Showing posts with label Amanda Forest Vivian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amanda Forest Vivian. Show all posts

On ABA: They hate you. Yes, you.

Amanda Forest Vivian
adeepercountry.blogspot.com

Content note: Includes discussion of discrimination and abuse by teachers and ABA practitioners, and a photo of a child in ABA therapy receiving an electric shock.

----

I always think about Danny, who was not really named Danny. It's too bad I can't use his real name because it's one of my favorite names. I'm sure he's forgotten me, but I can remember his name, his face, his favorite subway train, and the words he made up.

He was a kid I met this summer at the school where I interned. I have written about him several times, sometimes at length. And although he was my favorite kid at the school, that isn't why Danny is always surfacing in my mind, tiny in his big t-shirts, flinging himself around and reciting things.

It's through Danny that I found out for sure, this stuff is about me.

Because the first thing people use on us is always, "It's not about you." When I was a kid, when I first started reading about autism rights, it was so instinctive: of course it's wrong to say "cure autism now." Of course it's wrong to say autism is a tragedy, a disease, it's wrong to give kids electric shocks, it's wrong to say you thought about killing your kid in a video about eliminating autistic people from the gene pool. Like Sinclair says it's wrong to mourn for a living person. All this stuff was plain and clear and bright, and I was autistic, and I was being attacked.

Right?

Well, not to anyone else.

Because, of course, if I told anyone I was autistic, they said I was lying, or I had a different kind of autism that made me smart and talented, so I wasn't like Those Kids, the kids who needed to be cured. And that I should think about their parents, about the money and time to care for a person like that, about the dreams that are shattered when your kid is really autistic—not smart autistic, the real kind.

So in my late teens when I put myself through my paces, when I figured out my deficiencies and set myself to systematically eradicating them, one of the deficiencies I eradicated was my use of the word autistic. Because you shouldn't use words people don't understand. And you shouldn't use words that will make someone feel bad, someone who has a kid who's Really Bad, Really Disabled. Because you're not that.

And I met some autistic kids and they were not much like me, and I didn't know to apply what I knew about myself to them, because I couldn't see what they were feeling inside. But I liked them. Then I met some people with intellectual disabilities and I liked them too; after a brief nervousness because some of them looked so different from me, and made noises I didn't understand, it was easy to like them. They were people who liked things, some of them the same things I liked. I could see that they weren't on the surface very similar to me, but I liked being around them almost more because of that, because it made me feel happy and chastened to misjudge them again and again. To be proven wrong when I thought I could quantify them just because I knew more words.

So by this point, I was pretty much sold, even if I wasn't Really Autistic, on the idea that people with developmental disabilities matter. Because I was around them all the time and it was obvious they mattered. But still, I felt my position was that of an outsider, an ally. I had opinions, but I didn't necessarily feel that I had much right to talk about them; I didn't feel I had as much right as the parents or teachers of people with developmental disabilities.

And then I interned at this school.

And I started out thinking: wow, ABA is so cool. I've heard negative things about it from other Not Really Autistic people, but who am I to talk about what these Really Autistic kids need? They can't even talk. They might bite themselves or something. What the hell do I know about that?

And then I met Danny and the other kids in his class. High-functioning kids. Verbal kids.

Tony, who had been nonverbal a few years before, was incredibly hardworking and sweet. When he went into the school director's office and turned out the lights as a joke, I laughed, but she said, "Tony. Look at my face. How do you think that made me feel?" She stood there looking grim until he apologized.

James was stressed out and upset; one of his teachers leaned towards him, staring fiercely into his eyes, talking with cold, strained-sounding words, the kind of voice I called "static" when I was a kid. James looked scaredly back at her, wriggling his hands around in his lap. "James," she said. "I know you're upset. But what you're doing with your hands looks silly." This boy, all the tension in him being channeled into something harmless, something she had to look under the table to see. His tension was silly. His discomfort was an inconvenience. He was eight or nine years old.

And Danny with his words. "Danny's an interesting kid," the school director told me. "He likes to be in charge." Danny and I were walking, holding hands, and when I responded with concern when he told me he was tired, another teacher told me, "He's playing you." It's true that Danny was a bossy little boy; when we played restaurant, he replied, "No, we're out of that" again and again until I ordered the food he wanted to pretend to make.

And his love of subway trains spilled out everywhere. He was supposed to write a story about a sad princess, and he did, but half the story was about the princess's friends taking her on the subway to cheer her up. He was supposed to write a crossword puzzle and the clues were things like, "Transfer is available to _____ North." The school was full of subway maps, since many field trips involved subways, and Danny would sometimes just lean over a desk, pressing his face into the shapes and colors, whispering his favorite schedules to himself.

