1000 Ausome Things: Music Sounds Better With You #AutismPositivity2013

(On Tuesday 30th April, this happened – a flashblog celebrating the often overlooked positive aspects of autism. The theme was 1000 Ausome Things. As you can see, I completely missed the date for it, but I thought I’d post something anyway! All the links are to YouTube videos, some of which contain flashing lights, so if you’re sensitive to that sort of thing I’d recommend having a different tab open and just listening rather than watching the videos.)

My sensory issues are mainly auditory. The people I meet quickly get to see the bad side of this: I’m really jumpy, I can’t carry a group conversation in a noisy hall, etc. But that’s not what I’m going to focus on here. This is what they don’t see:

1. When I was a toddler, my parents used to calm me down and get me to sleep by putting me in the carseat, sticking Oasis on and taking me for a drive.
2. For reasons I won’t go into here, I learned at a young age which channels didn’t have adverts (basically, BBC) and I wouldn’t watch much else. MTV was an exception. Apparently, if my parents put that on, I’d just sit and rock.
3. It took me forever to get started on this post because I started listening to Wonderwall by Oasis, then I spent ages pacing and stimming on the other side of the room and now I’m listening to it on repeat.
4. I won’t lie, my primary school life was full of meltdowns and lashing out and general aggression issues. It was my best friend who pointed out that I’d sing to calm down.
5. At 12 years old, I started writing lyrics. Rubbish lyrics, mind, but lyrics nonetheless. This continued throughout my early teenage years. I’ve always been really bad at talking to people about worries (offline, at least) and that was my alternative. I got back into it for a while last year when I picked up guitar.
6. As a teenager, I went through several band-based special interests, most prominently Razorlight (the song I’ve linked to is Golden Touch).
7. If I was in meltdown or near-meltdown or if I’d just had a bad day, I would listen to Face For The Radio by The View and sing along to calm myself down. I was surprised by how well it worked.
8. I was new to social networking sites at this point, I had a Piczo, and I got to know people through these bands. Nowadays, this happens on Tumblr. If I’m really lucky, it happens in real life.
9. At the age of around 14, my special interest settled on Muse (song link = Supermassive Black Hole). I don’t “throw out” special interests. I’m still there now. I turned 19 four days ago.
10. Headphones on, world off.
11. Muse are primarily a rock band, but sometimes they randomly branch out into other things, like orchestral or even dubstep (with an orchestra as well, coming to think of it). Some fans get annoyed by this and start arguing over the YouTube comments. Personally, I love it.
12. I’m going to ask you to stop for five minutes. This is what I’m listening to right now; a Muse instrumental called Isolated System. There is a proper video, but I’ve deliberately linked to just the audio. Listen.
13. It starts out with a simple piano riff.
14. 16 seconds. The build-up in the intro. Fingers start twitching, and this will only increase.
15. 58 seconds. Beat kicks in.
16. 1:24. In an isolated system, entropy can only increase.
17. Still hear the initial piano riff? It’s there. And there are so many layers now and all the different voices. Headphones on, world off.
18. When this album, The 2nd Law, was first released, Muse frontman Matt Bellamy had recently become a father. On another song on the album, Follow Me, his son’s heartbeat can be heard very clearly at the beginning, and this was heavily publicised during the album’s release. Back to Isolated System. 2:02. It’s there too. Listen. They didn’t tell us about that. I love the details. I particularly love the details everyone else seems to miss.
19. 3:02. Beat’s back. But this time, it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. 3:31. Choir. Layers. So many layers.
20. It’s practically two songs, merged into one by that single piano riff, still hidden in there somewhere, that’s going to be replaying itself in my head all day, that my fingers will tap out too. I’m lost now. I keep having to pause it so I can write this instead. The newsreader’s back. She fades out. Listen.
21. Aaaand I’m back in the room.
22. This is what I hear. Details, details everywhere. Especially with Muse, but not just with Muse. With practically anything.
23. Now for a confession: I actually really like Radio 1.
24. As a young teen, I used to sit for three hours on a Sunday evening and listen to the whole chart show and type out the chart as it happens for my Piczo site. Chart stats still fascinate me to this day.
25. Song I’ve never heard? Hmm… *eagerly listens*
26. Song I like? YAY! *stims, sings, life is better*
27. Song I don’t like? Meh. *bops along anyway*
28. I was in a car with two friends; they were in the front, I was in the back. They were wondering what I was singing along to. It was the car radio. They couldn’t hear it. To me it didn’t even seem quiet.
29. A few weeks ago whilst I was doing exams, I messed up a mock. And I was freaking out. The problem seemed to resolve itself when a friend discovered a piano in the room and promptly started playing something I’d never heard. I just watched her fingers and rocked on my heels.
30. There’s nothing quite like stimming to Kasabian (song link = Underdog).
31. I never grew out of karaoke. Usually I sing Feeling Good (link is the Muse version, I’m not even sorry ). When I was a kid, it was Can’t Fight The Moonlight by LeAnn Rimes. Obviously, sometimes there’s not a lot of choice. If I know the song reasonably well, I’ll have a go at it.
32. I can handle parties so much better if there’s music. I guess it’s a distraction from all the people and the shouting around me.
33. I haven’t been to a Bonfire Night since I was about 6. I’m not good with crowds. It’s May, so the first heatwave of the year is imminent. I’m not good with that, either.
34. I’m going to see Muse in a few weeks. It’s at a huge stadium. I, with the issues mentioned above, am attempting this. I’m hoping I’ll be able to ignore the negative side of my sensory issues, for just a few hours, because Muse. I’ll probably be a complete wreck by the time I leave. But it’ll be worth it. It’s not only a price I’m willing to pay, it’s a price I can’t wait to pay.
35. This is why, despite the problems, despite the downsides, I wouldn’t change my neurotype for the world.

