Autism-Friendly Shows- Page 3

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 6:15pm

Thank you, jay. At this point, I've received several reasonable and interesting responses to my query.

If I understand you correctly, children with autism and their families form a communal bond by attending performances with other people dealing with similar issues. (Don't everyone start: I am NOT saying all people with autism are the same.) That makes sense to me. (If I'm not paraphrasing you correctly, you can just tell me. I'm not distorting your point on purpose.)

To be clear, I never questioned why people with autism might enjoy the theater. I assume many or most will enjoy it for the same reasons anyone does. I was only asking about those who find the experience too difficult to endure.

In those latter cases, parents must struggle between wanting to share social activities with their children and not wanting to cause the person with autism discomfort, no? I'm sure this is a very difficult decision and I am by no means second-guessing any particular parent's choice.

I was simply asking if the issue weren't more complicated than rejoicing that EVERYONE with autism can go to the theater (though of course we should rejoice for those who benefit).

AEA has pointed out that caretakers don't always know how a person with autism will react until they try. I can understand why they would prefer to try at a performance where the cast and audience are presumably understanding of the issues involved. If that is the primary purpose of "quiet rooms", then I get it.

It has also been suggested that some people with autism might enjoy parts of a show, but need breaks along the way. I find this harder to understand, but I have readily admitted my lack of experience. SNAFU has pointed out some children with autism simply aren't suited for the theater and are better engaged in other activities.

But if a child with autism (or anyone else) wants to watch part of Act I, then spend time in a quiet room before returning for the finale, I have no objection. Lord knows I've done the same in at least one German film.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 6:24pm

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).

Okay, Phyllis, to be fair, I originally phrased my "question" not in the form of a question, but in the form of a provocative remark. I'm not sure how that justified responses like "disgusting", but obviously this is a subject that unhinges people.

I do hope somebody somewhere is asking what is best for each individual with autism and not merely demanding that we all celebrate everything that looks like mainstreaming. I trust that the vast majority of caretakers wrestle with this issue every day and I hope they aren't castigated for considering it a proper question.

As for your arrival to judge who was being "kind of dickish", we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether that is name calling. As I said and while name calling may not bring out the best side of me, it doesn't actually kill me.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 6:40pm

And to be fair to you, I did think you were acting like a dick, but I don't think you are a dick. And in retrospect, I could have used better descriptors that sounded less like name calling and were actually useful. So, sincerely, I apologize.

To your point, though, I don't know that these Autism-Friendly shows are considered mainstreaming? Wouldn't that pertain more to a non-Autism-friendly audience? I don't think anyone is demamding you (or anyone, for that matter) celebrate anything. Clearly these Autism-friendly shows were a hit before (I remember the one for the Lion King), but that's not saying you have to approve, although for the life of me I can't imagine why one wouldn't.

The other day several of my teacher and/or theatre-associated friends were posting this picture which, if on the level, sort of explains - at least in one specific case - the positives of exposing a child with autism to the theatre. Now, I don't know where this came from and I'm not really one to get all worked up over Facebook memes, but this clearly positively touched a nerve in a lot of people I know.



Updated On: 2/9/12 at 06:40 PM

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 7:04pm

I accept your apology, Phyllis, and I offer one of my own. I'm a big fan of your posts and I'd hate this thread to come between us.

Especially since I am not opposed to accommodating people with autism at the theater. I'd have no trouble attending one of the special performances mentioned. All the shows with special performances are already aimed at children and I wouldn't assume everyone would sit perfectly still for the duration.

We have to allow for a little disruption from children (with or without autism) if live theater is to survive into future generations.

And the story of the child who spoke for the first time at the theater is indeed inspiring. If there's a chance the theater can make such a miracle, let's give it a try for everyone! I'll happily put up with a little chatter from the house.

For what it's worth, I dealt with all sorts of ADA issues as a university professor and never once failed to cheerfully follow the law, whatever the time and effort required. I can tell you from personal experience, however, that some things become enshrined as "rights" that ought to be subjected to occasional re-evaluation for the good of the student who is supposedly being helped. It's a bureaucratic thing (and not my place as an individual to challenge; I just followed the laws).

But it did leave me with the belief that somebody should be able to question the conventional wisdom at any given time without being accused of "betraying" the disabled. (I know: some people hate that word. "Specially abled" or "challenged" if you prefer.)

(ETA: in re your point about my use of the term "mainstreaming." I was using it in the broadest possible sense. Nobody should take the word from me as a technical term.)

Updated On: 2/9/12 at 07:04 PM

Posted: 2/9/12 at 9:27pm

When Phyllis refers to "dickishness" I always assume he means it as a compliment.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 9:59pm

Thanks, Joe. This thread needed a laugh!

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 10:07pm

Re: "Children with autism" vs. "the autistic," that's a common view regarding all mental disorders. It's because when you say "bipolar woman" you're defining them as the illness first and human second, if at all.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 10:28pm

To follow up on SporkGoddess's comment-

"Person with [disorder]" as opposed to "[Disordered] person" is a recent change- within the last 15 years. I can understand why some take offense, but it's still not established enough that anyone who uses the older phrasing should be lynched over it. Only 100 years ago, people were legally called dumb. 50 years ago, it was retarded. You can correct and educate without getting on a high horse about it and eventually, everyone will learn just in time for a new terminology to come about.

[BroadwayFan12]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 10:33pm

Exactly, SporkGoddess. We are all human beings first and foremost. Gaveston, I apologize for my harsh words. I should have been more tactful.

Updated On: 2/9/12 at 10:33 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 2/9/12 at 10:37pm

Honestly, sometimes I forget (plus it's more of a mouthful) and I'm in the mental health field. I'm not judging, just saying the reasoning behind it.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 2/10/12 at 5:08pm

Thank you, Sporkgoddess and orangeskittles, for the info. I swear I do my level best to use whatever terms are deemed appropriate for any community. And I'm happy to change my vocabulary as standards change.

And thank you, BroadwayFan12. If I'd been a little more patient and better explained my intention in the first place, the thread wouldn't have gotten out of hand. So I apologize for my part in all that.

I hope it's clear to everyone by now that I in no way oppose special performances for people with autism. Frankly, I can't imagine why anyone would. I was merely confused about the purpose of quiet rooms.