Danny just liked words. When he was using his special words, the weird words he scrounged for or made up himself, he would find himself jerkily hopping across the room, speaking in a squeaky voice, his small face tense with excitement. "Presentation" was a weird word for movie, "document" was a way to talk about the letter he had typed on the computer for his parents. "I went to the barber," he said when I commented on his newly short hair, and then, with a rush of joy, "!but I like to call it the hair shop!"

I like words too. It was hard to watch Danny's teachers nudge him, sit down with him, say, "Danny, the word 'presentation' is a little weird; you need to say 'movie.'" It was hard to watch the way they looked at him, pointedly, until he stilled his hopping and lowered his voice to a more standard pitch. When Danny found out my middle name is Wood, he completely tripped out on it, hammering pretend nails into my stomach and giggling, "I'm gonna build something out of you!" "Danny," a teacher said, "don't be weird. You and Amanda were talking about names."

It was the word 'weird.' Nothing foreign my whole life. Tracing words and shapes in the air, crossing myself, my mom asking me a lot of questions, "Have you been feeling the urge to do that lately? Why do you do that?" with so much static voice it was clear I'd better keep my hands as still as possible when she was around. Running jerkily up the stairs at school, I couldn't help myself until I was fifteen or sixteen, despite the older boys laughing to each other—"is she trying to race you?" Movement just consumed me that way. And being a thirteen-year-old who said "suppose" and "quite" when no other kids did. Just loving words too much, finding it hard to stay away from the strange ones. And getting too excited. Being weird is not that alien for me.

So my divisions broke down a little, because I was watching a kid just like me, and I was learning, in very specific, qualitative terms, what other people thought of people like me. I was so nervous about keeping myself still and using the right words because I thought they wouldn't let me intern there if they knew I was actually like Danny, that I didn't think he was weird at all. All of Danny's teachers had been taught to grimace and say how annoying it was when he talked about trains. They watched The Office, but they never ever laughed when Danny told flat, self-referential jokes on purpose, twisting the ones he had been trained to say. I thought Danny was funny. Every time I talked to him I felt nervous about doing something that his teachers would think was wrong, and I also felt bad about perpetuating the attitude he was being taught, that none of the things he loved mattered.

So from specific to general, from Danny to James and Tony, to Max and John. John's teacher made him walk, in stiff, clean steps, and if he started doing anything that looked like skipping or jumping, she grabbed his arm, said "No," forced him again and again. Max liked to move his arm in circles while he was watching TV, so he was hauled off into an office, pushed down into a chair, had mouthwash forced into his mouth while he cried. They told me they were narrowing it down, he was moving less and less. Max and John didn't talk. James and Tony didn't talk as well as I do. But I move too much, and I move wrong, especially when I was a kid, and in that school I saw what they do to kids who move wrong.

I realized that, actually, a lot of it was about moving wrong. Or talking wrong, if you could talk. Or just taking too much initiative--wanting to make up songs, like Danny did, or playing a practical joke, like Tony did. That these kids looked and acted different and the school wanted to control them and make them as still and docile as they could possibly be. Watching them treat hopping, rocking, and neologisms like you'd treat a bomb on an airplane--it was like being at summer camp with a kid from the south, sitting in a car uncomfortably while he said he'd kill a gay person if they ever came near him. Wanting to say, no, it's not anything important; I'm like that, see? But I didn't talk in the car, and I didn't talk in the school.

This is too long. It's hard to even explain it. I just have to say, for the millionth time, that this whole functioning level thing—yes, it matters in certain ways. I can buy and cook food for myself, while high-support autistic people probably can't. I can hide the way I move and talk better than other people can. But this doesn't really have much to do with politics, because when people claim that "cure autism now" and the disease model and the Judge Rotenberg Center are not about me, well I beg to differ. The only reason they're not about me is that I'm old and verbal enough to not be vulnerable to that kind of abuse. They would be all too happy to practice it on me if they could. Autistic people do not get abused because they are low-functioning, they get abused because they do weird things.

So, the old-school ABA trials? With Lovaas?

This is a kid getting an electric shock:

[image: Black-and-white photo of an autistic child
receiving an electric shock as part of ABA therapy.]

This is why:

[image: black-and-white photo of a child who is
stimming by holding their hand in front
of their face, and also toe-walking.]

If you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, the wrong age, the wrong functioning level, this could be your life.

This what people like them think about people like us.



This post was originally published at adeepercountry.blogspot.com.

