#and it’s not subtle. from square one he solves all his problems with violence cause that’s sorta what he’s been conditioned to do | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

longformautie · 4 years

Text

Addressing sexism of autistic men

CW: gender-based violence, including murder and rape

I. Introduction

This post has been coming for a long time. And I mean a LONG time. My thoughts on this topic have been evolving constantly. They will probably evolve even after I post this. I am still learning and welcome feedback.

I was prompted to write this post during the pre-coronavirus Before Times, when I saw that the popular Facebook page Humans Of New York had profiled an autistic man who had become a pickup artist. For context, pickup artists are a group of straight men who will cynically do whatever it takes to get them laid, which of course means blatantly ignoring the needs of the women they interact with, and who share strategies with one another. The autistic man in the photo post talked about how before he was a pickup artist he was hopeless with women, and now he was getting girls - getting laid, even. He said he knew it was manipulative, but that it was only fair - after all, it’s not like anyone had ever sympathized with him for his social difficulties. I was curious about what people had to say in the comments section; turns out, I wasn’t satisfied by any of the takes I found.

The takes I didn’t like can be broken down into two categories. Category number one were formulations like “poor him, he just wants to be accepted.” I’m not even a little bit sympathetic to this take and will only be spending a moment on it. Suffice it to say, it’s hard to take these people at their word that they care about the autism struggle when they don’t show up in droves to the banners of the neurodiversity movement with this level of enthusiasm. Rather, we are part of a culture that likes to sympathize with toxic men. If the man wasn’t autistic, they’d find some other excuse, but since he is, in defending him they can also activate the ableist notion that autistic people are incapable of respecting boundaries. I choose the word “incapable” because if your position is that autistic people sometimes don’t know better than to violate a boundary, the logical conclusion is simply that someone should teach them. To sincerely and enthusiastically take up this kind of “poor autistic guy doesn’t know any better” rhetoric, you have to presume complete incompetence of autistic people and that we’ll never learn, so that when a straight autistic man does a violating thing to a woman, they can shrug their shoulders and say, “well, I guess nothing can be done about this.” This attitude is sexism and ableism couched in a delusion of sympathy.

Category number two of takes, I like lots better but still am not quite satisfied with, and can be roughly summarized: “This isn’t caused by autism, it’s caused by being an asshole.” While I agree that being an asshole is the main ingredient in this cocktail, I don’t think the autism should be dismissed as an irrelevant detail. I think there is a sexism problem specific to autistic men that needs to be separately talked about and addressed. I intend to do so in this post, without assigning blame either to the autism or to the women being abused.

I want to note in advance that this post will be cishet-centric, not because I think straight experiences are universal, partly because the behavior of cishet men is what’s at task here, but mostly because I have no idea how these issues affect LGBTQIA communities. If anyone is able and willing offer insight or resources on that topic, I’d love to hear from you.

I. Autistic men

Having experienced it firsthand, I can say for sure that autistic loneliness is a vicious cycle. By loneliness, I mean a lack of any social connection, not just a lack of romantic or sexual partners. Autism makes social interaction more difficult, which makes it harder to find friends, but, crucially, not having friends also makes social interaction more difficult. More people to interact with means more practice with social interaction; it also means more assistance from comparatively clued-in people who care about us. This vicious cycle can also manifest with respect to a subset of people. For example, an autistic child who only socially interacts with adults may have trouble forming connections with peers. For the purpose of this discussion, I want to focus on the problems this presents for autistic boys who want to interact with girls in their age group.

The scarcity of cross-gender social interaction during childhood need not be framed as a uniquely autistic experience. Societal forces sort us by gender from an incredibly early age, so the vast majority of our social connections in childhood are with people of the same gender. Furthermore, especially during and after adolescence, boys and men are discouraged from being emotionally close with one another. Thus, the norms of masculinity isolate us almost totally from peers of all genders. Our social connections with men must be superficial; our social connections with women must be non-platonic. For those of us who crave the emotional intimacy that our same-gender friendships lack, a romantic relationship is the only socially acceptable opportunity to forming a deep, loving bond with someone close to our own age.

