I have only known about autism for one year.  But it increasingly reminds me of the many years I spent studying feminism.  The concept of "the power of naming" seems totally analogous.  Historically, men defined women.  Women were the opposite of men.  Men were strong, women were weak.  Men were active, women were passive.  Men were smart, women were dumb.  Women got left with all of the negative adjectives, as the positive ones were all assigned to men.

Before anyone gets upset, note that I used the word "historically".  As it is 4am, I'm not inclined to look up references, but it is a fact that negative adjectives were technically assigned to women, in the past.  Current men reading this, if any, please do not take offense.

My point is that NTs are now doing the same damn thing to autistics.  We are defined as different from them, and worse.  They are the model that we are expected to live up to.  They are right, we are wrong.  Maybe this all goes without saying on a website such as this, but I generally think EVERYTHING goes without saying, which is why I don't talk a whole lot!

OK.  I'm going to bed now.  I just wanted to see if anyone else was interested in this topic.

...but I generally think EVERYTHING goes without saying, which is why I don't talk a whole lot!

Lol, yes. Opposed to the NTs where everything goes with words, words, words...

Recently watched TV shows and movies clarify the tension between being normal and being special. Obviously, those who are normal wants to be special while those who are special are portrayed as wanting to be 'just normal' ('The 4400', 'John Doe', 'Kyle XY', 'Fantastic Four' etc).

The stigmatization with negative attributes derives from fear and envy likewise. A group is strengthened by defining those who are outsiders to the group.

The 'funny' thing is, though, that all this is achieved only by using words, words, words...

I am aspie, female and definitely not a feminist.  So I do not agree with your comparison theory.  However, I do agree that the NT's are labelling autistics with all the "bad labels".  Mostly they are referring to what they consider negative aspects of autism and using them to point out why "lower functioning" autistics need to be "cured" or "treated".  All the attritubutes of aspies that they hate -- they are ignorant about and just blame us for having "bad personalities".  This is why personality testing and profiling is being done in employment and why they are insisting that autistic children be treated.  

I do blame some of the problems with Nt's prejudice on feminism however.  The insistence that children "fit" into daycare and schools is part of the problem.  If more women felt that they could stay home and care and educate their children without feminism pressuring them into careers.  (I meet more women who feel that they have to work rather than enjoy working).  If you studied more about the history of feminism you might be surprised at the attitudes and values of the original feminists.

M, I've studied the original Seneca Falls convention feminists, if that's who you mean.   And I am a full-time stay at home mom to my four year old Aspie daughter.  The feminism you blame for kids in daycare is not the feminism I profess.  It's a 1984 type of problem in my opinion, which again goes back to the power of naming.  I recall a book called Who Stole Feminism which was, in fact, (or at least in my opinion), by one of the people who stole feminism, framing it as this force which could cause women to leave their children in daycare so they can have a career.

If you live in the USA and vote, then you are a feminist, by my definition.  A feminist believes women are equal in value to men.  Period.  It is a statement of gender democracy.  If you think men should vote, and women should not vote, then I would certainly agree that you are not a feminist.

As far as feminism pushing women into careers, although I could see how you would believe that, I strongly disagree.  Noam Chomsky's economic theories point to an economic explanation for women going into the workforce, for example, corporate jobs used to pay enough to support a family, but now the disparity between bosses and workers pay is bigger than ever.  Consequently many families decide that both parents should work in order to have the lifestyle that they want.

I am a feminist because I believe the labor of women is extremely valuable, and the fact that daycare is SO cheap makes me ill.  I could EASILY work full time and be able to afford daycare for my daughter with plenty of money left over.  I choose not to do so, because I love my daughter and I value my own labor.  The idea of paying someone else to love her boggles my mind.  But you're right, this is the usual and expected thing nowadays.  And some women don't have a choice, and that in itself is a social indictment.

I don't think it 'goes without saying'. I think you make a very good point concerning 'the power of naming'...and your analogy is superb. Being a man myself I doubt I would have thought of such an anology.

I agree with feminist ideas and ideals...and feel that more men should.

Thank you.

