4 ms·

Hello, author. Meet me. I was much like the boy in your article--except in one way. I was thrown into tests at a young age which showed a high IQ. I had diffic

Hello, author. Meet me. I was much like the boy in your article--except in one way. I was thrown into tests at a young age which showed a high IQ. I had difficulty in school with outbursts. I did not easily read social cues from others. I had strange interests, like an obsession with the Civil War or (in sixth grade) a personal God that I carried around with me because I liked the word "polytheism." I was an obsessive and voracious reader, but always an outcast. I was ridiculously pedantic--in first grade I refused to write "Mr." with a period at the end of it (I'm American) because in Roald Dahl books, he didn't use the period after "Mr". I still write my periods outside of quotes, and I argued with a teacher in college regarding two sentences after a period. These and other arguments eventually led me to dropping out of college. Fortunately, I found computers and entrepreneurship--plus a lot of books on how to read body language--and I've done pretty well for myself since. Oh, and did I mention I'm a woman? Yep, born female, with every issue you describe. FTA: "Jordan secretly confessed to me that his English teacher must be dumb because she referred to certain assignments as “homework” when she allowed them to be completed in class. She should have renamed them “schoolwork,” he said, because they were being completed at school. In twenty-five years of therapy practice, I’ve never known a girl to make such a comment." Well, good news for you, then, sir: There's an entire subreddit of us. http://www.reddit.com/r/2x_intj http://www.reddit.com/r/2x_intj Perhaps you should come visit sometime. Or are you too busy making gendered statements and deciding that it must be "masculinity" that causes these issues, instead of diving deeper into the issue? I certainly could have benefited from a class on how to understand facial cues. I could still benefit from a class on tact. I still make people uncomfortable sometimes when I talk to them. I'm a female, an introvert, and I have been diagnosed with ADHD. (A diagnosis which unequivocally changed my life for the better.) Making light of issues like this, or narrowing them to "boys will be boys", is a sad misinterpretation of a real issue. Do I have Asperger's? It's certainly been suggested to me several times by others, but ADHD more fits who I am. To those of you reading this, I hope you don't take it too literally. There are kids out there who need real help. I wish I would have had more of it. Asperger's/autism or not, school was pretty much miserable for me, and I would have been grateful for the opportunity to learn how to really connect with others.

roarroar 13y ago
Yeesh. Why take his personal experience as some kind of denial of your existence? This article wasn't about you. And citing the membership of a subreddit against him is irrecoverably flawed, since niche Internet collectives aggressively select from the extrema.
jonnathanson 13y ago
Indeed, it's unfortunate that he's insisting on "boys" and using the masculine pronouns in this piece. This is, however, an excerpt from a book, focusing specifically on one case study. I would hope and expect -- though I cannot confirm -- that the book looks at children of both genders. "Making light of issues like this, or narrowing them to "boys will be boys", is a sad misinterpretation of a real issue." I didn't read either of those things in the article. Agree completely that his focus on "boys" in this excerpt is limiting and probably misguided, but I don't see him "making light" of any of these subjects. Nor did I see him categorically tying these behaviors to masculine behaviors ("boys will be boys"). Again, keep in mind that he uses one case study to illustrate the points made in a much longer book. And the headline, while certainly gender-limited, may not have been written by the author (Salon's editors, like the editors of many other publications, probably wrote it).
- jacalata 13y ago
  You didn't see either of those things? His main argument seemed to be "we can mistake traditional masculine behavior for high-functioning autism." The overwhelming presence of quotes like "Is he high-functioning autistic or really a more masculine-identified boy?" "Brainy, introverted boys beware", "... these behaviors might be characteristic of both willful male toddlers and autistic children", "....it is tough to distinguish between early signs of autism spectrum disorder and indications that we have on our hands a young boy who is a budding intellectual" combine to make it pretty unlikely that we just happen to be reading the single part of the book where he overwhelmingly focuses on the association of autism and 'normal masculine behaviour'.
- ericabiz 13y ago
  > I would hope and expect -- though I cannot confirm -- that the book looks at children of both genders. I haven't read the book either, but the article doesn't give me much hope. All of the following are direct quotes from the article: "That’s not autism: It’s simply a brainy, introverted boy" <--This is the title. "How boys communicate and socialize" <--This is one of the subheadings. > Nor did I see him categorically tying these behaviors to masculine behaviors ("boys will be boys"). FTA: "As educated people, we don’t want to believe in overarching differences in communication styles between the sexes. When I was in college in the 1980s and ’90s, “essentialism” was a dirty word. To believe that males and females might be different in essential ways was akin to admitting that you were unenlightened. There’s still a pervasive sense in our culture that to be educated is to be gender-blind, and there is something of a taboo against voicing aloud explanations for a child’s behavior in terms of his or her gender. If you don’t believe me, try uttering some version of the following statements at your son’s next parent-teacher conference: Jamal is so logical and brusque when he talks. I know he needs all our help to ease up. But these are traditional masculine behaviors, after all, and we might need to accept him more for who he is. Or, Billy overtalks and really needs an audience, especially when he has a new favorite hobby or interest. He needs to be a better listener. But he’s not unlike a lot of boys I know. It’s this public discomfort with discussing children’s gendered behavior that gets many traditionally masculine boys inappropriately labeled as high-functioning autistic. Poor eye contact, long-winded monologues about one’s new favorite topic, being overly serious and businesslike, appearing uninterested in other’s facial expressions, and restricting friendships to those who share one’s interests, may all be signs of Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism. However, these same traits typify boys who are traditionally masculine in their behavior. Parents somehow have to ask the uncomfortable question in the doctor’s office: Is he high-functioning autistic or really a more masculine-identified boy?" Or...you know...a girl. Who just so happens to have strange interests, be introverted, and struggle socially.