Enter autism (again). Dating, when we hit adolescence, is wholly new to us, and we have been given no opportunity to adjust ourselves to its social norms. Autism makes this a particular challenge, as do gender roles in dating. Since men are supposed to initiate and women are supposed to merely give subtle hints (if not be straight-out “hard to get”), straight autistic men face both the pressure of leaping into an arena that intimidates us, and the bewilderment of not knowing whether it’s working. If I had a crush on you in high school, I probably kept it a secret; if you had a crush on me, I probably didn’t notice.

Worth noting here that none of the things I’ve listed are evidence against autistic men’s actual attractiveness or appeal to women. We are facing access barriers that accumulate over the course of our lives until we finally figure out how to start ripping them down, and when we do, we quite often do get to have romantic and sexual relationships. But the prevailing narrative about autism and other disabilities is that they’re unsexy, and a lot of autistic men buy into that. I myself thought I was one of those autistic men who’d never date or have sex until experience taught me otherwise.

Knowing all this, we can see why a lot of autistic men might feel both that they need a relationship to be happy, and that they cannot possibly have one. This makes us prime targets for recruitment, because the sense of personal injury at being deprived of sexual experiences for reasons beyond one’s control is as indispensable an ingredient in the various movements of the “manosphere” as the sexism itself. It’s not that autistic men are any more or any less sexist than regular men, but that the sexists among us already feel exactly the way these communities require them to feel: deeply aggrieved, and deeply desperate. Pickup artistry both validates this sense of personal injury, and sells itself as the solution: a set of simple, logical rules that, when followed, will grant success. But it misses the uncomfortable truth that while everyone deserves to receive love, no particular person is obliged to give it. This is a deeply frustrating contradiction with no easy solution, but the solution certainly is not to cynically manipulate women into doing the thing you want.

III. Allistic women

I never was a pickup artist, but that doesn’t mean I never harbored a grievance against women for my loneliness. After all, I thought, wouldn’t my perpetual singleness end if women were more direct and assertive? As such, I worry that other people who read this may end up pinning the responsibility for autistic loneliness onto individual women too. The previous section hints at why that’s wrong, but I also want to take the time to explain why it’s deeply unfair.

My autism and masculinity were first brought into conjunction (or was it conflict?) in my mind in my freshman year of college. One of my new Facebook friends shared a Tumblr blog called “Straight White Boys Texting” which was a collection of screenshots of unwanted straight white boy texts, running the gamut from simple inability to take a hint to bona fide “what color is your thong” garbage. I felt pretty attacked, partly because I wasn’t yet used to seeing myself as part of a “straight white boys” collective that people didn’t like, and partly because what I saw was a bunch of guys missing social cues and taking things literally, just as a younger me would have done. I felt like I needed to say something - and boy, was that a bad decision. I said something about how the women in the screenshots needed to be more direct, and got instant (and deserved) backlash both for focusing on the least important problem in the interactions and for placing responsibility for a male behavior problem squarely back onto women.

At the time, I didn’t have a coherent framework for understanding sexism. Since then, I’ve learned that giving a direct no can occasionally get women killed, and most often at least gets them yelled at and insulted. Giving a yes also comes with its own risks - the risk of rape, in (unfortunately-not-actually-so-)extreme cases where that inch of “yes” results in guys taking a mile, but also the more pervasive risk of being socially stigmatized as slutty or promiscuous. It’s often the most women can get away with to be subtle (rather than completely silent) about all of their wants and needs, so that a discerning man who actually cares will know what those wants and needs are and respect them.

This puts those of us who have trouble with reading subtle signals in a difficult position if we inadvertently cross a boundary, but that’s not a problem women can reasonably be expected to solve. If a man crosses a woman’s boundaries because he simply doesn’t respect them, he wants to make it look like it’s an accident so that he will be forgiven. “But Aaron,” you might say, “didn’t you just say that the right thing to do in those situations is to teach people the right behavior, not ignore it?” Yes, that’s true. But that assumes the continuation of a conversation that a woman might feel safer just skipping; if a man is making her feel uncomfortable, she’s probably not inclined to continue to converse with him in order to establish whether his intentions were good or bad. When we impose the burden of freeing males from loneliness onto women, we are asking them to continue to interact with frightening men at their own peril.

Ironically enough, some of these frightening men are the autistic pickup artists from part 1. This means that pickup artists, far from “solving” the problems with dating they feel aggrieved by, are actually making it more difficult for everyone except themselves by giving women one more reason to be scared and cynical, and men who slip up one more type of monster to be mistaken for.

IV. Autistic women

At first glance, it seems like there’s a choice to be made here, between supporting autistic men who want to be valued as potential romantic and sexual partners and supporting allistic women who just want to be safe. But what I’m realizing more and more is that when there seems to be a conflict between the needs of two marginalized groups, the right choice is generally to avoid picking a side and instead find ways to support both groups. This works well, not only because both groups get what they want, but because if a side must be chosen, the people at the intersection of the two groups will lose both ways.

Autistic women bear the brunt of every part of this mess, as described in detail by Kassiane Asasumasu on her blog, Radical Neurodivergence Speaking (see the links later in this paragraph). Because autistic men fear ableism from neurotypical women, we tend to believe that autistic women are the only partners who will accept us for who we are. As a result, autistic women report being swarmed at autism meetup groups by men looking for a girlfriend, and those men who struggle with independent living are more than willing to escape that by leaning on the patriarchal expectation that the woman does all the chores, even when she is an autistic woman who struggles with the exact same tasks. This means autistic women actually interact with sexist autistic men the most, and not only are they subject to the same toxic shit that allistic women have to deal with, but they’re also expected to “understand” these men and thus endlessly tolerate their (supposedly inevitable) shitty behavior.

V. Solutions

Fortunately, the choice between female safety and autistic desirability is not a choice we have to make, but the solutions are not as simple as members of one or the other group simply choosing to behave differently. Rather, they require the collective participation of all kinds of people.

Addressing autistic male sexism necessarily means addressing sexism. It means respecting when women say no, rather than making it an unpleasant experience they might fear to repeat. It means teaching consent in special education classrooms, so that no one can claim in good faith that an autistic boy who crosses a boundary simply doesn’t know better. It means teaching girls, as they grow into women, that they are under no obligation to tolerate sexist behavior out of sympathy for the sexist man.

But addressing sexism also means supporting boys and men as they escape the confines of conventional masculinity. It means enabling and encouraging them to have close friends of all genders. It means reminding them that they don’t need a woman, any more than a woman needs a man.

In addition to addressing sexism, we need to address the ableism that prevents autistic people from accessing not just dating but emotional closeness of all kinds. We need to stimulate autistic people’s peer relationships at all stages of life. We cannot do this if special ed teachers continue to view us as broken allistic people rather than whole autistic people, nor can we do it if they view us as incomplete adults rather than entire children. If an autistic boy is unable to learn about condoms because it offends the sensibilities of the teacher, or if he is unable to learn how to talk like a teenager because his parents would like him to learn to speak like an adult, then that autistic boy is being deprived both of autonomy and of the opportunity to learn.

Furthermore, we need to teach allistic children how to interact with their autistic peers. Autistic people need no additional incentive to learn how to interact with the societal majority who control their access to jobs, housing, healthcare, education, political representation, and much more. Allistic people can, however, choose not to bother learning how to support and include us and face almost no social consequences beyond not getting to see my cool maps. Rather than alleviating this unequal distribution of incentives, adults generally exacerbate it by focusing only on the social development of autistic children with respect to interactions with allistic people, but not on the social development of allistic children towards being able to interact with autistic people. This is because the prevailing view regarding autism is still that our modes of moving through the world are incorrect and defective, whereas allistic modes of social interaction are viewed as normal and valid even when they exclude others.

The problem of autistic male sexism is hairy and complicated, but if we take the above steps, we can solve it without further stigmatizing autism, and without victim-blaming women. We don’t have to leave anyone behind in this conversation. Rather, by fighting both for autism acceptance and consent culture, we can produce a more just world where everyone gets the love and respect that they deserve.

3 notes · View notes

doomonfilm · 5 years

Text

Thoughts : SLC Punk! (1998)

When I first saw the film Scream, many aspects of it stood out to me and stuck with me, but one of the main things that left an impression was the performance of Matthew Lillard. The cast was stacked with talent, but he definitely stood out... in fact, he stood out to the point where I felt the need to see what other movies he’d been in. That small bit of curiosity led me to one of my favorite films of the 1990s, SLC Punk!

It’s 1985 in Salt Lake City, Utah, and best friends Stevo (Matthew Lillard) and ‘Heroin’ Bob (Michael A. Goorjian), two of the main members of the Punk scene in the desolate city, have just graduated from university. Their goal is to cause anarchy in the city by way of nihilism, chaos and hi-jinx. As the summer progresses, the pair navigate their way through parties as we learn about their social circle : Mike (Jason Segel), a seemingly straight-laced young man with a brooding intensity; Mark (Til Schweiger) an enigmatic foreigner with lots of money and drugs; Sandy (Jennifer Lien), a free spirit that Stevo has feelings for; Trish (Annabeth Gish), an older member of the community that Bob deeply admires; and Sean (Devon Sawa), who finds himself a beggar in the fallout of a bad acid trip and mental hospital stay. The Punks explore their interactions with the Rednecks, Mods, Neo-Nazis, New Wavers, Rockers, Heavy Metal Guys and more via diplomatic gestures and fistfights. As the days go by, Stevo finds himself more and more jaded as the scene splinters apart, his father (Christopher McDonald) pressures him to apply for Harvard Law School, and his friends begin to grow apart. Despite his best attempts, Stevo is finally forced to face some harsh realities and make difficult decisions about his future.

The use of a society easily identified by tropes works very well in this film, with the aforementioned social circles representing different social and economical statuses, vastly different sets of morals, political stances, and more. The Punk community seems to be fueled by rebellion in the search of personal validation, rather than looking inward. Their scene was developed through seemingly drastic actions and stances, and in what we learn will play out as the scene’s death rattle, their final action is inaction, maybe even anti-action. The juxtaposition of the Punks being well-educated and able to back up their stances with empirical statements and their complete willingness to solve problems with violence is an engrossing one.

The anti-American sentiment in search of an ‘alternative’ version of the American dream is displayed in the form of violence against Rednecks, using Ronald Reagan as a symbol of the ‘enemy’, squatting rather than taking part in the traditional housing market, and so on. Even characters like Mike show that the seemingly ‘square’ kid can feel a complete disconnect from ‘square’ society, often resulting in shocking explosions based in pent up frustration and a deep dedication to those whom they connect with. The occasional glimpses of Stevo using lawyer-like tactics in his narration puts an interesting hue on the proceedings, as it plays against his clear refusal to let go of the Punk scene.

The classic punk rock covers altered to make the opening titles is a perfect mood setter. The cast is absolutely stacked in this film, with many members of the young ensemble moving forward to bigger and better things. Narratively, the main story is relatively thin, but it provides many opportunities that skew into highly entertaining and informative vignettes or flashbacks. Much of the costuming is on point across the social groups, with a personal favorite of mine being ‘Heroin’ Bob’s Travis Bickle-inspired costuming. The soundtrack is banger after banger, many of which became personal favorite songs.