Author's disclaimer: This is a nine-year-old post and when I wrote it, I didn’t have close Autistic friends or much familiarity with self-advocacy or disability rights, except from reading. I don’t disagree with anything I said, except the part about being able to cook, but I would say a few things differently.

1) I obviously can’t speak about all ABA therapists/techs or schools. I will share a story though! When I was first blogging and vlogging about my internship experience, I exchanged messages with an ABA therapist who agreed that the school I interned at was doing certain things wrong, and recommended a better ABA school for me to intern at.

It was the same school.

2) I once read a thread of Autistic people discussing this post on a forum, where people criticized the post for speaking about the staff at the school as a monolith. But I want to clarify that—at least at this school, but I gather at ABA schools in general—they were a monolith by nature. All the teachers and staff had to follow the behavior plan which targeted the child’s “behaviors,” like stimming, neologisms, skipping, etc. and outlined how the child was supposed to be punished for doing those things. Teachers or staff weren't allowed to act in a way that deviated from this. So this is one case where saying “the staff did such-and-such” is not a generalization but just correct.
Share:

Please Stand By Is Not Harmful to Autistic People; It's Just a Bad Movie

Poster for the movie Please Stand By
[image: Dakota Fanning, a white blonde
woman wearing an orange sweater and lots
of colorful lanyards, as the autistic
character Wendy in Please Stand By,]
Amanda Forest Vivian
adeepercountry.blogspot.com

I usually don’t watch movies about autism, but after being told that [TPGA editor] Shannon would make me a gimlet I dipped my toes into the horrible pool. My limply positive impression of the trailer was borne out by the movie: it doesn’t say anything bad about Autistic people, and the main character Wendy breaks some stereotypes. She is female, can’t live on her own but can talk, and isn’t a genius. I don’t think this movie will harm Autistic people, and I’m grateful for that.

However, it’s still a bad movie that has nothing going for it but a dog in a cute sweater. You can see a dog in a cute sweater on YouTube without having to watch someone pretend to be Autistic by yelling things like, “My mom is dead! That means she doesn’t feel anything anymore!”

Dakota Fanning’s performance was just awful. It came off like she and the director had never seen an Autistic person, but based on something they read they decided that to look like an Autistic person, you should just stand very still and look serious. Dakota didn’t stim or have any physical mannerisms that would have particularly made her look like an Autistic person; she just acted like a piece of cardboard and that was the whole performance. Actors who are playing developmentally disabled characters often get made fun of for acting overly emotional, childlike, or awkward in an attempt to come off as disabled—but at least they’re acting.

It was hard to relate to Wendy because of the performance, but the story was also very incoherent, both in terms of the situation the characters were in at the beginning, and the emotional development I guess they were supposed to have.

This review spoils some plot points, such as they are.

At the beginning of the movie, Wendy’s sister Audrey is making her live in a group home after their mother died. Wendy would prefer to live with Audrey’s family, but Audrey not only refuses, she won’t even bring her baby to meet Wendy. Audrey apparently thinks Wendy is dangerous, and there’s no good explanation given for that. Obviously it’s verboten to portray autism parents in a bad light, but it would make more sense if their mom had raised Audrey with a negative view of Wendy and the movie showed Audrey getting out from under that. Instead, we’re given the opposite impression—that the mom treated Wendy much better than Audrey does. It seems Audrey has a problem with Wendy for no reason, yet she’s supposed to be a sympathetic character.

Since this is the conflict at the beginning of the movie, you’d expect it to be addressed when Wendy runs away from her group home in San Francisco and travels to Los Angeles to deliver her submission to a Star Trek scriptwriting contest. You might think that making this journey would be challenging but empowering for Wendy and everyone would see her in a new light because they didn’t expect her to be able to do this.

But Wendy’s journey isn’t meaningful. The only reason it’s challenging is because a bunch of random obstacles get unnaturally placed in her way. These obstacles mostly fall into two categories:
  1. Almost everyone Wendy meets is mean to her. For example, two bus drivers ignore Wendy when she asks them a question; clerks and cashiers glare at her; and the one time she approaches a stranger and tries to make friends with them, she’s robbed.

    At one point she tries to buy candy at a gas station and the cashier tries to trick her into paying $18 for a $2 bag of candy. If you think about the fact that gas stations have security cameras and they have to count up the register at the end of the day, this is a really complicated way to get $16. It’s like the side characters are contractually obligated to drop what they’re doing and torment the poor disabled girl.
  2. Facts of the universe seem to be out to get Wendy as well. A holiday she forgot means she can’t send her submission by mail; she’s traveling with her dog but he’s not allowed on the bus; she doesn’t have enough money for a ticket after being robbed; and she is completely taken aback when she finds out about these things, even though she was waiting to buy the ticket for eleven hours.
Maybe we were supposed to think it was part of Wendy’s disability that she doesn’t anticipate these contingencies and has trouble adjusting to them when they happen. I would welcome seeing this in a movie, but if that was what they were going for, it wasn’t clear at all.

