• Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 87 subscribers
  • Views 797 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Sweet Spot

JT

Following on from a comment in another thread...

I do wonder, before 'high-functioning autism' was recognised, if those who were able to sustain their quirkiness without too much difficulty were just seen as creative types or colorful characters. Were they better off without a label, stigma, or endless questions about fitting in, their place in society, or the barriers to work or support?

Because society are way behind pschological diagnosis (which is obviously way behind demand), are we actually in a very difficult sweet spot in history for a highly misunderstood neurodifferences and little to no understanding or real-world accommodations for us?

What do you think?

Parents

  • I suspect wealth, social class and gender played just as big a role in the past as it does now, if you're rich you're allowed to be eccentric, if you're poor you'd be some kind of bad or weird and women would be just bad unless they were independently wealthy. In more recent times, I suspect that it was easier to hide in manual labour and work on your obessions in private, like Einstien. But how many ordinary people never had the chance to develop any learning. Universal schooling was about educating workers enough to fufil the jobs market rather than eucation for it's own sake. Even when I was at school education for girls was still seen as fairly unimportant, I remember being told that there was little point iin educating girls as we were just going to get married and have babies, I suspect that women were educated to a level where they could support thier husbands social ambitions and class.

Reply

  • I suspect wealth, social class and gender played just as big a role in the past as it does now, if you're rich you're allowed to be eccentric, if you're poor you'd be some kind of bad or weird and women would be just bad unless they were independently wealthy. In more recent times, I suspect that it was easier to hide in manual labour and work on your obessions in private, like Einstien. But how many ordinary people never had the chance to develop any learning. Universal schooling was about educating workers enough to fufil the jobs market rather than eucation for it's own sake. Even when I was at school education for girls was still seen as fairly unimportant, I remember being told that there was little point iin educating girls as we were just going to get married and have babies, I suspect that women were educated to a level where they could support thier husbands social ambitions and class.

Children
No Data