspies from the mouth of aspies.  
That is how the name of the programme came about.

Others have made good points about the badly behaved being a better ratings draw.  That is part of voyeuristic viewing habits and human nature in general--rubber necking car crashes, and the like--picking up on the negative.  We are doing the same here in the review of the programme .  Most of you guys have nothing positive to say about "Make Me Normal".  

All kinds of people react violently to frustration.  I don't think it was stated that Roy kicked violently just because he has autism.  I recall three or four other autistics in that scene and none of those retaliated physically.  So evidently autism does not automatically lead to violence - even when attacked by another.

If they were all shown sitting still and talking like Esther, someone would have probably said they are perpetuating a stereotype of quiet, solitary, non-interactivity. As for Moneer, his temperamental behaviour could also be due to the illness and death of his mother.  Having said that I bet he is a doing Aspie (hence the violent and destructive *actions*, of the Dark Side) rather than an encyclopaedic facts-orientated Aspie.

People react violently when they get over-emotional.  Viewers of the program, who may have heard the erroneous idea that autistics have no emotions, may think differently now.  

Many black people are appalled by exactly that ongoing kind of portrayal.  And it is the paucity of black people in key positions of influence within the media which allows those images to persist.  

I disagree, Gareth, you've mixed up the effect with the cause.  
I agree with what I saw of the school's approach, as I've explained above.  

It is precisely because they do not understand, (why they are having the problems they are having, or the positive traits they have but are equally oblivious of) which leads to the frustration.  That is why finding about AS is such a revelation and relief for so many people, who had always thought (or been led to believe) they were just "weirdos", misfits", or plain lazy.

  

Actually, I wouldn't mind being told about the 'social-model'.
I think the people here who feel this was a terrible programme about a terrible school will probably think the parents are bad for sending their children to the school.  However, I'm sure the headmistress gets lots of thanks and glowing letters of appreciation.

What exactly do you feel needs correcting? Not being happy with what you saw is one thing, many people are unhappy about all kinds of TV programmes.  As I said at the beginning of this post, I must have seen a different programme to you and Adrian, and everyone who has posted here.

What viewpoints did you find unbalanced and negative?  I found them all positive stories.  The children are talking for themselves, learning, laughing and crying.

IMO, if we want to organise some kind of adult autistic mentor scheme, or become consultants for the media portrayal of autism, you need to present your grievances in a professional well considered manner .

To be Aspie blunt, I've seen nothing of the sort in this thread which would change the views of the mainstream media.
  

That is precisely the kind of unsubstantiated comment I would recommend you back-up with some hard fact, if you want anyone to take your complaints seriously.

It teaches them to take responsibility in being aware of the issues associated with autism, the things they have less control over than Neurotypicals.  And if I may be so pedantic, their behaviour is not "bad", but disruptive to an orderly classroom, or communal living.

Again, I feel this has been taken the wrong way.

If you believe that autistics cannot learn, then being told of the source of most of their problems would let them blame everything on it.  Did you hear any of them blame their behaviour on autism after they did something wrong? How would it prepare them to not mention the effects of autism?

Then again, some autistics appear to be denying their life is the way it is because of autism.  Well, if you want to be literal about it: no, the reason is not autism, it is because you were born, and autism was a part of you when you were born.  

For example, a person might wonder why their bum gets numb every time they sit for hours in front of their computer. If they are then taught that their bum is numb from sitting in front of the net too long (blocking circulation), they know to get up and take a break.

How is being told that autism is all positive gonna make sense to the children at that school, when their everyday reality is completely at odds with such an view.

How can kids have any confidence if they see other youngsters - or their family members - effortlessly doing stuff and handling situations, yet these things cause the autist extreme pain and frustration.  Without any explanation you are going to think you are defective, deficient, dumb, etc.

I originally took that to mean, you got something positive from the programme in contrast to everyone else here.

Yes early intervention is important, but nothing was said about waiting till their teens.   Roxanne was probably sent there when she was 6.  
Do you think she could understand anything about this thing called "autism" when she was even younger?
All she has right now, at 12, is a word.  
She has little idea what that word means.
Just like I know your user name is rocobley, but that tells me nothing about the person behind the name.  In my experience, I have come across many adult Aspies who have yet to come to terms with the full significance of autism, let alone a teenager.

