Re: Re:;Question re bullying

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I guess I really do have a hard time understanding you, though. And

> possibly you of me.

Probably so. This feels like one of those things where we eventually

find out we're not arguing the exact same point.

[Guest guest]

mmm-i see.

I cant help wondering if the social thing isnt being USED by NTs, as a method or

strategy ,to more effectively express whatever drives them to do

it(bullying),rather than bullying being itself a social phenomena,originating

from strictly social phenomena.?

I mean,it seems more to me like NTs exploit the social savy/power structures etc

that we dont have,to carry out their banishment/destruction of the " stranger " .

Do you honestly think they ,as a group,have less " fear " of the stranger',than

ASD/AS people.?

They do it because they have the means to do it,that doesnt mean the originating

cause is any less in us,does it?

You say bullying requires the mob mentality.

i might prefer to say bullying is most effectively carried out where one has the

tool of mob mentality,and skills to use it.

I cant help thinking theres still a basic fear ,rather than,as you

propose,simply learnt behaviour,though it could be in many,not necessarily all,

cases.?

The social factors you have mentioned may be more a matter of " how " this(the

bullying) is achieved/expressed,not a deep expose` of precisely WHAT is going

on,and what is going on may not be a social thing at all,its just using social

heirachy to do its thing.?

anyway,thanks for that ,ill go away and think a bit more on it all

anna from ozz

Klein wrote:

anna wim wrote:

> Just wondering , If bullying is an NT trait,how come it happens

> in ASD/AS too?

Lots of NT traits happen in ASD/AS. We live among them, and most of us

grow up with varying degrees of pressure to be like them, if not to be

one of them exactly. A lot of us mimic a lot of NT things, and some of

these things become fairly well ingrained. It does not make these

things inherent to those people, even if they can be shown doing them.

That is why anecdotal observations where ASD types have been observed to

bully others don't prove that bullying is as much an ASD trait as it is

an NT trait.

If you look at broad-scale NT bullying, and look at what the reasons for

that bullying are, you will see that those reasons are in areas that

autistics are, by definition, " impaired " by NT standards. Bullying as

such requires a group mentality, and that is something that autistics do

not inherently have. It requires understanding of social hierarchy,

which is not inherent in spectrum people either. This is all

well-documented in various texts and papers. The fact that some adult

autistics, and some adolescent autistics, through whatever means, opt to

participate in social hierarchy does not mean that it is inherent within

their neurology. In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true; the

existence of that social hierarchy in the minds of some autistics is a

learned behavior, one that the individual autistic found necessary to

live in an often hostile world in which NTs make the rules.

That is why I suggest that if we were the majority, if we made the

rules, bullying would not be common. The NT mentality of social

ordering and conformity would not be shoved down our throats from the

day we were born, and we would not be the same as we are now. We're not

simply products of our genetics or our neurology; each of us is a

mixture of our genetics and our life experiences. And for the vast

majority of autistics, that life experience has been one that teaches us

that we are only acceptable if we emulate NT behavior, and live by NT

rules. Some of us take this to heart more than others.

> Doesnt that sugest some psycho dynamic thats not a socially related

> thing? Ive been bullied BAD by AS people too. Couldnt it just simply

> be the fear of any real or imagined difference,and the need to keep

> it away,from oneself,and as an extension of that, ones kin.? anna

Anyone has the capacity to be cruel. In fact, many autistics may be

more cruel than an average NT, because they lack empathy for other

living beings. I certainly have limited empathy, and it does show at

times. However, and I have said this before, without the social dynamic

of the NT pack animal, it is nothing more than an interpersonal

conflict. People have conflicts with others all the time. It takes the

NT social hierarchy to make interpersonal conflict into broad-scale

bullying. And I too have known of ASD types that have participated in

that NT social dynamic. They were tired of being picked on, so they

decided to switch sides. A somewhat rational, if unethical, choice. In

the NT world, you have to pick a side; you have to be on the side of the

abusers if you are not going to be on the side of the abused. They

don't see the third choice, which is not to participate at all. And

when the NTs run the world, their blindness to the third choice makes it

a less viable choice for autistics that would otherwise pick the third

choice.

[Guest guest]

Jeanette wrote:

> I also think we are labeled as unempathetic because we don't express

> it the way NTs are used to seeing it, so to them it doesn't exist.

Some it also seems to do with the fact that we cannot easily read the

NT's state of mind, because of the inability to interpret NT nonverbal

signals, and also because of the inability to generalize how the NT

would think or feel based on our own perception. Our inability to read

them is an impairment, but their inability to read us (like when they

think we have no emotions) is somehow not seen so. It's our fault again

for not using appropriate means to let them know how we feel. The

message is clear: Our fault for not being like them.

> The facade is the first and most important thing to most people; they

> know that's what it is yet still convince themselves that well, if

> that person can pretend good enough, or something, then they are OK.

