Well, Glee, at least I can't possibly be MORE offended

Seriously? What was up with that

Spoiler:

I'm so bitter right now, I could shit an unripe grapefruit.

Have you looked into professional butthurting? You're a natural.

Also, if you want me to understand what the hell you are talking about, I'm going to either need more background or a video or something. Self diagnosed assburgers? Did Harley make a cameo?

Um, excuse me?

Quote :

For all the coddling you give Kurt for being gay, Becky for being disabled and pretty much every other minority you try to cram in there

What the fuck is THIS ^

So, when other minorities are treated with respect and empathy, it's "coddling", because only the minority you care about should be treated that way? (And yes, I know it's not what you meant, but that's how it came across--you know, the way Glee didn't mean to demean autism, despite how they might've come across?)

You brought up a good point, but in a really douchey way, dude.

Also, I'm going to wait a few episodes to see if Sugar gets confronted about her little self-diagnosed Asperger's routine. Which is what you should have probably done before losing your shit, because if in a few episodes they show Sugar the error of her ways and make it clear that there's a difference between real autism and pretending to have autism in order to be a jerk, then you're going to look like an even bigger douche, aren't you?

Azzandra wrote:

(And yes, I know it's not what you meant, but that's how it came across--you know, the way Glee didn't mean to demean autism, despite how they might've come across?)

INTENT!?!?!?!??!!?!

I do believe that the character of Kurt has become the show's little martyr darling. I believe that the writers treat his issues of homosexuality with more importance and more sensitivity than, say, Sam's homelessness, (half-assed mention, they gave hime some clothes, everything turned out right, hooray) Mercedes ONE episode mentioning weight issues (camped up to make her hallucinate about dancing ice cream, wtf?) then suddenly she never feels weight issues ever again, and Becky, who was placed there, along with Sue's sister to make Sue a slightly more redeemable character.

While Kurt's story is complex, full of relationships, sexuality, love, harassment, stalking and a rollercoaster of other stuff, kids with disability are used as puppet characters for the moral standing of the OTHER main characters. It's not that they treat him well throughout, but they follow him fully through his pain, the lowest of the low, show his emotional reactions, insert Blaine (the perfect gary stu boyfriend, perfect for hurt/comfort fics from that mean, mean rapisty dude), and now Kurt is the only student with a stable, monogamous relationship on the show. Kurt could never possibly have an unhappy ending or have only a half-told story.

That is what I mean by coddling. It is the writers coddling his character on a supposedly ensemble cast. He gets more screen time than other characters, his stories are deeper, his resolution is always happy (Aw, he got to go to private school to escape teh bulliez!) (Aw, when he left, his perfect boyfriend followed him becuse they were in teh loves!) and when you compare the coverage of Kurt to, say, Santana's issues of lesbianism, it's hugely out of proportion.

So yes, Kurt is a darling, becky is an adorably untouchable yet at the same time unimportant teddy bear and autism is just someone being douchey. (but hey, she's self-diagnosed, so lolz, I GET it.)

Now, while watching, I did the same and wondered if this was a leadup to a genuinely likable chraracter with autism.
then I asked myself: Would this extremely misinforming intro be worth it? And the answer is a resounding, "Fuck, no"

Hee. Of all the things bad about the train wreck that is Glee - and this comes from a fan of the show, mind you - you pick that one? This show is mean and picks fun at everyone while simultaneously trying to maintain a message of celebrating the underdog, which is tricky at best. It zigzags over the lines between drama, comedy and downright parody, which results in the show often getting flack for doing it wrong - it has been getting this kind of critique ever since the first half of the first season, with the portrayal of the deaf choir.

However, somehow the portrayal of Sugar as a self-diagnosed Asperger is less offensive than Shelldon's behaviour as portrayed in The Big Bang Theory? Why? People who watch Shelldon probably get as much an idea what 'autism' is as those who watch Glee: mind that Shelldon never gets an official label within the series and this his erratic behaviour is continually used as the punchline or a lead-in to a joke. Neither TBBT nor Glee has ever explored the serious aspects of having a mental handicap, but given Glee's track record, you can at least expect an upcoming episode attempting to deal with it, however hackneyed that attempt may be.

