5 ms·

>>>most allistics just… don't have anything going on between the ears except future plans, the occasional daydream, and worries about their positions in status

>>>most allistics just… don't have anything going on between the ears except future plans, the occasional daydream, and worries about their positions in status hierarchies This obviously isn't true, since finding a partner and raising children doesn't neatly fall into any of those categories.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
Have you read how allistics talk about that sort of thing? Pick up a 19th-century romance novel, or just head over to Reddit: finding a partner is about status hierarchies, too! This observation has even got its own witty aphorisms: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/05/sex-power/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/05/sex-power/ > “Everything in human life is really about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.” It's salacious daydreams and status hierarchies! All the way down! I do find it really hard to imagine how raising children could fit into these categories – I was figuring out how to word my concession on that point from the moment I read your comment –, but then I turn to my fiction books, and what do I find there? So much talk of honour, or parents projecting a desired future on their children, and such little mention of anything else except when it's actually happening. In the real world, too: how often do we see people hurting their children "for their own good", where the only possible good is to the future plans or social status of the parent? I'm sure many allistics are capable of loving their children for their own sakes, but from what I've seen, it's not the norm: it's something that has to be learned, and actively practised ("engagement in a task"), rather than something that comes naturally to most. (And there's nothing wrong with that – provided that one puts the effort in. There is something wrong with being a self-absorbed, neglectful parent, too absorbed in the Proper Way of Parenting to let the village make up for one's own deficiencies.)
- staticman2 2y ago
  You can call 19th century romance fiction as being about "status hierarchies" in the same sense you can say "There's only 3 types of stories, man verse man, man verse nature, man verse himself". I don't see how reducing this to a succinct label shows whether or not there is a "rich inner life" at play, going back to your earlier statement about neurotypical people. Lord of the Rings might be a book about "man vs man" and maybe Frodo's resistence of the ring is about "man vs self" but there's probably some richness to be found in those 1000 pages, for example. I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    > You can call 19th century romance fiction as being about "status hierarchies" in the same sense you can say "There's only 3 types of stories, man verse man, man verse nature, man verse himself". Have you read 19th-century romance fiction? The most notable examples in the genre are literally about status hierarchies: that's why they're interesting, that's why they were contemporary wish fulfilment. Take Pride and Prejudice (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1813)/Volume_1/Chapter_1 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1813)/Vo...): ⸻ ⁂ ⸻ It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters. "My dear Mr. Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?" Mr. Bennet replied that he had not. "But it is," returned she; "for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it." Mr. Bennet made no answer. "Do not you want to know who has taken it?" cried his wife impatiently. "You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it." This was invitation enough. "Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delighted with it that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week." "What is his name?" "Bingley." "Is he married or single?" "Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!" ⸻ ⁂ ⸻ Of course, there are plenty of 19th-century erotic novels, which I haven't read, but do not appear to be about status hierarchies. I guess I'm not counting those as romance novels. Maybe I should? > I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life. (I entirely agree. The way I've been talking is completely unacceptable. However, I'm committed to the bit, now, so I'll backpedal academic-style.) On an individual scale, yes, there is no particular reason to elevate one kind of idle pre-occupation over another. However, the diversity of the autistic population as a whole attains a level of richness that the allistic population does not possess. No citation is needed for this claim, since it is sufficiently-obvious, and my substitution of poetic language in the place of argument is a perfectly objective editorial decision. It's totally legit, everyone. You don't even need to check. (I'm not being entirely faithful to the bit. The academic would, of course, deny your assertion outright: my assertion is (by virtue of being published first) self-evident common wisdom, whereas yours is, like, just your opinion.)

wizzwizz4 2y ago

Have you read how allistics talk about that sort of thing? Pick up a 19th-century romance novel, or just head over to Reddit: finding a partner is about status hierarchies, too! This observation has even got its own witty aphorisms: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/05/sex-power/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/06/05/sex-power/ > “Everything in human life is really about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.” It's salacious daydreams and status hierarchies! All the way down! I do find it really hard to imagine how raising children could fit into these categories – I was figuring out how to word my concession on that point from the moment I read your comment –, but then I turn to my fiction books, and what do I find there? So much talk of honour, or parents projecting a desired future on their children, and such little mention of anything else except when it's actually happening. In the real world, too: how often do we see people hurting their children "for their own good", where the only possible good is to the future plans or social status of the parent? I'm sure many allistics are capable of loving their children for their own sakes, but from what I've seen, it's not the norm: it's something that has to be learned, and actively practised ("engagement in a task"), rather than something that comes naturally to most. (And there's nothing wrong with that – provided that one puts the effort in. There is something wrong with being a self-absorbed, neglectful parent, too absorbed in the Proper Way of Parenting to let the village make up for one's own deficiencies.)

staticman2 2y ago
You can call 19th century romance fiction as being about "status hierarchies" in the same sense you can say "There's only 3 types of stories, man verse man, man verse nature, man verse himself". I don't see how reducing this to a succinct label shows whether or not there is a "rich inner life" at play, going back to your earlier statement about neurotypical people. Lord of the Rings might be a book about "man vs man" and maybe Frodo's resistence of the ring is about "man vs self" but there's probably some richness to be found in those 1000 pages, for example. I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  > You can call 19th century romance fiction as being about "status hierarchies" in the same sense you can say "There's only 3 types of stories, man verse man, man verse nature, man verse himself". Have you read 19th-century romance fiction? The most notable examples in the genre are literally about status hierarchies: that's why they're interesting, that's why they were contemporary wish fulfilment. Take Pride and Prejudice (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1813)/Volume_1/Chapter_1 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_(1813)/Vo...): ⸻ ⁂ ⸻ It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighbourhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters. "My dear Mr. Bennet," said his lady to him one day, "have you heard that Netherfield Park is let at last?" Mr. Bennet replied that he had not. "But it is," returned she; "for Mrs. Long has just been here, and she told me all about it." Mr. Bennet made no answer. "Do not you want to know who has taken it?" cried his wife impatiently. "You want to tell me, and I have no objection to hearing it." This was invitation enough. "Why, my dear, you must know, Mrs. Long says that Netherfield is taken by a young man of large fortune from the north of England; that he came down on Monday in a chaise and four to see the place, and was so much delighted with it that he agreed with Mr. Morris immediately; that he is to take possession before Michaelmas, and some of his servants are to be in the house by the end of next week." "What is his name?" "Bingley." "Is he married or single?" "Oh! single, my dear, to be sure! A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls!" ⸻ ⁂ ⸻ Of course, there are plenty of 19th-century erotic novels, which I haven't read, but do not appear to be about status hierarchies. I guess I'm not counting those as romance novels. Maybe I should? > I guess I'd push back at the idea what you call "status hierarchies" is less "rich" in terms of inner life. (I entirely agree. The way I've been talking is completely unacceptable. However, I'm committed to the bit, now, so I'll backpedal academic-style.) On an individual scale, yes, there is no particular reason to elevate one kind of idle pre-occupation over another. However, the diversity of the autistic population as a whole attains a level of richness that the allistic population does not possess. No citation is needed for this claim, since it is sufficiently-obvious, and my substitution of poetic language in the place of argument is a perfectly objective editorial decision. It's totally legit, everyone. You don't even need to check. (I'm not being entirely faithful to the bit. The academic would, of course, deny your assertion outright: my assertion is (by virtue of being published first) self-evident common wisdom, whereas yours is, like, just your opinion.)