Autism-Friendly Shows- Page 2

[winston89]

Posted: 2/8/12 at 10:58pm

I have to say, that my first experience in working with children at all was working with children with autism. And, it changed my life. I went from not knowing what it was I wanted to do with my life to feeling like there was a calling for me to do something. Now, I work at a pre school for children with learning issues (some are children with autism and other developmental issues, some not) and I couldn't be happier. That's why I am very glad to hear that these performances are happening again.

Gaveston (and for the record I can't believe that I am about to ask you this, but here it goes) if you say that children with autism who need breaks shouldn't go to the theatre, then let me ask you this. If they need breaks but at the same time are getting extreme joy for the moments that they are watching the show, then what's the harm of having these autism friendly performances where they can take the breaks they need but still enjoy the show? I have heard of movie theatres doing similar autism friendly performances, why not Broadway theatre?


It's not uncommon for children with autism to have affinities for certain things. Since children with autism function best with constant routines, as a result a lot of them show interest in trains. This is because trains are always the same and they run on time and are dependable. There was an article about this in the NY Times and how a group of parents of children with autism took their kids to the MTA transit museum as a result. But, if you're a child who loves theatre, this is great. As someone who believes in the power of theatre and how life changing it can be for anyone, this is a great thing. I wish I knew how to get involved and help out in some way.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/8/12 at 11:00pm

I spent a summer working with a 4-year-old boy with Autism, and it's an absolutely devastating disorder. I almost chose to work with these children as a career (Applied Behavior Analysis) but I realized it would have been too heartbreaking for me.

Calling them "The Autistic" offends me greatly. As someone said, the preferred term is absolutely "child/person with Autism."

[winston89]

Posted: 2/8/12 at 11:28pm

ljay889

I agree. I guess considering where Gaveston comes in on all this reminds me of something that a professor of mine from college once said. He said that it takes more work to be understanding of that which you don't know and a lot less work to be ignorant of that which you don't know.

While we are on the subject of children with autism, I was very happy to see that a couple of weeks ago there was a front page story in The NY Times about children with Aspbergers (on the autism spectrum) and how they function in today's world in social and other life settings. Furthermore, there was also an interesting article a couple of weeks ago that was talking about adults with autism in the working world. It spoke of how many people hear stories of children with autism but reminded us that just because a child with autism grows up, doesn't mean that the autism goes away.

Updated On: 2/8/12 at 11:28 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 12:08am

Yes Graveston2, Those who couldn't handle the stimulation didn't go. That took knowing the individual child and the degree of their Autism. It would be cruel to drag a child to an event that they were unable to handle.
We worked very hard to integrate the kids, however some were just unable to deal with the theatrical environment. Yes there were those who went to the shows and were were engrossed and acted out (in a positive way; clapping, laughing, singing along, dancing etc) for those the theatrical experience was a positive. However at a normal performance, I can see where other theatre patrons would be annoyed. That is why these performances are good.
However, to bring a child who needs "TIME OUTS" and to be removed when over stimulated seems abusive no matter how good the intentions are.

Updated On: 2/9/12 at 12:08 AM

[LuminousBeing]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 12:52am

I'm not going to get involved with the back-and-forth going on in this thread: I just had to jump in as an authority on autism and related disorders.

To preface with my background: I studied special needs in undergraduate AND graduate school, have worked in various settings for my doctoral internships all involving spectrum children and adolescents, and for the last three and a half years, I have worked full-time as a play therapist for children under three with autism spectrum disorders. Finally, I myself am diagnosed with a learning disability that is believed by many psychologists and clinicians to be an autism spectrum disorder. So let's just say that my life is the All Autism All the Time Show. And I think my mere presence on this board is enough evidence that live theater has profoundly effected my life.

These special performances give children with autism and their families an unbelievable opportunity to experience live theater. Many families have kids on the spectrum whom they believe would love a live theater experience, but would not risk taking a child to such an expensive and public event.

There are innumerable ways that live theater has the potential to enrich the lives of children on the spectrum. For example, Many spectrum kids love music and lights as purely sensory experiences, and at the other end, many (especially the higher-functioning) kids actually thrive off of observing the interactions that take place on stage from a psycho-social perspective.

I could write a book about the positive effects that theater has on individuals at all points on the autism spectrum, but I'll end this comment here. I hope you found it helpful.

[LuminousBeing]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 2:05am

Oops, should've typed "affected," not "effected."

[jansalrose2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 2:46am

I think Gaveston makes an excellent point. I'd like to express my desire to also exclude the physically disabled from the theater. Hell, if they can't get up the stairs to their seats, they don't deserve to experience the theater!

On a serious note though, why are we indulging this skunk? Luckily, attitudes towards Autism are beginning to change, hence "Autism-friendly" performances.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 2:34pm

Gaveston (and for the record I can't believe that I am about to ask you this, but here it goes) if you say that children with autism who need breaks shouldn't go to the theatre, then let me ask you this. If they need breaks but at the same time are getting extreme joy for the moments that they are watching the show, then what's the harm of having these autism friendly performances where they can take the breaks they need but still enjoy the show? I have heard of movie theatres doing similar autism friendly performances, why not Broadway theatre?