To me, it seems strange that you'd get so riled up over this particular instance of Glee being offensive, when there are so many lines, scenes or character portrayals you could've jumped on in the past. At best, it makes you seem like you've got your blinkers on.

Quote :

That is what I mean by coddling. It is the writers coddling his character on a supposedly ensemble cast. He gets more screen time than other characters, his stories are deeper, his resolution is always happy (Aw, he got to go to private school to escape teh bulliez!) (Aw, when he left, his perfect boyfriend followed him becuse they were in teh loves!) and when you compare the coverage of Kurt to, say, Santana's issues of lesbianism, it's hugely out of proportion.

So, what? Basically, you're protesting the fact that a gay character can become a main character and get a fully-fledged arc of character depth, but they haven't got the time for a main character suffering from a (degree of) autism?

This might be a good point, but in terms of visibility, Glee already has plenty of minorities, ranging from characters struggling with their sexuality to those struggling with body image, OCD or religion. Of course, even in an ensemble cast, main characters will crop up. However, does that mean they're coddling Rachel, or Finn, or even Quinn? All of these characters get happy moments, sad moments, and moments where they're obviously poked fun at. As does Kurt. And Kurt might have a stable relationship, but he also maliciously got crowned Prom Queen at the end of last season. Happy ending? Fuck that noise, that's about as happy an ending as Rachel and Finn finally making up in New York: all the shit you've been through magically goes away when you end up in a happy relationship. Yeah, right.

Jay/Cris wrote:

To me, it seems strange that you'd get so riled up over this particular instance of Glee being offensive, when there are so many lines, scenes or character portrayals you could've jumped on in the past. At best, it makes you seem like you've got your blinkers on.

Jay, lovey, that's like being surprised when Verandering talks about gender.

This show sounds like the early parts of American Idol (Where 75% of the contestants are only there to be laughed at) mixed with Degrassi TNG.

Jay/Cris wrote:

However, somehow the portrayal of Sugar as a self-diagnosed Asperger is less offensive than Shelldon's behaviour as portrayed in The Big Bang Theory? Why? People who watch Shelldon probably get as much an idea what 'autism' is as those who watch Glee: mind that Shelldon never gets an official label within the series and this his erratic behaviour is continually used as the punchline or a lead-in to a joke.

Except that it has been noted in interviews and elsewhere that Sheldon isn't autistic/autism spectrum, just a very poorly socialized and over-educated academic. They could be far more explicit about it, yes, but it has been stated.

(We have a "Sheldon" in my department. It's nowhere near as entertaining when one happens in real life.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

~*PRIVILEGE STAMP OF APPROVAL*~ wrote:

Were you worried about the Asperger joke at all? That seemed to garner a strong reaction among some viewers.
No, I wasn’t. I think that’s something Glee does very well. It talks about and addresses and touches on issues that are very sensitive to most people, but having the issues talked about on such a high-exposure show, it bring things to people’s conversation. I like that a lot about Glee.

Is that an aspect of the character we’re going to dig into deeper in the next few episodes?
Eric and I had this conversation where we weren’t sure if she has it or…I’m not sure to what degree it is until I see more [scripts]. But we definitely touch on it again. So far, to my knowledge, we don’t go into the depths of Sugar’s background yet, but it is part of her character.

I will post more on this in depth later. And yes, jay, I will respond to your post. I'm extremely overworked right now, so I do forget to fully write out my justification for outrage, but I in no way take my actual feelings against the show back.

[quote="Jay/Cris"]Hee. Of all the things bad about the train wreck that is Glee - and this comes from a fan of the show, mind you - you pick that one? [quote]

Jay, I am austitic. While yes, there have been many instances of this show making me sigh or roll my eyes, I have never been so personally attached to them as to be sent into a frothing bout of haterage. Is it fair that I care more deeply about autism being insulted, than, say, Sam's homelessness? I dunno. I'm just more personally connected to autism, so the things Glee gets wrong hit more deeply with me. I don't think it's the worst thing that the show has done overall, but it is the most offensive thing to me so far.

Quote :

However, somehow the portrayal of Sugar as a self-diagnosed Asperger is less offensive than Shelldon's behaviour as portrayed in The Big Bang Theory?

Obviously, I do not speak for everyone who has autism. I cannot, because it is a spectrum (to be explained later). However, I find TBBT's treatment of autistic symptoms an important one.

