While in the checkout line at my local super grocery store, I happened to spot this:
I typically don't find anything of interest in checkout lines, especially not things related to autism, so I was rather surprised. I decided to buy it (rather expensive, at $15!) and find out what the New York Times thought was essential for people to know about autism and people like me.
The intro article was by Steve Silberman, which was a promising start. He's known for his support of the wider autism community and his care to point out that autism has been in the human genome for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
On the whole I approved of most of the intro article, though I thought describing Andrew Wakefield's set of case studies regarding the MMR immunizations and autistic traits as "launching a propaganda war" and Wakefield himself as a "charlatan" was a bit much. There was also a very brief mention of Dr. Asperger's link to the Nazi party, which kindly described that as "shadowing him" and politely failed to mention the fact that Asperger literally sent less verbal autistic children to death camps.
After the intro article, the magazine went more into short "my life/my family's life with autism" stories arranged into categories, such as "Autism and Science," "Child and Family," and "Aiding the Autistic." I was pleased by the number of women included in the stories, and there seemed to be some effort to include people of color within the pages as well. Since autism is not a "whites only" condition, I'm glad to see this effort to show more than just the usual faces for autistic people.
There was a somewhat of a bias in the article towards employing autistic people in tech jobs. While some of us can make livings that way, it's not true that all of us can or even want to, even when the appropriate work environment is provided. So I found that a limiting factor of this publication.
Regarding the article on autism-friendly travel, it talks about SeaWorld Orlando, which I visited very early this year. The article seems to imply that the entire of SeaWorld is now certified, which... surprises me, given the noise level of the place overall. I did visit the Sesame Street section, which was a bit better and had other amenities, including a sensory-friendly quiet room and a family resting area. It seems like the certification only requires a single quiet room for an entire park, which... seems excessively minimal to me. SeaWorld is enormous and exhausting to walk through. I'd honestly argue for one quiet room for every two bathrooms... But I'm probably asking a bit much.
I was rather disappointed with the science aspect of the magazine. Much of the most promising research into autism is now done with brain scans and various forms of neurofeedback and brain stimulation. The only things covered in this publication were genetics (still basically a dead end) and chemical exposures during pregnancy (which is a great way to guilt parents- very unhelpful). Those two things were basically it for the science section, save for a little blurb about how the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism.
Where is the interview with John Elder Robison about his experience with TMS? Where is the discussion of the interesting differences in brain anatomy we can see on brain scans? Heck, where's the discussion from the autistic community on neurofeedback? I have some notable things to say, like how I can now smile at cameras and babies, after almost 20 years of being unable to. Are these too new, too unbelievable, too scary?
The highlight of the publication, for me, was an article called How to Meet Autistic People Halfway. It talks about how autistic people are social, but our mannerisms and communication skills may make it appear otherwise. This quote was what really made the article for me:
I typically don't find anything of interest in checkout lines, especially not things related to autism, so I was rather surprised. I decided to buy it (rather expensive, at $15!) and find out what the New York Times thought was essential for people to know about autism and people like me.
The intro article was by Steve Silberman, which was a promising start. He's known for his support of the wider autism community and his care to point out that autism has been in the human genome for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
On the whole I approved of most of the intro article, though I thought describing Andrew Wakefield's set of case studies regarding the MMR immunizations and autistic traits as "launching a propaganda war" and Wakefield himself as a "charlatan" was a bit much. There was also a very brief mention of Dr. Asperger's link to the Nazi party, which kindly described that as "shadowing him" and politely failed to mention the fact that Asperger literally sent less verbal autistic children to death camps.
After the intro article, the magazine went more into short "my life/my family's life with autism" stories arranged into categories, such as "Autism and Science," "Child and Family," and "Aiding the Autistic." I was pleased by the number of women included in the stories, and there seemed to be some effort to include people of color within the pages as well. Since autism is not a "whites only" condition, I'm glad to see this effort to show more than just the usual faces for autistic people.
There was a somewhat of a bias in the article towards employing autistic people in tech jobs. While some of us can make livings that way, it's not true that all of us can or even want to, even when the appropriate work environment is provided. So I found that a limiting factor of this publication.
Regarding the article on autism-friendly travel, it talks about SeaWorld Orlando, which I visited very early this year. The article seems to imply that the entire of SeaWorld is now certified, which... surprises me, given the noise level of the place overall. I did visit the Sesame Street section, which was a bit better and had other amenities, including a sensory-friendly quiet room and a family resting area. It seems like the certification only requires a single quiet room for an entire park, which... seems excessively minimal to me. SeaWorld is enormous and exhausting to walk through. I'd honestly argue for one quiet room for every two bathrooms... But I'm probably asking a bit much.
I was rather disappointed with the science aspect of the magazine. Much of the most promising research into autism is now done with brain scans and various forms of neurofeedback and brain stimulation. The only things covered in this publication were genetics (still basically a dead end) and chemical exposures during pregnancy (which is a great way to guilt parents- very unhelpful). Those two things were basically it for the science section, save for a little blurb about how the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism.
Where is the interview with John Elder Robison about his experience with TMS? Where is the discussion of the interesting differences in brain anatomy we can see on brain scans? Heck, where's the discussion from the autistic community on neurofeedback? I have some notable things to say, like how I can now smile at cameras and babies, after almost 20 years of being unable to. Are these too new, too unbelievable, too scary?
The highlight of the publication, for me, was an article called How to Meet Autistic People Halfway. It talks about how autistic people are social, but our mannerisms and communication skills may make it appear otherwise. This quote was what really made the article for me:
Insisting that autistic people behave in ways that they are unable to can lead to feelings of learned helplessness, self-defeating thoughts and behaviors, and eventually, social withdrawal.
As an autistic participant in one study explained, "I have been endlessly criticized about how different I looked, criticized about all kinds of tiny differences in my behavior. There's a point where you say, 'To hell with it, it's impossible to please you people.'"This sentiment exactly is where a lot of autistic adults end up, myself included (to some extent).
Worth Your Read?
Eh... I dunno if I'd spend $15 again on this magazine. It had some good things to say, including pointedly noting that autistic people can also be female, a piece about how autism is badly portrayed in popular media, and of course, "To hell with it, it's impossible to please you people." I was very disappointed with the science section of the magazine, as it lacked... well, really anything of recent note. A piece on TMS, neurofeedback, or even brain scans would have been appropriate, but all they wanted to talk about was old news: genetics, vaccines, and chemical exposures. Yikes.
This honestly struck me a publication that's less of a "oh, autism, what's that?" kind of deal, and more, "here's some things to think about regarding autism that you might not have before." Which is fine, but it doesn't strike me as useful for harried parents or even autistic people ourselves. So I guess this publication was more for special education teachers, professionals, and "vaguely interested yet already somewhat educated" relatives and others.
No comments:
Post a Comment