Oh, I was incorrect, you found the program bad too, overall.
I'd love to see this programme that would make all you guys happy.
I wonder what made you think they had a negative self-image about their condition.  Surely it is simply that they find the world "confusing and threatening". Like I replied to Brightman's self-confidence comment, you had a negative view of yourself but when you worked out you were AS you realised nothing was wrong.

Nothing was wrong, you were just different, and this difference (called autism/AS) explained why you couldn't function in the way mainstream society wanted you to.  It's great to find out you are not bad or defective, but all is not fine and dandy in your life, perhaps.  Those same limitations society imposes on all kinds of people (race, sex), not just those with AS, does not impair others from doing certain things you would love to do. Hmmm?

We can affirm/esteem ourselves and say, 'it is an ignorant and biased "society" that causes our problems, there is nothing wrong with me'. But is that taking responsibility for being part of the reason autistic and society do not fit together easily?

Now its clear that I was watching the same programme as you all, but obviously I interpreted what I saw completely differently.

Thanks for reading this long post.

Peace out

I don't see any misunderstanding from your further comments.
Jude said those things in the filming too, and has confirmed many of the points I made, in her reply to you.

Just because you may prefer a one-piece bathing outfit, does not make another woman liking/using bikini wrong . . . an example not to be taken literally.

I fail to see anything wrong with this.  Is autism not part of their experience?

Perhaps, I did not describe the stranger well enough, but I meant an older person who has lived a bit of  life.  Mentor being older, peer being roughly same age.

What do you know about how the famous examples you listed, coped with autism?  Information about their AS experiences are scare.  Again, Jude told you how many are almost suicidal when they arrive at the school.  You cannot jump straight to positives when all the person wants to do is jump in front of a train.

The thing is not to focus on the problems or negatives though.  AS does lead to only negatives, but you compared AS to the problems of a woman having periods as part of her makep.  That is my point.

No I think I was moving to lateral   too quickly for you. :wink:

I found these amongst the most interesting parts of your post Saucecode (nice handle BTW )

I find it quite puzzling how you come to the conclusion that people wanted certain things from this documentary. As all we knew about it prior to its airing was that it was centered arounf spa school, it would be very difficult to place any kind of expectation on it in that respect. Documentaries aren't there to please people but to document things. In this respect the programme was a failure as it failed to document properly and report accurately on what it saw. Any documentary which comes out with as much banality such as 'as I got to know these kids it became clear they just wanted to be normal' is really failing in its first duty - of course these teenagers wanted to be normal, what teenager doesn't? Where the programme failed in this respect was that they refracted every single behaviour through the prism of autism. A bunch of teens wanting to be normal is - well, normal. Their neurology is irrelevant in regards to this point so why keep hammering the message that its their autism which is the problem?

I find it totally unsurprising that Moneer wanted to pretend he wasn't AS. If you went to a school where ASD's were routinely focussed on as a problem wouldn't you want to pretend you didn't have one? When a number of children expres the desire to kill themselves because of who they are I think we need to take a long hard look at the environment thats led them to believe this is an option. Self-confident kids don't want to top themselves. Kids who are routinely informed that they aren't getting on because of the way they are - an nothing else - are almost certainly going to experience increasing lack of confidence and self-worth.

I puzzled over the last paragraph I quoted for awhile as I'm not too sure what you're getting at with it. You seem to be saying that the kids were being told that their problems stemmed from the topic of the documentary? If thats so then thats totally illogical and a grave crossing of the line between reportage and involvement on behalf of the film crew.

Well I did really mean it ;o) but I do take your point. I guess what I mean is that I might've had preconcieved ideas about what sort of documentary it was going to be but I din't have any false expectations from it. I agree its a very fine hair to split but split it I must - after reading the Radio Times preview I has a preconception about the way it might go but I had no expectation that it definitely would. Does that make sense?

I too have seen people express certain sentiments about teh show before it was aired - all I can say is that in my case, I had no expectation it would be positive or negative. Just interesting. re: your second paragrpah, all I can say is that I honestly didn't. I'll admit to parental bias which I guess is related but I definitely had no expectation that I'd get a positive or negative feeling from it other than a hope that C4 did a good job.

I totally agree. I didn't expect to get that personally. I did however, hope that C4 would do a good job and not use fairly banal and sensationalist rhetoric in equal measure.