They never label Sheldon as autistic. That is a big one. Glee does the opposite. Because they never label Sheldon, he is both idendifiable, and exempt of "getting it wrong". The show retains the freedom to give him traits and quirks that are present in some people, (not in others) which makes him a sort of Joe Everyman for the austitic / OCD / generally brain-fucked community.

And that's where Glee fails so hard. Too many people see autism as binary. Either you have it or you don't. That couldn't be further from the truth. (It's also part of the reason why it's incorrect for you to say "(real) autism" as if there is such a thing. There is no "real autism". Only the traits of it. Including things like: repetitive patterns, AND/OR OCD AND/OR vocal tone issues AND/OR lack of empathy AND/OR dyspraxia and physical clumsiness, etc etc etc. Pick any couple of those and you could have a mildly autistic person. Pick all of them and you would still have an autistic person.

So in many ways, Sheldon's traits are both austitic, non-autistic and never blamed on a singular word. When Leonard explains his behaviour to guests on the show, it's never "Oh, don't mind him, he's autistic." It's always "Don't mind him, he's Sheldon." There is a big difference in where the blame is being placed and how traits and quirks are owned there.

To put it into pratcice, a person who has minor OCD but no other autistic traits can look at Sheldon and go, "Oh, man! Been there!" even though they may not necessarily relate to his other austictic traits such as a lack of sexual attraction.

Or, an autistic person who struggles with empathy and socializing can find his antics amusing, while not having a MORAL OF THE STORY shoved in their face by a writer who has not experienced autism first-hand. What makes it more appropriate is the lack of labels being slapped on actions, and instead the focus being on the actions themselves. Many things Sheldon does are funny simply because they're funny, not because he displays autistic traits.

Quote :

Why? People who watch Shelldon probably get as much an idea what 'autism' is as those who watch Glee: mind that Shelldon never gets an official label within the series and this his erratic behaviour is continually used as the punchline or a lead-in to a joke.

ok, I carried on up there. Read above. /tired.

Quote :

Neither TBBT nor Glee has ever explored the serious aspects of having a mental handicap, but given Glee's track record, you can at least expect an upcoming episode attempting to deal with it, however hackneyed that attempt may be.

Oh, yes. Probably. But even if they do (and as you said it will probably be an utter failure as well) to me, they won't repair the damage they did with that episode. Even if the episode was evocative and deep and full of development, the way they started was so poor, they lost me and a lot of other autistic viewers from the start of season 3. They kicked the dog so hard, it has a permanent boot-print on its ass.

Quote :

To me, it seems strange that you'd get so riled up over this particular instance of Glee being offensive, when there are so many lines, scenes or character portrayals you could've jumped on in the past. At best, it makes you seem like you've got your blinkers on.

As I said before, I feel for the minorities and causes that Glee fails at. But this one is more personal.

Quote :

Quote :

That is what I mean by coddling. It is the writers coddling his character on a supposedly ensemble cast. He gets more screen time than other characters, his stories are deeper, his resolution is always happy (Aw, he got to go to private school to escape teh bulliez!) (Aw, when he left, his perfect boyfriend followed him becuse they were in teh loves!) and when you compare the coverage of Kurt to, say, Santana's issues of lesbianism, it's hugely out of proportion.

So, what? Basically, you're protesting the fact that a gay character can become a main character and get a fully-fledged arc of character depth, but they haven't got the time for a main character suffering from a (degree of) autism?

That's not my argument because that's never how I viewed the show. Glee, like Friends, is supposed to be an ensemble cast. As in: there are no main characters. For me that means (roughly) even chunks of time and development given to the different members of the cast. But, as the show has evolved, it has moved away from a true ensemble structure into the KURT, RACHEL AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE SONG SHOW. P.S. WHITE PEOPLE.

Without Googling:

1) What is Becky's last name?
2) Who are Santana's Parents?
3) How many siblings does Mike Chang have?

1) What are the marital statuses of Rachel's, Kurt's and Quin's parents?

Why is it so easy to answer the last one?

Because the story is actually about a small group of white kids with a few minorities sprinkled in for flavour. With this explanation, I hope you can better understand my haterage. I'm not asking for a "main" character with autism. I don't want any main characters. I'd rather have

1) A true ensemble cast, with equal time paid to the club members and their backstories (and teachers)
2) If a charcter with autism is added (or the issue of autism is brought up through a character), don't shit on them completely. This is less likely to happen if you've correctly achieved 1.

Quote :

This might be a good point, but in terms of visibility, Glee already has plenty of minorities, ranging from characters struggling with their sexuality to those struggling with body image, OCD or religion. Of course, even in an ensemble cast, main characters will crop up. However, does that mean they're coddling Rachel, or Finn, or even Quinn? All of these characters get happy moments, sad moments, and moments where they're obviously poked fun at. As does Kurt. And Kurt might have a stable relationship, but he also maliciously got crowned Prom Queen at the end of last season. Happy ending? Fuck that noise, that's about as happy an ending as Rachel and Finn finally making up in New York: all the shit you've been through magically goes away when you end up in a happy relationship. Yeah, right.

It's not about the fact that it's a happy ending as much as it's the fact that it's still about them. Good, bad, happy, sad, the attention still goes to the small group of white kids, and their token gay couple. Even if Kurt breaks up with Blaine, or Blaine dies or whatever the fuck, the episode will still most likely be about Kurt and Kurt's issues and Kurt's emotional journery. That is what frustrates me. Not just that he gets positive attention, but that he's getting too much attention. Same with Rachel/Finn/Quinn.

here's where I try to explain why what Glee did was so damn offensive:

Dude, it was a joke. She said she was SELF-diagnosed!

To properly explain why this is a multi-layered fail, you have to understand the layers of privilege involved here. Like issues of women of colour, there's more than one group in power, and different angles of ignorance happening at once.

1) People who are abled (not disabled) are privileged. This is probably obvious. Glee makes a point of telling us just how underdog-ish and loserly those kids are, yet they also make mention on multiple occasions that "Hey, at least they're not special needs, unlike those deaf choir tards" or riding the short bus, or taking special ed. Glee is rampant with unchecked ableism jokes, and simply placing Becky on camera doesn't make up for that sentiment. Not by a long shot. It sometimes even goes against the image in that it draws up an attitude of, "See? We put a disabled girl on the show! a DISABLED girl! We're accepting!"

2) Diagnosis itself is a privilege. People don't understand what the fuck diagnosis is, and how long or expensive it is to get a psychological diagnosis. You can't just run a blood test and mail someone two weeks later that they are autistic. Nowadays, there are waitlists YEARS LONG trying to get kids into child psychologists to test for autism. This is not an epidemic, or over-parenting, or coddling, or whatever. This is simply a lack of basic medical availability.

When I was a child, I remember not understanding why I had to get up a 5 fucking AM once a month for a year to drive into the city to talk to some old man who smelled. I didn't understand that when I fussed and demanded McDonalds lunch as payment for being dragged into my "special meetings" that my parents were shelling out thousands of dollars to have me tested.

I read books out loud one day, then I had to write the next, I did a sound test and told them when it was too loud or too quiet. I put objects in order, I pointed on the doll where the bad man touched me, I did basic math, a light-sensitivity test, a stress test, a fucking you-name-it-I-tested-it test.

Now, this was back in the 90's when a diagnosis of autism was about 1 in 10,000. Initially, I was diagnosed with childhool ADD. Then I went to SSI classes for four hours every saturday for most of my childhood. When the idea of autism rolled around in the late 90's and early 2000's, I was brought back for MORE FUCKING TESTING.

I have been the patient of more doctors and experiments than fucking Wolverine. I've been put on everything from anti-depressants to anti-psychotics to ritalin, to painkillers, all in an attempt through early research to "cure" my autism. Because, you know, it's too hard to fucking let a child who likes books just sit in the library just read quietly. No, you need to pump them full of drugs, stick them in a special needs room which is loud and smelly so that they can feel like they belong! ... Somewhere.

However, once you've paid a shitload of money and waited a year and wasted several weeks of your life testing to MAYBE get a document saying you qualify as autistic, now you get to start dealing with it.

Now you can actually tell people that the freaky shit you do isn't you being a defective human being, you're just autistic. You can start trying to convince people that when you get aggitated by sudden noises and hit people when they get to close, you're not a bad kid. You're autistic.

