• Replies 4 replies
  • Subscribers 66 subscribers
  • Views 1460 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

Difference; peoples acceptance or inability to accept difference

Marjorie195

I have noticed a few things coming up in other discussions recently about people's unwillingness to accept those who are different from the norm.

There is a new improved version of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer mentioned in the "does anyone else hate Christmas" discussion. Someone else mentioned "The ugly duckling". It seems to be a part of our everyday lives, that every group has it's central core of happy, outgoing nt people, who are self sufficient and unable to tollerate those who do not fit their stereotypical view of a "nice to know" person.

I noticed an episode of MASH among the TV programs on one of the many repeat channels recently. I used to be an avid fan of this program, years ago, until I experienced a prolonged period of bullying myself, and began to see the program for what it was. I had assumed it had been relegated to the nonPC bin, where it belongs. We were being invited to laugh at the misfortunes/bullying of people who did not fit in to the inner clique. One particular episode, where the head nurse (name unspellable) was in the shower tent and the "hero" had the tent walls dropped to the ground, so that she was exposed to the laughing male audience, would today lead to legal action, if not the dismisal of those who did it.

Most of the "ism"s in society (racism, sexism etc) are more to do with difference, than any rational ideology. It has always been this way. Long before children in school began to ostracise other children from different ethnic groups, they were ostracising the one with glasses or red hair, or no dad. A century ago, children were brought up to "know their place" in society. You were born into a social class, a political affilliation, a trade.

We still have trouble embracing difference and social mobility. Legislation does not really help. We now have the notion that there is advantage in being disadvantaged in the right sort of way. (the token female etc) I'm sure you have all heard the sort of thing I am thinking of, but don't want to spell out.

We need a fundamental shift in attitudes. Everybody has tallents of some sort. If these tallents are sought out and developed and appreciated, while the differences, weaknesses and shortcomings were mitigated, we could have a more rounded and accepting society.

Maybe change is underway in schools and I am unaware of it. What do you think?

Parents

  • Humans are collective/pack animals, possibly descended from apes. They existed as a community acting collectively to obtain food and protect themselves. Particularly the long maturation period for young humans needed collective protection.

    To follow such an existence everyone has to contribute, but more importantly everyone needs to be able to rely on everyone else. Yet as part of that system the pack develops a hierarchy - everyone in their place.

    In human societies order, and the sanctity of the hierarchy, are preserved using religion. Prior to the development of speech and conceptualisation packs of humans relied on other behavioural rituals like preening and priority access to food. Interestingly in pre-linguistically connected packs ambiguous sexuality resolves some of the hierarchical issues - where there are too many males, some accept a degree of femininity. Latterly human "packs" get really morally outraged that this happens.

    The reliance on collective response is important for survival. Even during feeding and sleeping, some members of the pack have to be on guard for predators or other dangers. The collective depends on the right warnings being given promptly. Failure could mean deaths.

    As a consequence the collective is extremely reactive against members that cannot function collectively, cannot be relied on for safety, cannot accept the hierarchy and therefore the social behaviours necessary to demonstrate it.

    Collectives become extremely over-sensitive to any member not showing the right signs, which could suggest potential unreliability. Suspect members are outcast or killed.

    If anyone has read this far, without wondering what I'm on about. I'm describing neurotypicals - non autistic persons ("muggles" even). They have to have their rituals, and they are paranoid about anyone who doesn't keep up. Monkeys basically........

    Being on the autistic spectrum, and unable to engage effectively in social rituals, we quickly become unwelcome. But I think in civilised society the paranoia of NTs is unacceptable. It isn't necessary in modern society. Just, unfortunately the NTs are still basically monkeys. Civilisation is beyond their reach.

Reply

  • Humans are collective/pack animals, possibly descended from apes. They existed as a community acting collectively to obtain food and protect themselves. Particularly the long maturation period for young humans needed collective protection.

    To follow such an existence everyone has to contribute, but more importantly everyone needs to be able to rely on everyone else. Yet as part of that system the pack develops a hierarchy - everyone in their place.

    In human societies order, and the sanctity of the hierarchy, are preserved using religion. Prior to the development of speech and conceptualisation packs of humans relied on other behavioural rituals like preening and priority access to food. Interestingly in pre-linguistically connected packs ambiguous sexuality resolves some of the hierarchical issues - where there are too many males, some accept a degree of femininity. Latterly human "packs" get really morally outraged that this happens.

    The reliance on collective response is important for survival. Even during feeding and sleeping, some members of the pack have to be on guard for predators or other dangers. The collective depends on the right warnings being given promptly. Failure could mean deaths.

    As a consequence the collective is extremely reactive against members that cannot function collectively, cannot be relied on for safety, cannot accept the hierarchy and therefore the social behaviours necessary to demonstrate it.

    Collectives become extremely over-sensitive to any member not showing the right signs, which could suggest potential unreliability. Suspect members are outcast or killed.

    If anyone has read this far, without wondering what I'm on about. I'm describing neurotypicals - non autistic persons ("muggles" even). They have to have their rituals, and they are paranoid about anyone who doesn't keep up. Monkeys basically........

    Being on the autistic spectrum, and unable to engage effectively in social rituals, we quickly become unwelcome. But I think in civilised society the paranoia of NTs is unacceptable. It isn't necessary in modern society. Just, unfortunately the NTs are still basically monkeys. Civilisation is beyond their reach.

Children
No Data