User Profile

I picked up this book because it was about women with "Aspergers." It's an older book, from when aspergers was still a diagnosis. I forgave that and continued on.

First the good. I related to several of the women quoted throughout the book. Some of the experiences mentioned were so common and so relatable that I had to add yet another experience to the autism column of my life. I'm grateful to have more to think about in many of these categories.

But now I must bring up the bad. The first was a pet peeve. The author coined the term "Aspergirls" as the title of the book, but also as a word she uses repeatedly throughout the book. It irritated me every time it came up.

Second, though the interviews were with adult women, every chapter ends with two advice sections: advice to aspergirls, and advice to parents. The first felt targeted toward a teenager, toward someone with little to no life experience. The advice to parents section took it a step further, as advice for a neurotypical parent about how to raise a daughter with autism. I ended up begrudgingly reading the first, and skipping the second section at the end of every chapter.

The cisheteronormativity was also apparent, even when folks interviewed described pansexuality or asexuality, and nonbinary identities were at least hinted at. There is much advice about dating men, choosing men, marrying men, etc.

All of this so far would be forgivable in exchange for the epiphanies the book had for me. The pseudoscience however was too much.

My first red flag was when the author briefly mentioned both supplements and reiki as alternative treatments. I shuddered, but the book moved on quickly. Then chapter 19 happened. Stomach Issues and Autism.

This chapter represents the biggest 180 I have experienced with a book. Suddenly the author was positing that autism was caused by a compromised digestive system during development allowing "toxins" into the bloodstream and harming early brain development.

Then she goes on to suggest that diet is also the "cure" for autism, and tells a story of a nonscientific "experiment" she did with herself and others consuming strong antioxidant supplements only to see their autism symptoms lessen.

Maybe sometime I'll write about pseudoscience. For the sake of brevity I'll just say that all of this is at best bunk and at worst actually harmful.

I struggle to decide if this is a one star or a two star book. I went with two because I did learn some things, and those things will help me. I probably could have learned them somewhere else though.

I cannot recommend this book.

The second essay in this book is actually the entirety of chapter 13 from Words of a Rebel by Peter Kropotkin, Representative Government.

In this chapter, Kropotkin introduces several ideas, too many in fact to really go over here. Instead, I'll focus on one which really stuck out to me.

"When we observe human societies in terms of their essential characteristics ... we realize that the political regime to which they submit is always an expression of the economic regime which exists at the heart of the society."

The idea that the political organization of a society is always subservient to the economic system of that society. No matter how hard a legislature tries, it cannot change the political system in a country to something that does not compliment its economic system. But also as an economic system changes within a society its political system must also change. Applying this lens to modern times begs the question: in what way has the economic system changed to cause the rightward shift we are seeing in the political systems of the world?

The first essay in this collection is On Representative Government and Universal Suffrage by Mikhail Bakunin. I chose this quote because it came closest to a conclusion, as it was the final paragraph.

I will admit that I find Bakunin exhausting and rather prefer to avoid him when I can. Nevertheless his work heavily influenced many thinkers I do like to read, so it's hard to ignore him in the history of the anarchist argument against voting.

In this essay Bakunin argues that the holders of political office by virtue of that office are members of a separate class, whose interests are inherently opposed to the interests of working people. Even if they were working people before the election, upon being elected they become "the most determined aristocrats, open or secret worshipers of the principle of authority, exploiters and oppressors." One doesn't have to look far in the house or the senate to find darlings of the "left" who took an immediate rightward shift upon entering office, and now cannot even oppose an ongoing genocide.

Bakunin also argues that the common people "have neither the time nor the requisite knowledge to participate in governmental functions." I find this line of reasoning incorrect and a bit dangerous. It can easily support arguments for despotism and against any form of direct democracy just as well as it can support arguments against states and governments.