Instead, it comes off like Wendy (or the movie) doesn’t understand rules and considers them to be an affront. There’s a scene where Wendy passionately argues with a ticket agent that he should give her a $22 ticket for $7.22, because she really needs a ticket; when he doesn’t agree, she sneaks onto the bus. About ten minutes later, another scene happens with the same beats—Wendy tries to get someone to bend a rule for her, apparently thinking that she can sway him with an intense speech; the person doesn’t give in because he’s just doing his job; Wendy shrugs, defies the rule, and gets away with it. It seemed to me that these two scenes were intended to be the most empowering moments for Wendy.

The problem with this is glaring. Autistic people aren’t likely to go around trying to break rules all the time. That’s ... kind of our thing? Didn’t the movie try to hammer this very same fact into our heads by having Wendy write down rules about life in her notebook and wear days of the week outfits? Just a little while ago she had to convince herself it was okay not to shower every morning.

Sure, there are exceptions to every generalization about Autistic people, but let’s be real: the movie wasn’t trying to show a refreshingly un-stereotypical Autistic person who doesn’t care about rules and has an easy time disregarding them. They forgot.

Anyway, the only reason Wendy has a difficult journey is that nearly everyone she meets is awful, and nearly everything she’s doing is against a rule. These problems don’t happen because she’s Autistic, because she lives a sheltered life, or because her sister and staff underestimated her. Anyone would have trouble getting to LA if they brought a dog on a Megabus, got robbed, got … well, I don’t have time to list all the hardships that befall Wendy.

Since Wendy’s struggles aren’t caused by who she is, and they’re not challenging to her specifically because of who she is, they aren’t thematically meaningful and they don’t lead to character development. It is unclear what change the characters are supposed to have undergone by the end of the movie. It’s just bad.

At the end, I guess Audrey is supposed to have learned a lesson about Wendy. She now believes it’s okay for Wendy to meet and hold the baby. Scottie, Wendy’s vaguely defined support worker, has learned that she wasn’t engaged enough with Wendy. At least I think so? I’m just spitballing here.

(I won’t try to make sense of Wendy’s living situation or the services she receives. Her group home for Autistic young adults is called an “Assisted Living Facility”—a name that implies it’s for senior citizens—and Audrey must pay for it out of pocket. Also, Wendy is obviously conserved, but if you think about this for one second you’ll start trying to figure out when, why, how, and who; the conclusions you’ll come to are horrifying; and unbelievably, I think the writers didn’t think about it at all.)

It’s definitely a sign of progress that this movie exists. Like I said, it’s not harmful or insulting to Autistic people, just bad. Objectively, the most offensive thing is how Audrey is presented as a sympathetic character when some of her behavior is flat out evil—but her evilness is mostly due to “fridge horror,” which I think is due to lazy writing.

However, what stuck with me the most was all the mean strangers Wendy met. Sure, people can be jerks, but they were so dedicated about it. In my experience as a young white Autistic woman like Wendy, that just isn’t how people act in those situations. Most people have neither that kind of malice, nor that much time and energy to spare on making a stranger’s life miserable.

If I can make a huge generalization, I think most of the barriers disabled people face in everyday life are systemic, not personal. And when an individual poses a problem to another individual, it’s more often out of laziness or ignorance than it is out of sadism or hatred. Mostly, the universe is indifferent.

Even though I think the movie intended to show a positive message about Wendy’s resourcefulness and independence, they misstepped in the way they portrayed the world outside Wendy’s familiar bubble. In real life people can be helpful, uninterested, actively trying to make things worse for you, trying to help while doing the opposite, sympathetic to your problems but unable to fix them, able to help a little but not very much; and so on.

The thing is that you don’t always find the most helpful people in your biological family and/or care providers. You may find them at school or work, on the Internet, by the side of the road, or behind the ticket counter at a bus station. The same goes for where you find the least helpful people. A stranger may do you harm, but so might your family.

This is an important lesson for anyone, but especially for Autistic people, I think. While I attribute this to bad writing and not to intent, the movie gives the impression that if an Autistic person defies their family and care providers, they will be wandering around the world completely alone with everyone either hurting them, ignoring them, or too incompetent to help them (ask me about the hilarious car accident). Bizarrely, the only stranger Wendy makes a positive, touching connection with is a policeman—one of the characters more likely to be dangerous to her, if this journey were happening in real life.
Share: