Every time I see a kid wearing ear defenders, I wonder whether that kid has the ability to consent to other people knowing that they’re autistic.
Like, you see a kid wearing ear defenders, you know that they’re autistic.
I, a complete stranger, now know this personal piece of information about that kid.
But did that kid have the ability to consent to whether or not I knew that information?
Like, ear defenders are a good strategy to stop kids from having meltdowns.
So are noise cancelling headphones.
So is not going to the shops when it’s busy.
Like, I’m not talking about kids wearing them to the park, I mean seeing kids being dragged around busy department stores on a Saturday morning.
The kid’s not there because they want to be, they’re there because the parents wanted to go to John Lewis instead of Amazon.
Was the kid given an option? Besides “ear defenders or meltdown and get shouted at for not wearing the ear defenders”, I mean?
And like, yeah, sure, kids shouldn’t be told to hide their autism and they shouldn’t be made to feel ashamed of it, but it’s still personal information. It should still be their choice whether or not I – a stranger on the street – know that about them.
Idk, I’ve been seeing it more and more often when I go shopping on the weekends and I can’t help but wonder…
Shopping is kinda a necessity. And not all parents have the ability to find/afford someone who can watch their kid while they go shopping. While parents should aim for a time where shops are not busy, again, it’s not always possible. Shops are busy because Saturday/Sunday is a time where many ppl do not have to go to work.
I also think that while you and I would know that the kid was probably autistic, this is because we are autistic. Kid could also have SPD, or just be sensitive to noise. Unless the stranger was familiar with autism, I’m not sure they would know for sure. And the only way to completely hide a child’s disability would be not to take them out imho. As long as the child isn’t uncomfortable, and the parents reasonable (not some ungodly long shopping trip/takes breaks/knows when to stop), I’m not sure why it would be bad. Especially if parents try to make the trip enjoyable.
I agree autonomy is totally important, so forcing your kid to go out unnecessarily. esp when it’s causing pain is a no-go.
I guess my main problem is “why not headphones”?
And I must stress, I mostly see this in very obviously middle class families and I live in a big city with access to any number of cheap “we’ll deliver whatever you want to your house for you” services.
I live right on the edge of town and am broke and I can still get pretty much anything I want delivered to my house within 24 hours. Like, it’s literally cheaper than the bus fare to get into town and I can’t afford a car. Shopping, in this city, really isn’t a necessity unless you want some really boutique stuff.
When looking at those really middle class parents, I can practically hear “Oh well, we don’t want little Montague listening to music when we’re out because we don’t want him to have any electronics that might rot his brain, like an mp3 player or mobile phone. He’s going to be exposed to nothing but paper books and The Outdoors.”
Like, we can talk about expense all we like, but autism is mostly* diagnosed in middle class kids with the “I only feed my child organic” yummy mummys who think giving kids electronics is EEEVIIIIILLL.
So, yeah, I realise “John Lewis” is a local reference, but put it this way, I have never bought anything from there in my life because the price tags give me headaches, so when I see a mother with a “can I speak to the manager” haircut dragging around a kid with ear defenders on through there, it doesn’t exactly paint a picture of “poor woman didn’t have another option”.
*I do mean “mostly”, not “all the time” and again, it’s the middle class parents I’m seeing this with
(Where “middle class” in British terms would correspond to “upper middle class” some other places. Which might be obvious from some of the rest of the description, but yeah.)
As came up in a reply too, with this particular example I’m not sure that very many members of the general public would have the knowledge to associate a kid wearing ear protectors with autism. Unless they were autistic too, or close to someone who is. Possibly more likely to assume it is just some type of wireless headphones, otherwise.
Given how easy it is to avoid trips to places like John Lewis, as you say, I am even more concerned about the levels of consideration for the child’s needs, getting dragged around shops while obviously uncomfortable for the parents’ convenience. Headphones or ear protectors aren’t likely to make the whole experience entirely non-stressful. Even if that’s enough to prevent full-on meltdowns in the store, that doesn’t mean the child isn’t still stressed.
That was one thing my family got mostly right, way back when, without knowing exactly what was behind the problem. At least before I got old enough to be expected to have learned better, they tried to keep shopping trips with The Meltdown Kid along necessary and to the point. Everybody was happier that way. That was also mostly doable (for working class people) even before it was nearly as easy to get so many things delivered at little or no extra cost.
If they had known to try noise reducing aids, and were maybe operating under the impression that this totally solves the problem? (I.e., usually prevents total meltdown behavior as the main perceived issue.) Who knows.
That said, while I’m not sure if in this particular example, people would see ear protectors and immediately think autism? This does raise some interesting points around children and privacy.
I mean, I grew up with very little reasonable expectation of having any say whatsoever over who was given access to what information, especially where health/disability issues were concerned. No matter how heavily stigmatized the thing might be, that did not get treated as my own personal info that I should have any say over whatsoever. (And still probably wouldn’t, after too many years as an adult.)
This is a way more common approach to respect for privacy than it should be. Especially where children and/or disability and medical stuff are concerned–even before they’re combined. It’s really not good.
So, I am usually even more inclined to err on the side of assuming a very limited need to know, dealing with another person’s privacy. And I can understand why this scenario might not sit totally right, from that standpoint. Complicated.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 