Matthew Lillard displayed all of the potential in the world to be a breakout star with the charisma, comedic chops and emotional range that he brings to this performance. Michael A. Goorjian displays equally dynamic comedic timing, jarring attitude swings, and a gifted ability to run off long monologues with minimal effort and maximum realism. Jason Segel puts his prowess of subtle yet easily readable intensity on full display. Til Schweiger throws such a quirky dynamic into the film that he basically steals a solid ten minutes or so of it away from the main narrative, turning it into a small showcase of his Mark character. Adam Pascal brings a wonderful upbeat energy in his brief appearance, while Devon Sawa plays the other side in the form of a devastatingly sad portrayal of a fallen innocent. Annabeth Gish brings a wisdom to her performance that couches her as a sort of earthbound goddess of the scene. Jennifer Lien interjects a freedom of spirit that has no regard for the emotional impact it has on others. Brief appearances by Christopher McDonald, James Duval, Summer Phoenix, and childhood Stevo/’Heroin’ Bob portrayals by Christopher Ogden and Francis Capra round things out.

In a world of films based on comic books, SLC Punk! seemed to be way ahead of the curve. At some point, I need to go check out the source material, but I love that I have this film in my collection to enjoy whenever I like.

#ChiefDoomsday #DOOMonFILM #JamesMerendino #SLCPunk!#MatthewLillard #MichaelAGoorjian #JasonSegel #AnnabethGish #JenniferLien #ChristopherMcDonald #DevonSawa #AdamPascal #TilSchweiger #JamesDuval #SummerPhoenix #ChristopherOgden #FrancisCapra

2 notes · View notes

bloodthirstymoonstone · 6 years

Text

Cursed Lance Pt. 2

AKA: What the fucking fuck is up with Valter, is he possessed or what WHAT IS CAUSING THIS--

This can be seen as the continuation to my first ever meta post about the Cursed Lance I did many moons ago. (And probably just as long lmao.) In that post I refrained from stating in plain terms whether or not Valter is indeed possessed or if the Lance just drove him crazy, and he’s now mostly acting on his own accord. Mostly this was just done because I wasn’t sure which one I wanted to go with.

But now, after a lot of thought, I’ve decided...

That, yes. He is, indeed, possessed. Now I want to stress that this type of possession is NOT as severe as the likes of Lyon, because the object of his possession is just a stupid Lance and NOT the Demon King. But the Lance in question is indeed alive, and very much in control of Valter’s actions.

So what is the Lance? Simply put, it’s a demon in lance shape. It can’t move and can’t do things that are beyond the limits of a normal lance. It can’t walk or shapeshift. It’s basically just a really sharp, pointy parasite. All it can do is sucker patsies into feeding its desire for chaos and destruction -- and yes, it most certainly CAN do this regardless of physical distance between it and its host.

The way the thing works is that, while it’s in its “dormant” state, it lures prospective hosts in using weak, subtle telepathic abilities. Lots of people give Duessel (the original, non-crazy owner of the lance) shit because of the obvious question of WHY WOULD HE BRING THE THING AROUND WITH HIM? He knew that it was only one dummy who grabbed it on accident away from being a huge pile of bullshit he’d have to clean up. Why not just leave it back at the crib until you needed it?

That will probably never get answered in canon, but my theory was that he couldn’t. The Lance is still alive whether it’s got an active host or not. It sends out a seductive lure out for people who might be good hosts almost constantly, and if Duessel simply left it at home, he’d have to deal with near constant break-ins of two-bit thieves trying to get inside and pilfer it without really knowing why they’re drawn to it (if asked, they’d either come up with a lame excuse of “I thought it would be worth a lot of money” or just frankly admit that they have no idea). Duessel, though, was used to its seductive siren song. He figured it was safer to keep it close by where he can keep an eye on it and prevent anyone from touching it. But even someone like him can occasionally have slip-ups.

That same luring action is what prompted Valter to grab it in the heat of battle. All it took was one thrust, and he was snared. The beast inside the Lance was awoken, and from then on, he was forever linked to it telepathically. The Lance was now in its active, feeding state.