You can spend more time on government waitlists applying for funding in the hopes that you can recoup the costs of simply being autistic. Meds, doctors, gas required to get to said doctors, etc.

Diagnosis is a privilege to have. It's a shitty one comparatively, but still a privilege.

2) There are people with autism who aren't or can't afford to be diagnosed. They're adults who work full-time now. They're spouses who worry that a diagnosis would upset their partner. They're single moms who can't afford the money.

Guess what, those people come across articles and information about autism and are able to identify themselves. Autism isn't just made up by needy teenagers who want to feel special. And self-diagnosis may be the only thing keeping a person sane.

So to make fun of those who are self-diagnosed by accusing them of being attention-seeking twits is to

1) Insult those who are self-diagnosed and cannot function within a broken medical system

2) It assumes that all "real" autism is simply bad behaviour. And that the entire spectrum is simply a giant conspiracy coined by doctors and needy emo morons.

Hey, you know when that girl asked me if I thought she was fat and I said yes? Turns out I don't have a cognitive disability that prevents me from knowing that a logical answer isn't the one she wanted to hear. Turns out I just do it to be a dick and make myself feel good.

It negates that fact that many people with autism, diagnosed or not genuinely want to get along. We apologise when we make social blunders. We try to get better. We even try to make mathematical formulas for the EXACT thing we did wrong so as to not have it happen again (failing to see the larger picture that math can't help form or correct relationships, but hey, it's the thought).

NO, says Glee. WE'RE ALL JUST DICKS.

People with autism are genuinely uncontrollable freaks.
People who self-diagnose are people who WANT to be uncontrollable freaks.

The only solution is to mock both of them from an ableist perspective.

3) Remember what I said about privilege? We get to say nigga. You don't. Sorry, simple fact. Have you been diagnosed with a hot-topic disorder? Have you been under fire in recent years and pulled back and forth between "You're faking it for attention" and "Why don't you wear a helmet? I thought all retards wear helmets?" No? Then you don't get to make jokes about people trying to be like you. You don't get to be all hipsterish about autistic posers. We do. Because we're autistic and we are the one who feel the irony. Not you.

Glee, you lost your privileges to have a genuine laugh about disability when you made so many jokes at the expense of the disabled. They are the punchline. Not "Oh, life! What will you bring us next?" Just "Freaks are funny. And useless." You do not get to have those privileges back until you display honesty, integrity and respect for those with disability and stop continuing the idea that disabled = incapable.


I still have much haterage for this subject, but I hope that bring to light a few of the issues. Yes, this is totally ranty and mad. Sorry about that. I feel very strongly about this issue.

Sakurelf wrote:

...repetitive patterns, AND/OR OCD AND/OR vocal tone issues AND/OR lack of empathy AND/OR dyspraxia and physical clumsiness, etc etc etc.
...a lack of sexual attraction.
...cognitive disability that prevents me from knowing that a logical answer isn't the one she wanted to hear.
We even try to make mathematical formulas for the EXACT thing we did wrong so as to not have it happen again.
... room which is loud and smelly...

May I add Hyperlexia to the mix, at least where I am concerned.

Speaking of self diagnosis... holy shit.

You also left out another reason some aren't diagnosed. Sometimes, parents don't want the stigma of having an autistic child and will make themselves believe that if they treat their child like they are normal that the problem will go away.

It never does.

My relationship with my parents was rocky almost to the point of non existence until they finely accepted that I might be a little different. They still have trouble accepting it and will sometimes take my condition as a personal insult.

And you are right. Glee is utter fail when it comes to disability. It's one of the reasons that I love TBBT as much as I do.

I don't know what's more offensive- this horrid characterization, or that someone actually watches Glee

the asylum wrote:

I don't know what's more offensive- this horrid characterization, or that someone actually watches Glee

Ooooohhhh generic insult. I can't believe anyone actually watches [insert popular tv show]! Hope you didn't give yourself a brain aneurysm trying to come up with that one

I'm an autistic Gleek, and this has been all over my Tumblr dashboard. I think they were more making fun of annoying neurotypical people who pretend to be autistic to get away with being a douche. >.< I do understand why some autists might find it offensive, though.

The only people who made Asperger's look sexy were Gary Numan and Dan Akyroyd. Everyone else just can't seem to do it right. Tsk tsk tsk...