note note note i have no idea of the legitimacy of this information but

anonymous asked:

I have a lot of the traits of autism and even my counsellor has acknowledged that I am probably on the spectrum but my parents don't know if it's a good idea to get me professionally diagnosed because of the stigma that comes along with it. Do you think I need to be diagnosed? I'm sixteen now and I'm just learning that all of my traits that I've seen as 'weird' fit pretty well.

Whether or not to get a professional diagnosis is a very personal decision. There are pros and cons to getting a professional diagnosis as well as not getting one. The following is taken from this post:

Paper Diagnosis

pros:

  • eligible to receive services (theoretically)
  • can get workplace accommodations if necessary
  • eligible for Schedule A employment opportunities
  • less likely to be rejected by online communities and support groups
  • feel of validation or “legitimacy”
  • validation or legitimacy in the eyes of friends/family/doctors/coworkers/teachers/college admin/professors (your mileage may vary)
  • more likely to get/have access to psychiatric medications

cons:

  • increased stigma
  • can cause difficulties with health insurance
  • workplace discrimination is a possibility especially in “Right To Work” states
  • having a “mental health history” on paper can cause problems throughout life
  • it’s expensive
  • many people are perfectly willing to invalidate a paper diagnosis (you seem “too normal”/the doctor was wrong)
  • paper Dx doesn’t make most people understand autism any better
  • paper Dx can lead to medical discrimination and ableism i.e., be used to deny medical care (“quality of life” and “better dead than disabled” arguments)
  • seeking paper diagnosis can take more time, energy, resources, and money than it is worth
  • seeking and having paper diagnosis can lead to abuse and bullying at the hands of medical personnel
  • get shit on constantly and forever by the dominant “parents and caretakers Autism Speaks Curebie” sociopolitical and economic environment

Self-Diagnosis

pros:

  • self-awareness and understanding: knowing what’s “wrong” with you, or “right” with you
  • a sense of relief
  • gained understanding of your own thought processes, emotional and sensory processes, strengths and weaknesses, et cet
  • a sense of control after misdiagnosis or comorbid* diagnosis
  • many books and online materials tailored to people with ASD can help with increasing knowledge and guidance
  • can implement self-care and self-help solutions; sometimes helps close family and friends understand you better(your mileage may vary)
  • can continue care of comorbid* diagnosed disorder and implement strategies involving ASD treatment techniques

cons:

  • many people will try and invalidate or refuse to recognize a self-DX
  • a feeling of invalidity; self-doubt
  • family and friends may accuse you of attention-seeking or hypochondria
  • no access to state services(for ASD)
  • may have difficulty receiving validation or acceptance in online support groups and communities [note from Sabrina: this will vary among communities. Many autistic communities accept self-diagnosis]
  • confusion about diagnostic criteria, term definitions, or what ASD, Asperger’s and Autism actually entail [note from Sabrina: this is not exclusive to self-diagnosis. There are plenty of professionally diagnosed people who don’t understand autism]
  • difficulty finding good information and support
  • it is entirely possible to misdiagnose yourself; i.e. you might be wrong [note from Sabrina: while there is a chance of misdiagnosing yourself, there is also a chance when going to a professional that they will misdiagnose you]

As you can see, there are a lot of factors to consider when deciding whether or not a professional diagnosis will help you. Take your time evaluating everything before making a decision. 

-Sabrina

anonymous asked:

have you watched ss yet? id you have, what did you think of the joker and harley relationship? do you think that it was romanticised especially since people say that "joker would never care enough about harley to save her!" etc

I HAVE! I haven’t had the time to post anything substantial on it but I thought characterisation was handled very well in that film, and the best type of comedy writing was on full display: every humorous quip or moment served to enhance the excellent characterisation. My reading of Suicide Squad is a tragicomedy driven entirely by women (the men are literally just in the film to support the women, from a narrative point of view), and in light of my personal feminist leanings I clearly don’t have a problem with WB/DC taking the most iconic villain of all time and then having him show up in a film just to chase after his love interest, who’s supposed to be exploring her independence as her arc.

Originally posted by harleenfrancesqvinzel

There is a very important symbolic reason for showing her remove the choker that references him of her own volition, which the film further drives in at the end when she <spoiler> eschews the possibility of reuniting with her love to save her friends </spoiler>

But politics aside, I suppose the conscientious literature student in me will deign to address the strength of the adaptation - we’ll focus on the fit and appeal of the adaptation’s artistic choices itself, to borrow a term of art from Dworkin. 