It certainly does no harm to me. But as someone who doesn't have your experience, it strikes me as reasonable to ask why someone needs a break if s/he is so enjoying the experience? Which was sort of my question in the first place.

(For the record, my original intent wasn't to say people who need extended breaks shouldn't go to the theater, but to ask whether we are doing such people any kindness by forcing them to go?

Although I've been called disgusting, heartless and other names for simply asking a question, nobody has bothered to explain why such breaks would be necessary.)

Posted: 2/9/12 at 2:44pm

Can someone explain why calling people with autism "the autistic" is offensive to them?

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 2:50pm

I agree. I guess considering where Gaveston comes in on all this reminds me of something that a professor of mine from college once said. He said that it takes more work to be understanding of that which you don't know and a lot less work to be ignorant of that which you don't know.

Tell your professor there would be a lot less ignorance if people were allowed to ask simple questions without summoning the entire chorus of Furies from the ORESTEIA! I began this discussion by asking a question (i.e., trying to lessen my ignorance) and look at the response! I promise you that few readers of this thread will make the same mistake.

Now it appears I am a "skunk" as well as ignorant, heartless and disgusting. And yet at least three posters who do have extensive experience in the area have been able to disagree rationally without being attacked.

It appears the biddy choir (it's a reference to chickens, not to women; I don't know anyone's gender here) only goes after the poster who admits he doesn't know correct terminology, etc. There's a PC term for ganging up on the weak, too.

I said this thread sets a record for nonsense. It sets a record for nastiness as well.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 2:57pm

Can someone explain why calling people with autism "the autistic" is offensive to them?

I don't know whether it is offensive to them or just to their self-appointed caretakers, Joe. But it was explained on the previous page that the phrase "the autistic" seems to sum up people based entirely on their disability, as if that were the only relevant thing about them.

Personally, I think using the phrase in a general discussion is quite different than calling an individual whom you know, "that autistic kid". I certainly see why it's offensive when used instead of an individual's name.

But another person pointed out that we still refer to "the deaf". That was ignored in favor of more name-calling directed at me.

Good luck getting any sort of subtle distinction discussed with this crowd (except for the exceptions of course). Personally, I don't mind using "people with autism" if that makes people happy; but I don't think using the other phrase should be a capital offense.

Posted: 2/9/12 at 3:20pm

The deaf, the blind, the disabled, the Lupone fans, none of them seem to mind. But then again, autism is a disease of heightened sensitivity.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 3:29pm

As someone who has no dog in this fight and doesn't know anyone with autism personally, I think Gaveston is coming off kind of dickish. I was surprised everyone was as civil to him as they were even after his "normal" comment.

[The Josh]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 3:38pm

I think this is great. My brother has autism, I'm 17 and he's 20, and our family has been seeing Broadway shows for years. He can't see anything particularly violent, but he's seen most of the shows that I've seen. He struggles sometimes, but he really loves it. I'm so glad to see more shows such as these happening.

As for "the autistic," I do take some offense from that. While not quite to the same degree, it's sort of like referring to homosexuals as "the gays" or African-Americans as "the blacks." It's not out-right mean, but "people with autism" is preferable.

[ljay889]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 3:40pm

I said this thread sets a record for nonsense. It sets a record for nastiness as well.

Yes, and YOU set the record.

[Sugar78]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 4:29pm

I wanted to give my 2 cents on this topic, both as a person who has a disability and who is educated and employed in a field where I work with people who have various disabilities (including autism). It's best practice to refer to someone who has a disability as a person first rather than pooling them into a homogenous group such as "the autistic". A disability is merely one trait a person has, not the be all and end all of who the person is. There is so much variation within groups of people who have the same disability/diagnosis, and lumping everyone into one group like "the autistic" tends to lead to stereotypes where the individual person gets lost behind a label.

The question was raised about why it's ok to refer to the Deaf as such, but not the autistic, etc. I'm not Deaf and I cannot speak for those who are, but it's been my professional experience that there is a unique sense of pride and culture within the Deaf community, so many of those individuals do not see being identified as Deaf as something negative. Of course there is always variation in any group, so I don't want to make a blanket statement about that community either.

I suppose it all comes down to a matter of perspective. I choose to see disabilities as just another form of diversity, and thus I think those of us who live with disabilities deserve the same respect in regards to terminology as any other group. I am definitely more sensitive to the desires of other types of people in that regard because I know how it feels to be labeled with terms that are universally considered negative. I use a wheelchair and I'm offended by the words cripple, confined, afflicted, handicapped, and bound. I think none of those words decribe who I am and my abilities, and anyone hearing about me without meeting me would probably have a very negative, inaccurate image of who I am based on those descriptions. I know many people think the PC thing is just splitting hairs, but it becomes important when the words are being used to refer to you.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 4:48pm

For the record, Sugar, I am not always opposed to what is sometimes called "political correctness." I had no quarrel with being told I was using the wrong term for people with autism. (And please note, I was speaking of a group, not an individual.)