I forgot to make another analogy that is pertinent here.

Back in the day, it was men who did research and then said it applied to women.  Men defined women, rather than women defining themselves.  An easy example of how harmful and inaccurate this is lies in the field of medicine, where heart attack warning signs are very different for women, and yet it is only recently that the warning signs for women have become known and publicized.  How many women literally DIED because they didn't have the "right," i.e. male symptoms, and failed to get proper treatment as a result?

Likewise, now the NTs do the research on autistics, and claim that it accurately describes autistics.  NTs define autism, and autistics, rather than autistics defining autism and ourselves.

To be a little gross, as a woman, I have no idea what it's like to have a penis, and it would be ludicrous for me to try to describe it.  But that is exactly what the NT experts are doing with autism.  They only know it from their NT interpretation.  And it is they who insist that we are so very foreign to them.  So how in the world can they speak for us?  That is where the value of autibiographies come in, of course.  Invaluable insight.  Before Lianne's book, how many experts would have believed that a female autistic would go to college, marry, and have children?  Not many, if any, and yet apparently there are plenty of us out there like Lianne.

I agree that the power of naming is extremely important... that's for example also why there's pro-choice and pro-life instead of pro-choice and anti-choice or pro-life and anti-life.

I think feminists did women a disservice though by making housework and childrearing less valued than they used to be, by making women 'easy', not requiring any commitment etc. Also, I don't believe that women entered the workforce because it's harder now to provide for one family on one salary... I think it's the other way around: it's harder to provide for a family on one salary now because women are in the workforce (although it's probably not as black and white as that and the two arguments probably both have some truth to them).

That's it. That's the unassailable truth. "Different from = Inferior to" -- and the persons of power and privilege define The Other.

This dynamic applies to virtually all Them v. Us power differentials.  Male / female, white / black, straight / gay, rich / poor, Nurotypical / Neurodivergent.  "They" not only conduct the studies, they write the histories, make the laws, run the government, create the inages in the media, etc., etc...

I'm always amused when people who don't understand feminism complain about feminism -- while benefiting from it in so many ways. But there are always those (I think they're called Republicans) who think blacks should stay on the plantation, gays in the closet, and women in the kitchen.

Feminism didn't force women to leave their homes and get jobs -- it just gave them that option. The economy, persomal choices  and rampant consumerism were the compelling forces.

I'm not claiming that feminists made women go and get jobs, but if you read Betty Friedan's "Feminine Mystique" for example you'll see how she makes the claim that no intelligent woman can be happy and satisfied being a housewife/sahm, basically implying that housework and rearing children are inferior things to do. I take offense to that. She also claims that women were getting burnt out because they way overdid the housecleaning and such, and she says that that's because of the other women, with the women on the same street competing to have the cleanest house etc. For this, she claims the solution is to get women to get outside jobs. I'm sorry, but I can think of other solutions, can't you? (I know that this is just one feminist, but it's a rather important one).

Would someone explain "the power of naming" better.  Arguing about feminism really does not have anything to do with NT's defining autistics when we should be doing that ourselves.

I've never heard it called "the power of naming" -- but that struck me as a perfect term for it.

The people who are of the dominant culture/race/gender/orientation/social class have the power and privilege to define themselves as Good and Normal and Appropriate and Superior and Blessed. The ultimate manifestation of this Power and Privilege is that they also get to "name" (define, label, etc.) those who are NOT of the superior group -- and that "name" is, in fact, a stigma.

Jewelie, when I was working on my Masters in Counseling Psychology, one of the schools of psychology we studied was Feminist Psychology, which dealt with the idea that the person could not be adequately understood without considering the oppressive sociocultural context the person lived in. It struck me then that although the ideas grew out of feminist theory, the implications held true for all people of "stigmatized" groups.

The pre-feminism bad-old-days are easy to forget if you weren't alive then.  Those days when women couldn't get credit cards in their own name, couldn't access birth control, and weren't given advances in careers because they "would just get pregnant and leave."

No thanks!

And yet women could vote since 1920.  How primitive even in the age of female suffrage.