Fit. I think the interviews given by Jared Leto and David Ayer show that both of them are familiar with the source material and that much thought has been put into figuring out the bond between the Joker and Harley. Much of discourse has always been focused on why Harley goes back to him constantly (one can raise the question of whether this reflects a societal tendency of victim-blaming where violence against women is involved, so to speak ), but I think turning our attention to the longstanding relationship between them from the Joker’s point of view is also warranted. We know that the Joker is not incompetent at all. If he decides to murder a character (see: Jason Todd), he knows how to get the job done. We know that whenever he has the opportunity to kill Batman, he doesn’t, because life would be boring without him. As such, people who claim that the Joker only ever experiences vexation in his relationship with Harley, in order to explain his abusive treatment of her - I appreciate that this is an Occam’s razor sort of explanation - must then be able to answer why hasn’t he been able to get rid of her. Saying that DC keeps Harley around because of financial reasons is not a good Watsonian reason, only a good Doylsian observation - what is the reason that the Joker does not just kill her and get it over with? One possible reason for this is that compared to Harley, he’s incompetent. I can accept that (see: feminism) but we’re not giving the most iconic villain of all time - especially given that he’s an equal to Batman, who’s supposed to be pretty darn intelligent when he’s in a relatively good place emotionally speaking - a lot of credit. Another explanation - and I think this is a far stronger one, and it happens to be the one that the film went with - is that the Joker is, in some sense, in love with Harley, in his own very unusual way.

Originally posted by withoutdefenceof

Guys this was always a thing in the ANIMATED SERIES WHERE SHE ORIGINATED can I have a bit of respect for historical precedent here???

But wait, they say. That’s not true love. Duh. You’re supposed to be asking the question. You’re supposed to then raise the question of what true love should be (the answer is Clois, by the way, or perhaps WestAllen, if we’re feeling like being less mainstream), and whether anything between Harley and the Joker is really love at all, or just mutual obsession. To further hammer in my point, we note that interviews have been given by writers to testify to this dubious love relationship, so clearly all authority has been appealed to - the relationship within the film fits at least one interpretation of the source material. (Anyone who comes at me with the But it’s not my interpretation!!! Other interpretations are not okay!!! at this point needs to sit down, because I am going tell you right now that competing interpretations are entirely how our public international law functions, as well as civil law jurisdictions, and some people also say common law jurisdictions more or less function as such, albeit with stare decisis thrown in for good measure. This is how legal questions are answered okay, so if it works for the manifestation of one’s constitutional right to justice then it should be good enough for a film adaptation of comic book characters.) If we are serious about respecting the literary canon of comic books, then we must accept that Suicide Squad is not playing ducks and drakes with canon in any way. The shoe fits, and the only reason it’s so especially obvious to everyone who’s complaining about this now is because the Joker has no other purpose in the story and the script gives much more to Harley. 

Originally posted by people-r-strnge

Appeal. Now, just because there is precedent doesn’t mean we must accept it (see: The Killing Joke film, or more accurately do not see it. I wish I could unsee the GIFs I saw of its take on a very controversial Batsy relationship). We must obviously make ourselves very clear when railing against the depiction of a relationship that we are not questioning its legitimacy - because legitimacy is driven by the question of what is canon, which is rule of recognition in this universe - just its necessity in the current context or its appeal as opposed to different versions. (To be extra clear, we all know that Cathy and Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights are screwed up even though their lines are wildly romantic, but we who do not think the relationship is a model one do not go into the tags to rail about how film adaptations should not be faithful to the dynamic. We do not.)

The question, then, is whether we should be showing this relationship at all? Maybe the Joker doesn’t have to be part of the film, and Harley Quinn has enough material from Bombshells or perhaps if Poison Ivy took his place instead… No one has raised this in relation to the controversy about including the relationship at all, so I assume people are worried about something else. (I hear a lot of people want to comment on her clothing despite the fact that the film makes it very clear that she was excited about being able to choose her clothing and she very damn well picked the shorts and heels over the jester suit as a combat outfit by herself.)