This was the biggest rude awakening I had while trying to get a date

through the singles ads several years ago. I realized that I was

awkward in person, at best, and that I had no ability to judge whether

someone was interested. People have supposedly come close to throwing

themselves at me on at least one occasion, and I never even saw it. My

mom was with me on one occasion, and she was incredulous at how brazen

this girl had been-- expecting me to have noticed it. I had no clue at

all, not even the faintest hint of an inkling that she was interested.

I have known this about myself for a while, long before that incident

happened, so I thought the singles ads would work better. I am much

better able to deal with the written word than the spoken word; while I

might appear like the doofus that I am in person, I might make a better

impression with a singles ad that I could spend an hour or two writing,

and the same would apply to letters I would send to people. I just put

up honest profiles, and when I wrote letters to females based on their

profiles, I was just as honest as could be. I thought it would be dumb

for some people to lie, because once you meet in person and get to know

one another, the lie will become obvious, and I (incorrectly, I guess)

thought that the other person would be so incensed over being lied to,

that she would cut the date short anyway. I thought that a small subset

of them, at least, would be able to tell the difference... but

apparently that's not the case. My response rate was barely over

zero... most responses I sent just disappeared into the abyss.

I looked at ads from other males, and I saw all kinds of neat stuff...

these were the toughest, most happenin', most wonderful " dudes " around.

Far from the domain of the desperate, this was the hangout of the best

of the best. Yeah, sure.

That's not the case for all of them, though, but it did appear that it

was all about creating the most wonderful image of oneself possible--

and reality has nothing whatever to do with it. And when that is the

name of the game, how could I compete? I don't even have a great job (I

was delivering newspapers when I was doing this), a great car, or

anything superficial to brag about. And when I have no inclination nor

any ability to puff myself out to be the greatest male ever, I was no

competition whatever for the males that knew how to play the game.

I began to watch some dating shows on TV... not for research per se, but

just because these pieces of televised tripe seemed more interesting

than they had before. While they're certainly nothing by which I would

assume a date should be judged, it did give me some insight into the

minds of the people playing those games (in front of TV cameras). One

of these shows was Elimidate, where one male and four females, or one

female and four males, go on dates as a group, and step by step, the

redundant members of their sex are eliminated by his or her " date, "

until there is a couple.

Whether a male or female was the one running the show, the things they

seemed to prize were how good their moves on the dance floor were, and

other things like that. Nothing that has any real bearing upon a

relationship ever seemed to be considered; it was all about flash and

image. All of the people tended to exaggerate how wonderful they were,

sometimes to the point of comedy. People that tried too hard were

called on it, and often eliminated for it. People that did not try

enough, though, were even more likely to be eliminated. You have to

know the balance of how hard to try, how much BS to spew about how great

you were, and which irrelevant things to hide.

I once saw a female eliminated because she likes having pet birds. The

male that eliminated her did not tell her that, but her remarked to the

camera that this creeped him out, and the other girls somehow knew this;

they commented that it was really about the birds.

This is a reason to not consider someone for a date-- their choice of

pets? Am I missing something here, or is that completely unrelated to

whether someone is a good person, whether they are a good match for you

based on your personality, et cetera...?

It all seemed just like I mentioned before... all superficial, and

mostly about creating a false image of how wonderful one is. I wondered

if they could really be that shallow, but it seemed that they could.

Maybe all of the shallow stuff was just a " carrier " for the NTs to be

able to swap their nonverbal signals, things that NTs viewing the

program may have beenb able to see, things I missed, but I still think

that's not really getting to know someone.

If that is how dating works, how would I ever have a chance?

I realized that I don't really want to. I know that lots of people say

" dating sucks " and what-not, but they still seem to do it. I don't know

what I would really want to do, but I know that " dates, " as discrete

formalized meetings for the purpose of evaluating the other, are not

things that I really have any desire to do. When I was serious about

the singles ads, I was after what lay beyond the dates... a committed

relationship with someone with whom I would share an emotional

intimacy. That is totally unlike dating... so what relevance would

having dates possibly have?

I guess I want to become friends with someone first, but that has not

proven effective either, because the female friends I have had, where I

was interested in them beyond friendship, never moved beyond

friendship. I don't know how to steer the friendship into something

where that potential of something more is even open. It seems that once

someone gets into a brother-sister relationship, in terms of emotional

charging if not closeness, it remains there.

That was how it went with the one female that opted to go on some dates

with me, in three years of using the singles ads. I was interested in

her... we did go on several dates while I was still visiting California,

and she did come with me to Arizona when I came back here, so she could

see if she would live here, in order to get away from the brutal

ex-boyfriend that had been stalking and terrorizing her.

She spent a week out here, and while we were becoming friends, it seemed

clear to me that this was all we would have. It was like the

relationship was already typecast, like she was already thinking of me

as a pal, and apparently that was because I had never signaled my

interest otherwise.

Many males seem to think that once you go down that path, the female

(keep in mind this is a male perspective) will always tend to see you in

terms of a friend, more like one of the girls than as a potential mate.