Rape is an actual thing that happens. (And yes, that still needs to be pointed out.)

(TW: Rape, rape apologism, victim-blaming, an ableist slur, fat-shaming, body policing, and everything else along those lines.)

So, I haven’t blogged for a while. That wasn’t a deliberate thing, I’m just really bad (or good?) at procrastination. However, this had me running straight to the laptop. (MAJOR TW in that link for all the stuff mentioned above) It seems to be from an MRA site (I haven’t dared to look around, or look at the comments) and its point seems to be “Women like rape, it makes them feel attractive to men”… You can see where this is going.

Here’s a quote from near the start of the article (after what sounds scarily like a description of a rape):

 ”I already knew at 21 what feminists have been trying desperately to convince the world isn’t true… women, most all of them, want to be sexually dominated.

End of fucking story, everything else is bullshit.”

Firstly, women are not a hive mind. Just like men, women like and dislike different things. It’s not rocket science. Secondly, and I can’t stress this enough, there is a HUGE difference between rape and sex with someone who enjoys submission: consent. During consensual sex involving domination/submission, the participants use safe words and/or other mechanisms to ensure everyone consents. Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. If they don’t consent, it’s rape, regardless of whether or not the victim enjoys submission, just as it’s rape regardless of whether or not the victim enjoys sex.

Here’s the evidence the writer uses to back up his claim:

“Any moron with the sixth grade reading skills required for a romance novel can tell you this. I’d wager good money there is not a single one of those books that doesn’t have at least one scene with a woman saying “no” ten times… In romance novels, that is the preamble to “happily ever after.””

<sarcasm> Oh, of course. Fiction! That definitely reflects real life! Right, where’s the TARDIS? I’m going back in time to stop whichever postal strike prevented me from getting my Hogwarts acceptance letter. </sarcasm>

Seriously, though, have you ever considered that it’s media which influences the public? There are loads of books/films/songs/etc which involve a woman saying “no” several times before eventually “giving in” and consenting. This is part of rape culture; this perpetuates rape culture. It isn’t a reflection of what women want (again, we’re not a hive mind), it’s a reflection of what society thinks women should want. I mean, you wouldn’t read the Daily Mail and think “Well, someone’s written it, so it must be true”. That’s the sort of logic that’s being applied here.

Then there’s the body policing. SlutWalk participants are described as “unfuckable”, and then there’s several paragraphs on what Andrea Dworkin looked like. Here are some, for want of a better word, “highlights”:

“The 300+ lb. basilisk of man-hate had a face big enough and pockmarked enough to be used to fake a lunar landing. Her body was roughly the size and shape of a small sperm whale… Dworkin’s problem wasn’t that she was raped. Her problem, and I mean all along, was that she wasn’t… Dworkin wanted to be raped, which in her mind meant being sexually desired.”

Ignoring the complete denial of Dworkin’s rape claim, which in all honesty I don’t know much about, I could rant here about how attractiveness is subjective, how everyone is attracted to different physical qualities, how nobody is truly “ugly” or “unfuckable”, how fat =/= unattractive, etc, etc, But frankly, that’s beside the point. Rape is about power, not attractiveness. Think about it. There’s so much body-policing and hypocrisy in the media nowadays that there probably isn’t a single person on Earth who meets all the “criteria” for being attractive in the eyes of the media.

Yet rape – and I can’t believe this still needs saying – is an actual thing that happens. It happens everywhere, all the time, to every type of person; including men, which the writer of this article seems to have forgotten. It happens to people who aren’t deemed “attractive” (which, let’s be honest, is pretty much everybody). And, by definition, it isn’t “asked for”.

Autism Speaks, I Want To Say… Stop the Silencing

(This is part of the “Autism Speaks, I Want To Say…” flashblog; click the link for more information.)

As Twitter-using feminists will no doubt be aware after the last few days, all too often there’s a double standard surrounding prejudice, hate and falsehoods – namely, that dominant groups can spread it (inadvertently or otherwise) as far as they like for as long as they like, but when the victims of this call it out, suddenly they’re the ones being hateful. And this double standard is as present in the autism community as it is everywhere else.

As summed up here by the brilliant Amy Sequenzia, the current conversation about (and usually not with autistic people) can be incredibly hurtful. It can feel like a constant attack. But when we point this out, we’re doing the “attacking”. We’re told we’re wrecking the “united voice” that’s usually just the voice of groups like Autism Speaks who refuse to listen to autistic people. (I wrote about silencing and unity last week and whilst it focuses on feminism due to the nature of this blog, I did have the neurodiversity movement in mind toward the end of that post.) We’re silenced by functioning labels – as summed up in this Tumblr post by Crown-Of-Weeds, we’re either too “high-functioning” to know what we’re talking about, or too “low-functioning” to be worth listening to (which, if it isn’t clear enough already, is unbelievably ableist). And when autistic people create change, we’re erased from our own activism; for example, as reported in detail here by Michael Scott Monje Jr., Autism Speaks reported the removal of offensive Google autocomplete terms about autism without as much as a mention for the autism flashblogs that demanded this (Autistic People Should and Autistic People Are - unfortunately I was unable to participate in these) or any credit for the person who led the campaign, Alyssa of Yes, That Too.

Those of us on the spectrum really shouldn’t have to fight through a million-and-one barriers like this just to be heard in the conversation about our own lives. In short, nothing about us without us. Thanks to flashblogs like this, autistic people across the spectrum are speaking out. Now all we need is for people to actually listen.

Back to Basics

(TW: Brief references to rape and and a homophobic insult)

The last few days have been a bit of a nightmare for feminism on Twitter. The level of prejudice and hatred and personal attacks within a movement that’s supposed to be against discrimination is genuinely driving people away from identifying as a feminist. This post is basically just me convincing myself that feminism is alive and kicking – it might not make sense or have any real structure, but it’s honest. Besides, the latest autism flash-blog is tomorrow so this post won’t stay at the top of my blog for long anyway. In addition, Twitter users may have noticed that yesterday I developed a first name; basically, in light of recent events, I’ve realised it’s too easy to tweet without thinking and say hurtful things when you’re hiding behind a Buzz Lightyear meme, so this is also a going-non-anon post.

Since yesterday, I’ve been trying to go back to basics and think about why I started FeministAspie in the first place. I don’t want this to be a “but look at the REAL enemy” post, because I believe all discrimination is the real enemy. However, I think it’s sometimes easy to forget that misogyny and other discrimination aren’t just hypothetical online concepts – this stuff is happening in the real world, and it must be stopped.

[Image description: Me, standing outside the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford holding a whiteboard. The board reads "I need feminism because intelligence and ambition are still seen as 'manly'... and if I complain, I'm 'over-reacting'"]

This is me. My name is Georgia, and I do what I say on the tin – I’m a feminist aspie. The Asperger’s Syndrome is by chance, but the feminism is by choice. I chose feminism.

I chose feminism because the Everyday Sexism project has to exist. I chose feminism for the people across the world who experience horrifying violence and abuse simply because they are women. I chose feminism because all too often, women are blamed for the violence and abuse inflicted on them. I chose feminism because so far, my entire life has revolved around education, and it’s wrong that children are denied this fundamental right because they happen to be female.

I chose feminism because media coverage of childcare issues is focused on “working mothers” and “stay-at-home mothers”, because it’s assumed that fathers can still go to work. I chose feminism because advertisements relating to parenting and/or housework are almost always focused on women. I chose feminism because stay-at-home fathers are mocked for not being “real men” whatever that means. I chose feminism because stereotypes of “real men” and “real women” exist; because if you don’t fit the rigid stereotypes enforced by the media, your gender and/or sexual orientation is questioned. I chose feminism for the friend who was told by friends that she couldn’t wear trousers to prom because she would “look like a lesbian”. I chose intersectional feminism because “lesbian” is still used as an insult.

I chose intersectional feminism because it’s basic human decency to not discriminate against people based on their race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, age or disabilities, and to correct any unintentional discrimination. I chose intersectional feminism because people are literally being killed based on these things.

Once you see the kyriarchy, you can’t un-see it. I see it everywhere, hence the Buzz Lightyear picture, and I started FeministAspie because most of the people around me aren’t even aware of the extent of the problem. I set up FeministAspie so I could confront the problem and vaguely attempt to change the world without worrying about the reactions of the people around me. In hindsight, I’m aware I shouldn’t have been so concerned about that stuff, and since starting the blog I’ve been participating in offline feminism at university, as you can see in the picture. I need to work on the ability to call out sexism there and then as I see it; I want to be able to say the things I write as FeministAspie to my family, to my friends, to my boyfriend, to complete strangers if necessary.

Until that point, and even beyond that point – until everyone is equal – I will demand equality. That’s why I’m here, and that’s why I’m not going anywhere yet.

Silenced For The Sake Of Unity

I meant to blog about unity some time ago, before my brief hiatus, but I never got round to it. However, recent events have served as a reminder, with the final straw being this article (New Statesman) which describes online feminism as “an exclusive, Mean Girls club” and the “Online Wimmin Mob”.

Most of the problematic aspects of the article have been debunked elsewhere (for example, in this brilliant post by Sam Ambreen and this equally brilliant post by Cel West and Zoe Stavri), so I’m going to focus on the reduction of calling people out to “whipping up huge Twitter storms and inviting feminists to flame other feminists” and an “excuse… as a front for making yourself feel superior at another woman’s expense”. That’s not what calling out is at all, but I digress. I think what the author is trying to say is that in-fighting is A Bad Thing and we should all just get along.

Now, I think those sentiments are well-intentioned and I can really see how the author got there. I’d love it if we all just got along. I’d love to have unity, in feminism and elsewhere. Evidently, a united front has a more powerful voice, and that can only be a good thing, right?

Not exactly. The “united front” ideal is also a powerful silencing tactic. It comes in two forms – within a group, and between groups.

My problem with the NS article concerns the former. For instance, if one feminist calls out a racist comment made by another feminist (inadvertently or otherwise), this sometimes leads to calls of “Stop nitpicking, we need unity!” to, in effect, defend said comment. I recently blogged about the problem with the “stop nitpicking” argument, and I’m not entirely sure how unity can be used as a defence. Being a feminist doesn’t give you an excuse to be racist, just as fighting against racism doesn’t give you an excuse to be sexist. Therefore, why should someone be prevented from calling out racism just because both parties involved happen to be feminists? The same applies to practically any combination of oppressions – it’s Intersectionality 101.

However, it’s not just within groups; unity can also be used to silence people between completely opposing factions, and it’s this type of silencing that I’ve wanted to blog about for absolutely ages now. Let’s stick with sexism as an example. There’s the myth peddled by the media that feminism is about female superiority. There’s the subsequent argument that we shouldn’t be “feminists” but “equalists” (for a thorough debunking of this argument, see this awesome Tumblr post by Diya Mukherjee). There’s the argument that women calling out sexism alienates men and tars them all with the same brush. Generally, there’s the idea that if men and women should have a “united voice”, feminists are Doing It Wrong.

This is where the silencing comes in. If you call out sexism, you’re told you shouldn’t because of the “united voice”. If you call yourself a feminist, you’re told you shouldn’t because of the “united voice”. If you voice an opinion that isn’t the majority opinion, you’re told you shouldn’t. If you deviate from the status quo, you’re told you shouldn’t. So, who does the “united” voice being called for really belong to?

A “united” voice that denounces and suppresses all dissent isn’t really united at all. It’s the voice of the dominant group. It’s the voice of the oppressors, whoever they may be. It’s the voice of privilege. It’s the voice of the status quo. And the status quo is only changed by disagreeing, by dissenting, by fighting for what you think is right rather than what you’re told to fight for.

Seriously, having *some* rights is not the same as having *equal* rights…

Before I start, I’d like to apologise for not blogging for a month. Sorry about that. Basically, exams happened, but they’re done now and normal service has (hopefully) been resumed!

(TW: reference to Nazis)

Anyway, society at large seems to be of the opinion that when an oppressed group gains certain rights or reaches a huge milestone, their oppression is magically over and, therefore, they should be happy and stop complaining. For instance, regarding feminism, there’s a lot of “You’ve got the vote, you can work, what more do you want?” and claims that sexism doesn’t exist anymore in certain countries because women there can vote and work. It’s one of the biggest silencing tactics.

I think this is related to the insult “feminazis”. Evidently, comparing a group campaigning for women’s rights to a group which systematically killed millions of innocent people is really problematic as it is. Another derogatory term which seems to have the same meaning is “militant feminists”,

Generally, these terms mean “feminists who criticise every little thing that might lead to gender inequality”. This confuses me. I mean, isn’t that the whole point of feminism?!

Those “little things” add up quickly, as shown by the fantastic Everyday Sexism project. Those “minor” inequalities might not seem as major as the right to vote and work, but they’re inequalities nonetheless. And as long as gender inequalities exist, feminists will criticise and fight them. It’s what we do.

Gender equality is when women and men have equal rights, not when women have some of the rights enjoyed by men. That’s still an inequality, even if it’s smaller than it was 100 years ago. The pay gap still exists. Rape culture still exists. Stereotypes still exists. Feminism has come a long way, but we’re not done yet.

Of course, this concept applies to many forms of discrimination. Women having the vote doesn’t mean sexism has stopped. The abolition of slavery and segregation doesn’t mean racism has stopped. Widespread awareness of physical/mental health issues and/or disabilities is absolutely necessary and still very much needed, but it doesn’t mean stigma and discrimination surrounding them has stopped. I really don’t understand why same-sex marriage hasn’t been legalised already (in the UK), but when it is legalised, homophobia won’t just stop. The list could go on and on.

In short, having some rights is not the same as having equal rights. The wider societal issues need to be challenged to; all inequalities need to be confronted and criticised, and if that makes me a “militant feminist” then so be it.

Rising: The death of Reeva Steenkamp, and why misogyny must stop.

Yesterday, the news broke that somebody’s life had been taken. On those facts alone, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would take the side of  the alleged murderer, and the majority of people would frown upon any jokes about the matter.

However, Reeva Steenkamp is a woman, and the man charged with her murder is famous.

Most of the mainstream media has concentrated on this man, which is why I’m deliberately not naming him in this post. The focus is on how “inspirational” he was, the loss to the world of sport, to the fans, to South Africa, to everyone but Reeva Steenkamp, to everyone but the victim. The focus is on how he cried in the dock,  and how he denies the charges so they must be false; I’ve yet to see one article depicting the grief of Reeva’s loved ones, her family, her friends. The focus is on the possibility that he thought Reeva was an intruder; never on the previous “incidents of a domestic nature” because cases of violence against women are virtually always referred to as “isolated incidents”.

As for Reeva Steenkamp herself? It wasn’t until late yesterday afternoon that I even learned her name; even now, where her name is used, it’s mentioned once before shifting the focus back to the alleged perpetrator. Usually, Reeva is simply referred to as “girlfriend”; a victim with no name, the property of the man believed to have killed her. If her own life is looked into, the furthest the media get is “model”, accompanied by large pictures of her in a bikini.

The front page of today’s Sun, which I won’t link to, has been doing the rounds on Twitter for almost 24 hours. The headline is “3 shots. Screams. Silence.”; the remainder of the front page is taken up by a picture of Reeva Steenkamp in a bikini. The usual topless “Page 3 girl” was absent so Reeva was seen as a replacement, to be used for sexual gratification; also, I suspect The Sun are aware of the current debate surrounding the No More Page  3 campaign and have used this as a divide-and-rule exercise. The Daily Star uses a similar bikini shot, with the headline “Blade Runner Shoots Lover Dead”. Again, note that Reeva Steenkamp is referred to simply as “lover” whilst her alleged killer is referred to by a sports nickname. In summary, then, whilst the defendant is still portrayed as a sporting great and a national hero, his victim is nameless, an add-on to her boyfriend, a piece of meat to desire, an object.

I’ve read a few tweets pointing out that Reeva was a model, and claiming that the pictures just show her doing her job, which would be a good argument if murder victims were always shown doing their jobs. If Reeva had been, for instance, a librarian, would The Sun depict her putting a book on a shelf? If she was a shopkeeper, would there be a picture of her at a till? If she had worked as a surgeon, would they have used a picture of her fully covered by green overalls? As it happens, though, Reeva Steenkamp was a model; in addition, she campaigned against gender-based violence, she was scheduled to give a speech to students in Johannesburg, and she was a law graduate.

Personally, that last part struck a chord. Law graduate. All going well, that’s me in a few years. It could have been me. It could have been any woman, just because they are women; abused, killed, objectified even in death, the butt of jokes about “the worst Valentine’s Day surprise ever” whilst their partners are virtually celebrated. And it’s happening, right now, to women everywhere. If the man accused of murdering Reeva Steenkamp didn’t happen to be famous, none of us would know about her murder at all.

Yesterday, the One Billion Rising movement swept across the globe, and I am proud to have participated. Together, we showed the world that the systemic violence against women is a serious problem that cannot and should not be allowed to continue. Now, we have to turn that affirmation into real action. Reeva Steenkamp’s death must not be in vain.

I’m Not Sick: A rant about neurotypical privilege.

I am autistic, and I’m sick of neurotypical privilege.

I’m sick of hearing that I and others like me can’t live a full life. We can, and we do. We just need a little help sometimes.

I’m sick of being told my experience isn’t real, that I’m just an attention-seeker or a special snowflake, or having those accusations directed at my parents.

I’m sick of the myth that vaccines cause autism. And even if that were true, I’m sick of people avoiding vaccinating their children because they’d rather they get ill or even die than be like me.

I’m sick of autism being compared to cancer and AIDS. The latter two are diseases which can and do kill. Autism is not.

I’m sick of hearing that autism is an “epidemic”. The reason that more people are diagnosed with autism now is that there is so much more awareness regarding autism. The numbers will probably continue to increase for a while, for that reason.

I’m sick of being told I have to pass for neurotypical to be liked and accepted by my peers. I have a great circle of friends who are really understanding and supportive. If  people judge me for not being neurotypical, that says more about them than it does about me.

I’m sick of hearing that stimming is a bad thing. If it’s not hurting anybody, I don’t see what the problem is. And if rocking and flapping and twitching is what’s going to stop me having a meltdown, that’s what I’ll do. I’m sick of being told in one breath that you have to learn to cope and in the next breath that you can’t do that to cope.

I’m sick of being told not to scream after I’ve screamed at a sudden loud bang. Emphasis on the word sudden. It’s not like I thought about it and made a conscious choice to scream.

I’m sick of the people around me saying “Stop that, it’s embarassing” or “That must really annoy your friends” when it doesn’t. I’m especially sick of that under the guise of “We’re used to you, but other people…” when they seem to have more of a problem with it than other people.

I’m sick of all this driving me to a meltdown and then being told that that’s embarassing too.

I’m sick of “quiet hands”.

I’m sick of most of the “treatment” for autism being based on making people on the spectrum pass for neurotypical, rather than social skills or advocacy or something else that might actually solve some problems. I’m sick of living in a society in which the most important thing, above all else, is to comply.

I’m sick of conditioned compliance.

I’m sick of literally greeting people with apologies because of the constant fear that I’m screwing up, that I don’t know how to comply. Everyone who knows me is sick of it, too.

I’m sick of struggling to make minor decisions in public (like what to order for food) because there’s only one right answer, only one way to comply, and I’m sick of not believing people (at the time) when they tell me they really don’t mind what I choose. Again, everyone who knows me is sick of it. Everyone is sick of conditioned compliance, so it seems.

I’m sick of being spoken for.

I’m sick of all the media, the panels, all the publicity surrounding the autistic spectrum focusing on people who aren’t actually on the spectrum – the family, the friends, the “experts”, everyone but the person who knows what it’s like. I don’t want to attack all those people – they’re usually well-meaning and really want to help, and please keep fighting the good fight – but seriously, an all-male panel discussing sexism clearly isn’t a good idea, and I’m sick of people not seeing that an all-neurotypical panel discussing autism isn’t a good idea either. Especially when they don’t listen to people who are actually on the spectrum

I’m sick of not being listened to because I don’t have a child or another relative on the spectrum. I am autistic. Is that not enough?

I’m sick of being treated like a child.

I’m sick of people telling me I’m “not really autistic” because I’m not like another autistic person they know. It’s called a spectrum for a reason. This counts double when they’re a child; if I’m a lot older than them, of course I’m going to be more able with some aspects of life, autism or no autism. Nowadays, I rarely have public meltdowns and I can follow the major social rules (e.g. personal space), but I’m sick of people assuming this also applies to my childhood. It doesn’t.

I’m especially sick of the above when the person telling me I’m “not autistic enough” isn’t on the spectrum themselves. How is it logical that I’m “not autistic enough” to know what I’m talking about, but you’re qualified when you’re not autistic at all?

I’m sick of functioning labels and the assumptions they carry with them.

I’m sick of the assumption that people who are verbal are “high-functioning” and people who are non-verbal are “low-functioning”.

I’m sick of people on the spectrum being told they’re either too “high-functioning” to know what they’re talking about, or too “low-functioning” to know what they’re talking about.

I’m sick of worrying that people won’t understand my needs because I’m apparently “high-functioning”. Similarly, I’m sick of the potential of other people on the spectrum being ignored because they’re apparently “low-functioning”.

I’m sick of being told that Asperger’s syndrome isn’t “really autism”. I’d imagine that people with PDD-NOS are sick of being told the same about that.

I’m sick of the constant thought that one day, there might be a pill or an injection that could wipe out people like me, that could turn me into the norm, that could make me comply, that wouldn’t care that most of my personality is eradicated along with it.