My quarrel was with being told I was "disgusting" because I didn't know any better.

Updated On: 2/9/12 at 04:48 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 4:55pm

As someone who has no dog in this fight and doesn't know anyone with autism personally, I think Gaveston is coming off kind of dickish. I was surprised everyone was as civil to him as they were even after his "normal" comment.

How helpful of you to pile on, Phyllis, with little to no supporting examples and no acknowledgement that the name-calling wasn't started by me.

But I certainly hope I am "coming off kind of dickish". I consider it the only appropriate response under the circumstances.

As for my use of the word "normal", I see I am now required to defend every friggin' word I have ever posted. When discussing a group of people who are exceptional in some way, everyone else may be identified as "normal" by comparison; I didn't use it as an absolute category of person. Yes, I could have written 27 pages to avoid using that one, sometimes loaded, word (and I have done so, having published in academic journals), but frankly, I'm not on the payroll here and I don't feel the need to work so hard to protect everyone's delicate sensibilities.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:19pm

I just thought most intelligent people realize that using a loaded word like "normal" in the context of a discussion about developmental disorders probably isn't the best bet. I don't really think that's being overly PC of me, I think it's not being a douchebag.

As for supporting examples, baby, this thread is the supporting example. Pretty much everything in this thread sounds like you're trolling, but here you go.

Okay, so I'm a heartless Scrooge and all, but if your kid is so extreme that he needs a quiet area with beanbag chairs and coloring books, maybe it would be best not to bring him to the theater in the first place.

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand why it's important to get people who can't sit through a 2-hour show to the theater. And that's true whether the problem is autism or addiction to texting.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the experience through the eyes of the autistic. You're watching something that is too long or too stimulating, so you have to leave and take a break in the middle. And this is a good experience because...?

ChenoKahn can "wow" me all s/he wants, but while I agree with the intent of mainstreaming in principle, sometimes I wonder if we aren't just playing unnecessarily to caretakers' desire to believe their charges are "normal".

Etc, ad nauseum.

Maybe you don't mean your every post to make you sound like an insufferable prig, but the fact remains that that's how you sound.

Also, I take back the "kind of."

Updated On: 2/9/12 at 05:19 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:29pm

Phyllis, your point about my use of the word "normal" could be discussed and I might even end up agreeing with you. (Though I will caution that I know from experience writing queer theory that sometimes we just have to choose a word and ride it out. There is no such thing as a perfect term with absolutely no baggage that pleases everyone.)

But you jump to I'm a "douchebag."

So now we can add "douchebag" to "heartless", "disgusting", "ignorant", "skunk", "dickish" and "insufferable prig".

And all because I asked--ASKED--whether children who find the theater upsetting should be forced to endure it. Yes, I can see the problem is that *I* am a prig.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:36pm

I actually didn't call you a douchebag. And I said your posts made you sound like an insufferable prig, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't come off this way off the board. Also, I said you were acting kind of dickish. Really, I don't think I've called you a single name. I've used different names for how I'm perceiving your behavior, but I know sometimes when you're fighting a losing battle it's hard to see things with much clarity.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:46pm

Phyllis, I'm sure I would be losing the battle if I had ever started a war. But all I did was ask what seemed to me, with my admittedly limited knowledge, a reasonable question. I'm never going to agree that inquiring for information or questioning conventional wisdom is a crime.

As for your posts to me, I don't think throwing in the occasional qualifier really changes the basic name-calling. As you can see, I don't wilt in the face of strong language; but when you join a thread with the only apparent purpose being to decree who is being "kind of dickish", I don't think you can later turn around and claim the high road.

That being said, no real harm done.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:51pm

No one has said that asking questions is a crime. Is that what you've taken from this thread? It was the way you asked the questions. And I think you know that.

And I was never trying to claim any high road. I just don't think I was calling you names (much like I don't think anyone told you asking questions is a crime).

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:51pm

Gaveston, I'm tired, but to answer your question (as to why bring an autistic child to theatre) partly and lazily, and speaking from my own experience -

Autism is a condition that has a profound effect on family life. Parents/siblings can find it extremely tough going, and often are desperate for some sort of "quality time" with their child, and often make great efforts to achieve some sort of...gah, I don't know...bond. They bring their children to the theatre because they want them to have a quality of life, and to engage them with others amongst many, many other reasons...

y'know, maybe I'll elaborate after a nap.

[NoHSMisNotAMusical]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 5:55pm

I'm not sure why it's "Hate on Gaveston2 Day", because he asked a question. The theatre is not for everyone. My autistic brother enjoys coming to see my shows and not much fazes him, but he is sixteen and functions better. On the other hand, my friend has a severely autistic brother, who doesn't do well with it at all. Some shows work better than others. The Disney ones, Wicked, and other visually stimulating and catchy shows will work out better.