Well, I've not seen anything too bad so I can't comment. I wouldn't say I agreed with a couple of posters in this thread for example regarding abuse. The Head struck me as likeable but misguided, as did the staff and the C4 film crew obviously took their editorial cue from the Headteacher. I think it ended up being a fairly one-dimensional and misrepresentative view of autistics and I certinaly wouldn't want Megan to attend a school that that particular Head was running as I think she has a questionable attitude to autism.

But I value your opinion Noetic, as you know. I can see why you don't like some of the more extreme positions being adopted.

Likes was a typo it should have been "problems lie with NTs".
To rephrase then, you seem be saying its all NTs fault that autistics are differently wired.  Remember I am responding to something you said, so please remember what you said or quote it before accusing me about misinterpreting your previous comments.

Just because it it is the only logical conclusion you could come to does not mean that is the only interpretation possible from what I wrote.

Well this is going very smoothly isn't it (irony), instead of addressing the points you and I made about the program we are each saying the other is missing the others points and inventing their own.  You are saying it about me and I am saying it about you.  If you feel what I say has nothing to do with what you have previously posted, perhaps its because they are outside your understanding.

Do you believe you have misinterpreted or expected too much from Make Me Normal?  Yet again Brightman, your logic leads you to pick on my words in blue instead of addressing the real issue of your stated interpretations of the programme, or how quick you claim misinterpretation--just because someone expresses a different reading of what you assume is the only logical way to interpret your words.

What suggests the case to me is you coming down on me, rather than considering the issue within what you have highlighted in blue--the programme.  

Can you show me where? . . . It is easy to accuse.  

And you are putting the blame on me for something I never said.

I'm not the first it has happened with, so it follows that I am not the only problem.  Your not the first person to complain of re-explaining posts on Aspie forums and you won't be the last . . . and I think that is something to with autism  Did you every consider the possibility that your message sometimes doesn't make it over the barrier in the first place, so people respond as best they can?

Neither am I.  Are you saying you have 100% clarity with everyone who is not NT? Your point above sounds so like those I've read in Aspie to Aspie communications.

Again you accuse, but I don't  believe anything you have quoted supports such an assertion.  

Your not going to get into explaining to me what my misinterpretation is or re-explain yourself.  Do you see where I get the idea about people thinking one instance of sending a message is sufficient for real communication!?

Thanks. I'm not sure which of the words you quoted made you think I came to any conclusions, but, of course people in the autism family expected things from a programme about a subject dear to their hearts.  Knowing it was about Spa School  and seeing a preview is not equivalent to seeing the whole program, is it?

The program was a success according to its aims.  In the opinion of some members here the programme failed because it did not show autism/Aspergers as they wanted to see it.  On page 3 someone has posted a link to the N.A.S response to the programme.  I'd advise you go there and read what the producer of the programme intended to do.

Teenagers want to fit in above all else.  And the neurology of the autist mitigates against that being straightforward.  So it is highly relevant them being made aware they are not crap teenagers, just teenagers with autism?

So do you subscribe to the environmental toxins theory of autism's cause?  Did the environment differently wire Mooner, or Kev or his daughter? Or are you referring to the 'social model'?

No. In that paragraph I am pointing out the illogic or absurdity of children being sent to a school for autistics and some autistics and parents of autistics getting upset that they are told they are autistics.  

What is happening is people want to shoot the messenger (C4 et. al).

Hmm. Except its not really about what people expected it to be about. Its about reportng the truth. What we got was not the truth. If a documentary can't tell the truth then its pretty pointless. We might as well just call it propoganda.

Thats the real difference between our interpretations. I didn't see people being taught to work with their autism. I saw people being told that because they were autistic they would always see things 'wrong'. Acceptance seemed to be nowhere on the teaching plan and without acceptance all you're doing is setting up conflict.

Sorry? I'm talking about peoples desire to kill themselves and how we can try and avoid that scenario or leading people to believe that its an option. At no point did I suggest their desire to kill themselves was linked to autism in any way other than its the fact that they're autistic that in this case has led them to learning from others that this is such a negative thing to be that suicide is an option. What's that got to do with causing autism?

lol...now you're truly making no sense. Where has anybody said that they were getting upset they are told they are autistic? The fact of these kids autism is undisputable. What possible reason would we have for getting upset that they were being told they were autistic?