While in the active state, the Lance acts as a parasite that feeds off of the rush of endorphins Valter gets when he either kills or hurts someone (including himself, to a degree). It released Valter from his inhibitions, and for most of the time they were linked, only used a very rudimentary punishment / reward based system. When it was “pleased” with his level of violence, it was quiet. When it thirsted for blood, it tormented him. For YEARS, that was the only thing it was required to do -- most of the deranged shit Valter did while he was possessed, he did because he had secretly always WANTED to do it. He was always a sick puppy, in other words. The Lance basically just took away his ability to feel shame about it.

That’s not to say that its hold on him isn’t extremely potent, though. In recent months, things have taken a bit of a turn. After his crushing defeat in the Spring Tournament, something happened that almost never does while the Lance is in direct control of a host. It very nearly lost control over him. Temporarily, of course, but even that was enough to leave the Lance feeling a bit shook.

While its control of Valter had been pretty hands-off until that point, it does have a secret weapon. I can and HAS in the past completely taken over someone’s mind. The problem is that it doesn’t WANT to. It’s a fucking Lance. It doesn’t know shit about how to achieve homeostasis. Bullshit like sleep? Eating??? Using the bathroom??????? It’s a fucking LANCE -- it doesn’t want to have to control all of that trifling “staying alive” hogwash humans have to go through. It just wants to get its chow on.

Not only that, but there are very physical harmful effects to it having to get its hands dirty like that. The Lance is basically an infection of the mind, and the more it gets involved controlling its host, the more the body tries to fight against it. Anyone in direct control would probably have high fevers, stiff, zombie-like movements, and would experience accelerated aging, dying of “natural causes” due to the stress put on their bodies within 10 years, max.

That’s why Valter was such a uniquely excellent host for it. It didn’t HAVE to take a huge sum of control to get him to do what it ultimately wanted. All he needed was the slightest of nudges, and he’d be racing off to accomplish it all on his own. But the realization that Valter was fast on the track to dying alone without anyone who cared about him or who could take over his vast estate threatened that stability. He wanted to be admired again.

To preserve its hold on him, the Lance directly spoke to Valter, promising that it could solve all his problems if he ceded control once more. Because not only did the match succeed in absolutely humiliating Valter, it also exposed a flaw in the Lance’s plans. Valter wasn’t going to live forever, and once he died, it would be back at square one. Perhaps they would even find out the truth about its true nature and have it destroyed! It was a scary concept.

So it sought to solve both of their problems by securing Valter an heir. Someone who would honor his memory, inherit and care for his estate once he was gone... And a fresh new host the Lance could reliably feed on, should Valter fall in battle. That’s why he’s been a bit... freakishly anxious for children lately.

I should once again iterate that this Lance is NOT Fomortiis #2 or something like that. It is not the Demon KING -- it’s just a regular (if not slightly lower tier) demon. It does not have the capability to destroy the world. It is at BEST a Euclid level SCP. It can’t even make Valter stronger without directly harming the dude. You do NOT need the Fire Emblem to defeat it -- though you can’t really take a random weapon out of the trash, and do it in, either. Any legendary weapon (even swords, including Falchion, though it would probably take longer to work) will do. “Killing” the Lance would completely break its hold on him.

And, interestingly enough, Valter can also be exorcised of it its influence, though it’s just a temporary solution -- destroying the Lance is the only way to get him to snap out of it for good. It’s basically like cutting down a weed verses getting rid of it at the root. Anything from Azura’s song to the Galdr of Rebirth would do the trick.

JUST MAKE SURE YOU HAVE HIM RESTRAINED WHILE ATTEMPTING IT -- he will likely thrash about and scream as if you’re killing him and try to attack whoever is doing it, because the Lance would REALLY not be pleased. (Also applicable if you’re trying to destroy the lance -- he’ll likely react the same way.) Afterwards, though, you’d have a sane, weary man for 7-10 days.