I’m sick of being told I’m selfish for not wanting such a cure, and that the people telling me I do need a cure are somehow not selfish.

Autism isn’t a sickness. Neurotypical privilege is.

I need feminism because I’m not an immature 5-year-old.

At school, when I was 4 or 5, there would be huge lines of girls linking arms and skipping around the playground chanting “No boys allowed!”, and vice versa. I’d imagine that if a teacher had said “Can’t we all get along?”, they would have received confused stares. Sadly, although I’ve left school, I still see this situation all around me.

In the kyriarchy, gender is binary. In the kyriarchy, we’re all supposed to live as two teams and compete in the “battle of the sexes”. In the kyriarchy, so it seems, there can be only one winner. Throughout history, this “winner” has been men, although rigid gender stereotypes have been created for both sexes. That’s why the feminist movement developed. Feminism is the struggle for an alien concept to the kyriarchy - equality. And we’re not done yet. The patriarchy continues to cause so many problems, as demonstrated this week by OUSU WomCam’s “Who Needs Feminism?” campaign, in which over 470 pictures were taken, in various Oxford locations, highlighting why feminism is still relevant.

However, this is the kyriarchy, and the kyriarchy doesn’t know what “equality” means, and it certainly doesn’t know what feminism means. According the the kyriarchy, such a campaign must be misandric (even though at least 1/3 of the pictures are of men) because that’s what the kyriarchy does; it uses divide-and-rule. The kyriarchy thinks feminists are incapable of seeing how stereotypes affect men. The kyriachy sees feminist campaigns as “girls are better than booooooys!” playground chants, and the kyriarchy chants back.

Enter the #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag. Thankfully, it quickly filled up with parody tweets, but there were some genuine tweets in there, which have been listed and responded to in this brilliant post by Flightrisker. Most of the arguments are either statistically incorrect or just plain wrong (I’ve never seen a feminist campaign for all men to pay on dates. Ever.), and all are based on the typical right-wing media view that feminism is about female superiority. Just to clarify, it isn’t.

Here’s an example; the one true problem that kept cropping up in the hashtag was that mothers disproportionately gain custody of children in divorce cases. Think about this:

• Mothers disproportionately gain custody of children because childcare is still seen as a woman’s job.
• Childcare is seen as a woman’s job because of gender stereotypes.
• Gender stereotypes are enforced by the patriarchy.
• Therefore, mothers disproportionately gain custody of children due to the patriarchy.
• The struggle against the patriarchy is feminism.
• The #INeedMasculismBecause hashtag is a struggle against feminism, and therefore takes the side of the patriarchy.
• Therefore, this hashtag is part of the problem.

The same could also apply to the idea that men always have to pay for dates.

As for the idea that feminists want special treatment for women – as I’ve already said, that’s not how it works. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, women and men are not two alien tribes who constantly play tug-of-war to see who’s better. However, many aspects of society gives special treatment to men; how many all-male speaking panels do you see or hear about compared to all-female panels? All-male bands and all-female bands? How many films and TV shows pass the Bechedel Test, and how many would do so if the sexes were reversed? It’s gone on for so long that most people, regardless of gender, just don’t notice anymore. This is the norm. So, when any attempt at equality is made, or at least campaigned for, suddenly it’s SPECIAL TREATMENT and WHAT ABOUT THE MEN and MISANDRY and all sorts of myths about feminism.

I am proud to call myself a feminist, because feminists have always fought for equality; the whole “battle of the sexes” thing is just plain immature, and oppressive to everyone. People are not just pawns in a huge sexist game where everyone thinks that their team is best. To quote my school days again: It’s not faaaaaaaaaiiir, and I’m not playing anymooooooooore!

My guest post for Michael Scott Monje Jr. “Just another silly fangirl – Sexism, special interests and societal assumptions”

My guest post for Michael Scott Monje Jr. “Just another silly fangirl – Sexism, special interests and societal assumptions”

Also, expect a guest post from him on this blog at some point in the near future.