No, whats happening is that people are upset for two reasons. Firstly, that the 'messenger' (Channel 4) did a poor job at representing the truth. Whether they or you like it or not presenting these kids in such a way isn't representative of them as a whole or the truth about autism as a whole either. If you believe these kids were represented totally accurately then you have more faith in the editing process than I do.

Secondly, people are unhappy with the suspect attitude of the Headteacher. If we are take the programme on its merits as you say we should then we need to question her role. At no point did I hear anything from her about autism except in a negative way. Even if everything she said was negative but correct (which some of it was), this documentary is still flawed as it misrepresents the entirety of autistic experience.

Its like presenting a documentary on what good dancers 4 black people are or how camp 4 gay people are. It might be true and it might be a positive thing on the surface but it perpetuates generalisations and stigma that affect a whole category of people.

I'm glad you liked the programme and that you got something out of it but don't make the mistake of thinking those of us who didn't like it are judging in terms of our weight of expectation or out of some political standpoint. We're not. I went into the programme with as open a mind as I could get and was disappointed by the editorial slant, the perpetuation of negative stereotypes and most particularly by the beliefs of the Headteacher. I don't think she's a terrible person and I suspect she's as much a victim of the editing as everything else but based on what I saw, thats my opinion.

The first paragraph I have no issues with and I think they did a good job of getting that. The problem for me starts with the second paragrpah. I saw support naturally but I saw scant understanding and no encouragement to accept whatsoever. I'm happy to admit that its difficult to capture everything in a 1 hour programme but either down to the overall attitude of the Head or down to poor editing, they didn't show that at all.

For people totally new to autism, they would've got the idea that its a terrible thing that causes people to lash out, sometimes violently. The fact that its true for these four kids is, I agree necessary to show in a documentary about them, but people make generalisations. This show won't have helped in that respect all. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I don't see how you get anything about expectations or conclusions from the first quote.  

Ideally it is about reporting the truth.  If your view was the reality Aspies would be running society wouldn't they?  How many documentaries do you think really tells the whole truth? If a person has no expectations they are living a pretty aimless, pointless and puzzling existence, in my opinion.

Can you tell me who said that . . . they actually said wrong did they?  And how can they know what to accept, if the condition isn't mentioned or talked about?

Sorry, your a bit fuzzy to me in that paragraph.  Who lead them to believe it was an option to kill themselves?  Not the school.  Do you really think C4 would broadcast a documentary where children are encouraged to kill themselves?  That is crazy thinking.  What kind of backward time reality are you living in where you blame the headmistress for making them suicidal,  before they have even attended the school?  I seem to remember the headmistress stating many are suicidal when they first arrive.  On the contrary, you should suggest that it is the challenges of autism which produced their desire to kill themselves.

I'm just getting clear what environment you meant. You mentioned the environment, I wasn't sure if you were talking about the 'social model', etc.

That is the question I originally asked and got no reply.  My mistake then,  people in this thread were just against autism being focused on or that the school hammered the message in?  Here is a section you omitted to quote from your first reply to me.

And here is more,

And

And

And

Make sense now?

I wonder if you wrote this before or after you read the producer's comments?  Plus, you seem unaware of the basics of programme making and broadcasting. Channel 4 did not make the program.  Whether you believe it or not, if the 'edit' was  unrepresentative, of the children or the school, you would have heard about it.
You don't know the kids, so how could you say if it was accurate?

And so those people would have no right to be upset on the grounds you state.  Perhaps they were unhappy before they saw the program. . .ooh, seems I made a similar point above, hmm!.

Huh, this is a new concept on me mate, "negative but correct". Is this what you mean by suspect attitude?  Now I understand why some can't handle my interpretation of the programme.  It misrepresents what others would like   me to say.  :?

What does the producer want the programme to be about?  What do the previews say?  Does the programme say "this is a picture of all black people", "this is a picture of the campness of all gay people"?

I'm not even sure I've said I liked the programme--got something out of it, definitely.  There you go again with expectation, I made a point in the previous message which passed you by, and I agree with everything Noetic said in her reply to you on that point.  You had expectations period, Kev.  Don't kid yourself into thinking you didn't.  I think you had a political standpoint - now you mention it.  And speaking for everyone else in the thread, are we?

