Autism-Friendly Shows — Page 2

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."

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

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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, 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.

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.

---