roarroar 13y ago

Yeesh. Why take his personal experience as some kind of denial of your existence? This article wasn't about you. And citing the membership of a subreddit against him is irrecoverably flawed, since niche Internet collectives aggressively select from the extrema.

jonnathanson 13y ago

Indeed, it's unfortunate that he's insisting on "boys" and using the masculine pronouns in this piece. This is, however, an excerpt from a book, focusing specifically on one case study. I would hope and expect -- though I cannot confirm -- that the book looks at children of both genders. "Making light of issues like this, or narrowing them to "boys will be boys", is a sad misinterpretation of a real issue." I didn't read either of those things in the article. Agree completely that his focus on "boys" in this excerpt is limiting and probably misguided, but I don't see him "making light" of any of these subjects. Nor did I see him categorically tying these behaviors to masculine behaviors ("boys will be boys"). Again, keep in mind that he uses one case study to illustrate the points made in a much longer book. And the headline, while certainly gender-limited, may not have been written by the author (Salon's editors, like the editors of many other publications, probably wrote it).

jacalata 13y ago
You didn't see either of those things? His main argument seemed to be "we can mistake traditional masculine behavior for high-functioning autism." The overwhelming presence of quotes like "Is he high-functioning autistic or really a more masculine-identified boy?" "Brainy, introverted boys beware", "... these behaviors might be characteristic of both willful male toddlers and autistic children", "....it is tough to distinguish between early signs of autism spectrum disorder and indications that we have on our hands a young boy who is a budding intellectual" combine to make it pretty unlikely that we just happen to be reading the single part of the book where he overwhelmingly focuses on the association of autism and 'normal masculine behaviour'.
ericabiz 13y ago
> I would hope and expect -- though I cannot confirm -- that the book looks at children of both genders. I haven't read the book either, but the article doesn't give me much hope. All of the following are direct quotes from the article: "That’s not autism: It’s simply a brainy, introverted boy" <--This is the title. "How boys communicate and socialize" <--This is one of the subheadings. > Nor did I see him categorically tying these behaviors to masculine behaviors ("boys will be boys"). FTA: "As educated people, we don’t want to believe in overarching differences in communication styles between the sexes. When I was in college in the 1980s and ’90s, “essentialism” was a dirty word. To believe that males and females might be different in essential ways was akin to admitting that you were unenlightened. There’s still a pervasive sense in our culture that to be educated is to be gender-blind, and there is something of a taboo against voicing aloud explanations for a child’s behavior in terms of his or her gender. If you don’t believe me, try uttering some version of the following statements at your son’s next parent-teacher conference: Jamal is so logical and brusque when he talks. I know he needs all our help to ease up. But these are traditional masculine behaviors, after all, and we might need to accept him more for who he is. Or, Billy overtalks and really needs an audience, especially when he has a new favorite hobby or interest. He needs to be a better listener. But he’s not unlike a lot of boys I know. It’s this public discomfort with discussing children’s gendered behavior that gets many traditionally masculine boys inappropriately labeled as high-functioning autistic. Poor eye contact, long-winded monologues about one’s new favorite topic, being overly serious and businesslike, appearing uninterested in other’s facial expressions, and restricting friendships to those who share one’s interests, may all be signs of Asperger’s syndrome or high-functioning autism. However, these same traits typify boys who are traditionally masculine in their behavior. Parents somehow have to ask the uncomfortable question in the doctor’s office: Is he high-functioning autistic or really a more masculine-identified boy?" Or...you know...a girl. Who just so happens to have strange interests, be introverted, and struggle socially.