Key words being, "as open a mind as I could get"; ergo, your mind was already partially closed around some expectation.  

Glad you agree with me on something . . . my initial point about editing. Nobody has explained what the negative stereotypes perpetuated were, or identified the headmistresses beliefs - beyond her believing they should know the causes of their behaviours.

There's a difference between having no expectations of life in general and no expectations from a single hour long documentary don't you think?

As I've already stated, the Headteacher in my opinion re-enforced the concept of 'wrongness'. And you seem to be arguing points no-one's actually made. Who said autism shouldn't be discussed? Certainly not me - that'd be pretty odd considering I have a blog that talks about autism and I discuss autism on several community sites.

  

You're either deliberately misunderstanding or simply not getting me. the people who led me to believe that the kids considered it an option to kill themslves were the kids. What I'm questioning is the suitability of an environment which includes but is not limited to the school they go to that reinforces a solely negative view of autism. Now, maybe teh school doesn't enforce a solely negative view of autism but as a viewer I wouldn't know that because the documentary neglected to show any aspects of acceptance.

Once again, you're arguing point no one has made and being a tad abusive about it. I've got no problem with debating this with you but try and be civil please. At no point did I even suggest that the Headteacher was to blame.

Again, these are the fundemental differences in our opinion. I don't believe it is autism that produced a desire to kill themselves but the way that their autism is both viewed and reinforced.

Not really, no. I think this section of our debate has got confused so if you want to restate it for clarity that'd probably help.

I wrote it afterwards, naturally - that link was posted days ago. And you're right, I'm totally unaware of the basics of programme making. Thats because I'm not in that industry. I'm totally aware Channel 4 did not make the programme but in that paragraph you quoted I referred to the 'messanger' - the people who showed the documentary who were - Channel 4.

You're also right to say I don't know the kids involved but I think its fair to say that an hour long documentary presented in such a one-dimensional manner isn't going to be even slightly representative of anyone as a whole. If you believe otherwise then more power to you, thats your right to do so.

No, its quite simple really. One can be factually correct and still be misleadingly negative. For example, its true to say that most Italians are bestowed with a fiery temprement but taken too far thats a fact that can be used to misrepersent an entire group. In a like manner, its true that all the kids in this film had varying degree's of behavioural issues but the way they were presented and the lack of discussion about what it meant means that it almost certainly reinforced peoples negative views of autistics. Ergo, negative but correct.

This is another of our fundemental differences of opinion. In my opinion, to a certain extent it doesn't matter what the Producer wanted the programme to be about - what its ended up as is something that could easily be a reinforcement of the general populations negative perceptions regarding autism. A more responsible and less sensationalist filming would've prevented this.

Hmm. Like I say above - civility please.

Me saying I'm glad you like the programme has nothing to do with expectation of mine. How the hell can I possibly have any expectations about whether or not you enjoyed or didn't enjoy the programme?

You may believe I had expectations regarding the programme and thats your opinion and your right. Unfortunately, they are only your opinion. As I am actually the person concerned I feel in a slightly better position that you to judge about whether I had expectations or not.

Similarily, sorry to disappoint but I had no political standpoint either. I watched as an interested parent. End of story. Again, you may believe otherwise but to put it simply - you're wrong. Sorry.

And no, I speak for no-one apart from myself. My reference to 'we' are myself and the people who believe as I do.

No, I didn't expect anything from the programme. I hoped that it might discuss somethings but I expected nothing from it as I truly didn't know what to expect. And of course my mind wasn't totlaly open - I'm a parent. To borrow from medical literature I had a 'competing interest'.

I've repeated mine several times. However, I can't make you understand them. Thats up to you. As the old saying goes - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

EDIT: I've just learnt that you are a known troll on another forum so I think its probably best if I just step out of the discussion now.

'getting a bit unweidly' means that your posts were getting so long and rambling that it was becoming laborious trying to follow your point. As I'm sure mine were.

As to teh rest of your post - you're free to believe whatever you like but here's the reason: I've been on the internet for getting on 11 years now and I've seen every type of troll imaginable. All of them have the same set of behaviour at bottom though: they do it for attention and for the love of an argument for the sake of it. As this is a subject that matters to me and I'm keen to discuss it rather than clash over it I see no real point in continuing to be the straight man to your ego. We disagree. Get over it.