After having gone on several dates with this woman, and having her in my

house, and me not hitting on her in any way, or signaling my interest,

but with me also showing interest in her as a human being, and being

nice, I guess she concluded that my thoughts were platonic... and I do

not know if, after knowing her only for that short time, I could have

changed the direction of that relationship, even if I suddenly got more

of a clue.

It also seems that the longer you know someone as a friend, only, the

more difficult it would be to ever move out of that. All that you learn

about the other person is then in the context of a friend; the memories

you have of the other person telling you things are all encoded with the

interpersonal emotional coding of a friendship, only. You react

differently to things you learn about someone depending on the

relationship you have with that person. Things that you found

acceptable as a friend, and that you might have been able to accept in

time as a romantic partner, may seem wholly unacceptable if

long-standing friends were to ever try to re-mold the relationship.

The thing about this is that I consider it to be unacceptable to touch

someone without explicit permission, and I also consider it to be

unacceptable to hit on someone until you know she is receptive-- and

simply being on a date with someone is insufficient evidence of that, to

me. She may well be broadcasting a 50,000 watt clear channel signal

that she is receptive to an advance, but my radio has no batteries, so I

never get the signal. And I have gathered that NT females typically

want a male that will be bold enough to make moves even if he does not

know if she is receptive... they think that a guy that would ask before

touching is too wimpy or too nice, and they're not attracted to that.

It may bother them when unwanted males hit on her, but she expects just

that from the male that interests her.

So, my way is a double dead end, in that I am less likely to make an

advance with no knowledge that she is receptive, and I am less likely to

get that signal. And there's a third dead end too, in that I have no

idea how to hit on someone. At all. Males that do this in a clumsy way

are generally rebuffed; they are supposed to be smooth, and by the time

one of them is my age, he has probably done it at least once

(intentionally). The only times I have done it intentionally were when

an NT told me what to do, and it was more blind obedience than anything

else.

The female that I took back here to get away from her stalker ex, of

course, went back to him as soon as I took her back to California.

" Ooh, he's SO romantic, " she gushed in her email to me. Yeah, and he

likes to kick your ass too, but I guess that's okay if he can be romantic.

That was why I concluded that the singles ads, for me, were no solution

at all. They're too much like regular dating.

> It's also interesting that some of the highest paid and most valued

> persons in NT society are the ones that can fake it the best- actors.

> They are given awards for their ability to pretend- it's called

> " talent " !

That is actually a brilliant observation! I never thought of it like

that before.

> I CAN be empathetic to people, but I generally try not to, because

> for some reason people see kindness as a weakness, and then decide to

> take advantage of it.

I have a hard time empathizing with anyone I meet or communicate with.

I have more empathy with people I hear about in the third person, like

when I hear of how autistics have been abused here or there. When I

deal with them personally, in email or real life, I tend not to do it,

or to really be able to do it. I do fit the lack of empathy stereotype

to a pretty big degree. Not all of the lack of empathy autistics are

supposed to have is about the inability to read NTs and their inability

to read us. Some, but not all.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I guess I want to become friends with someone first, but that has not

> proven effective either, because the female friends I have had, where I

> was interested in them beyond friendship, never moved beyond

> friendship.

For some reason this reminds me of how hubby and I got together. After my

first marriage went down in flames, I had learned what I did *not* want from

a man. Raising my two boys became my priority, though I remained open for a

relationship. I don't know how to do the dating thing, either. Instead of

trying to learn how to do it, I decided to be upfront with anyone I was

interested in. I did not want to do this pussyfooting around nonsense.

When I met Dick, I was visiting a friend in another state. I talked to Dick

while I was there and after I returned home I wrote him a letter telling him

that I was interested in him. He wrote me a letter back saying that he

thought I was a nice person, but was not interested in me " that way " .

Since I liked him a lot (and it was rare for me to be attracted to anyone) I

did not want to let him go so easily. So I wrote him back and asked if we

could stay in contact. He replied yes so I periodically wrote him. After a

while he became uncomfortable with this (he knew that I was still interested

and he felt he was stringing me along by letting me write him) and asked me

to back off. So I did for several months.

At the beginning of the next year I had a vibe that something was going on

with him and wrote him another letter. In it I told him that I felt he was

going through something and that I hoped he was okay. He wrote right back

saying that he was going through a lot and appreciated my support. So we

began writing again. Several months later circumstances with my oldest son

made it necessary (for his sake) to move. So I decided to move where Dick

was.

After moving to the town he lived in we saw each other regularly. Dick later

told me that the first time he saw me he didn't think that I was too

attractive. I had short hair at the time and he doesn't like short hair on

women. He had only seen me that one time so he had that image of me in his

mind.

After I moved to where he was and he got to spend time with me in person he

realized that he was attracted to me after all. He then told me that he

always liked me as a person. That I was the most interesting person he had

ever met, so that was why he wanted to remain in contact with me.

When he realized that he found me attractive, our relationship moved

quickly. We were married in a few months of my moving to his town. I really

think that if I had done the normal female thing of letting the guy pursue

me (which is how I ended up with deadbeat first husband who was all flash

and no substance), Dick and I might never have gotten together.

Take care,

Gail :-)