Given that the term “romanticising” has been thrown about a lot in these diatribes, I will presume instead that people are worried about presenting an abusive relationship as an ideal in a film that younger people will watch. The dangers of fiction when placed in the hands of an untrained mind have well been covered in fiction, and so here I defer to the wisdom of two far more badass women on the matter: Jane Austen and Mary Shelley. Jane Austen wrote Northanger Abbey, which can be interpreted as a bit of a cautionary tale about treating the sensational Gothic romances then as reality (in light of Harley’s final scene I wonder what she thinks of Northanger Abbey). We note that Catherine Morland has no real supervision and was encouraged by her wicked friend Isabel Thorpe, but Austen gives Catherine the classic Austen happy ending all the same, after she grows up. Clearly in case a young person gets very wrong ideas about the fiction they enjoy, they need to be gently allowed to consider the real life implications of their beliefs, but they’re not bad people for making mistakes at all, or for enjoying fiction as fiction.

Mary Shelley, on the other hand, also deals with this subject in Frankenstein, where Victor’s failure to parent his sort-of-kid - the Creature - leads to his surrogate son getting his hands on some books and then coming out with rather bad interpretations of them, which then leads to a lot of mayhem. Of the murderous variety. Shelley leaves the question of whose fault it is that all this happened rather ambiguous, by evoking pathos for both Victor and the Creature. Again a cautionary tale about reading without supervision may perhaps be teased out of the woodwork, but by no means does Shelley say don’t read at all (all the hapless characters in this story die rather violent if not ignominious deaths).

Originally posted by missaudacia

Having got those out of the way and proving that we figured this out way back in the 19th century but everyone has failed to get with the programme despite the passage of two centuries, we note the general theme about the need for supervised education. On the part of the persons creating the content, is then the duty to present whatever it is they are presenting in a nuanced manner. Obviously propaganda for something that may affect impressionable minds negatively is not to be peddled to the masses, but something that calls upon them to reflect and make their own minds up for themselves? That can only be achieved with nuanced portrayals.

And so we turn back to Suicide Squad and ask if Harley and the Joker’s relationship was presented with nuance. Because there is a lot of anxiety about young women in particular, (again raising the victim-blaming question in our patriarchal world for our consideration) and because Harley is a main character, we will evaluate the relationship in light of the example she might be to young women watching the film. We note that Harley’s character arc is about her deciding what she will do without the Joker (i.e. have a fantastic time with her friends kicking ass and saving the world). We note that there’s an undeniable push-and-pull to the dynamic between Harley and the Joker, that she is complicit in whatever he decides to inflict on her (which the informed comic-book reader knows is giving Harley far more agency than in the story that inspired those particular scenes), and that he may well be just as obsessed with her as she is with him - a sick sort of equality, as it were, which is especially driven by the fact that he’s not given an additional motive besides her at all, whereas she has Mistah J but also her new friends. We note that she’s not afraid - at all - of the Joker, that she will die for him and live for him but because she wants to. The film tells us right from the start: Harley does whatever she wants, and the film goes on to show that she deals with the consequences of what she did, with no interference from the Joker. The film is clearly about the independence of a woman as opposed to her questionable relationship, and I think we should be careful not to reduce her to just her relationship, especially if we profess to do so for the sake of (straw) feminism.

Originally posted by dailymrobbies

Outside of Harley and the Joker, we also note that there are other numerous examples of relationships which any viewer paying attention can juxtapose the Harley-Joker dynamic with. June and Rick, for instance. Tatsu’s devotion to her dead husband. Chado’s regret about his deeds and how they have affected his family. Obviously Floyd and Zoe. Maybe Boomerang and his plush toy. My point is, detractors need to ensure they don’t miss the forrest for a single psychedelic tree, because love is a very important thread running through this film and viewers are supposed to be considering wider questions about what you should do for love or what is loving someone as a result of the film.

We also see and hear characters commenting on the desirability of their relationship. Just so we are clear, the others don’t approve. Now, maybe it would have been clearer if we got of scene of a Skwad night out where they talked only about their relationships (instead of the scene where they talked about their pasts and their crimes) but I think it’s safe to say that there is sufficient nuance where the Joker/Harley pairing arose in the film itself.

I’ve been very lengthy about my treatment of the appeal question, but I think it’s clear that I think that what was presented in the film qualifies. The relationship was not romanticised (in the sense that it was presented as the best ever) or overly sanitised, but there was enough material for you to think about things and make your own mind up. Unless a detractor is saying that a less than healthy relationship should never be portrayed in film at all (have they seen Gone Girl, by the way? Or the part in Twilight where Edward watches Bella sleep?), I think Ayer has been more than responsible in every sense of the word (fit and appeal).

Originally posted by just-purely-insane