Anyone REALLY knoweldgable about feminism that cares to discuss it's role wrt ASD?

[StarlightMcKenzie]

Okay. I'm not intending to upset anyone, and yes, I'm probably quite insane wrt this but I wanted some views on this theory.

Some of you know that I believe that stressed-out mothers, and inhumane labours 'triggers' autism in babies with a genetic predisposition. This is because of the hormone Oxytocin that is essential for bonding, love, social interaction etc. is lower in stressed mothers, and supressed by adrenaline during pregnancy and childbirth.

This has not been researched. It probably won't be. Who would fund it?

Okay, with me so far?

Now, I have read some alluded to statistics (not found the source yet) that suggests in Afro-American families there is a prevelance of just a sixth of the number of caucasions diagnosed with autism. In American Indians, it is half. These two societies are matriarchal.

I'll carry on only if I get a few bites............or anyone's interest!

It's funny but I don't know manya cademics who subscribe to Baron-Cohen's generalistic pop psychology research

he may well ahve some points for aprticular groupings I guess, but as long as he presents universalistic answers for autism then he will miss the whole point.

Just IMo, natch

And yes, empathy si very interesting: ds1 fits a cognitive empatrhy defintion so is very machavellian and manipu;lative, ds3 is the opposite- absolutely no cognitive empathy and plenty of emotional. I suspect ASD could be ranked effectively on empathy disparity scales but it's early days where most professionmals seem to still use th asd = no empathy definition.

In reality functioning level is so many thinsg- for me, my empathy is hypersensitive but I have very littlle ability to utilise cognitive and plan (or play politics if you kwim), I also have a an issue with a processing delay and switching between things- takes a little longer. But good langauge skills and the like. the boys are completely different mixes though; in another era ds1 would have been a dictator as he can lead people into anything and did have his Primary broken up into gangs taht he controlled and ruled the warfare of; ds3 though is a classic little innocent all cuddles and sweetness

Hiya, Just glanced through this thread so someone might have said this already.

The problem in research terms of this sort of idea is that social life is of course complex, so really it is unlikley to have an answer.

Disability/illness and health are not absolutes, but are varied processess that carry different social meanings It is more than just the recognition of illness the 'symptoms' are a product of the culture in which the issue is diagnosed. In situations where we require young children to sit and listen to progress, having ADHD is a real problem. But in cultures where having a child on the go all the time (imagine child beggars) it might not be a significant issue.

Another example is that research can show that breastfeed babies are healthier in one way or another. But is this due to the breastfeeding itself or that women who currently breastfeed are, in some way, significantly different (more affluent, healthier themselves etc) from those that don't. Currently no one really knows the answer that one!.

daireen,

I'm pretty sure that the research is conclusive on breastfeeding being the more healthier for the baby. I understand that literally reams and reams or studies have been done and that they all point the same way, with variables such as affluence carefully controlled for.

Yes there are lots of studies which have found that postive results from breastfeeding, but as there is no legitimate way to separate breastfeeding itself, from the action/intention of breastfeeding there is no way of knowing categorically which is the cause of the positive result. There is a presumption that it is the milk.

It can never actually be proved as the only way to answer this question completely would be to divide two groups of matched mothers and tell them how to feed their babies ( to eliminate them choosing) which is clearly unethical so will never happen.

I work in the area of medical research and work with these confounding factors everyday, and in many cases they can never be eliminated.

daireen to an extent- I have often thought that in manyw ays ds1 is archetypal 1950's man (maybe not the boundinga round on all fours squeaking)- but tehre's plenty of research showing brain differences of high res MRI scans which suggest that ASD (and indeed ADD which ahs same finds) is more than just a social construct

daireen, yes, but only in the way that you cannot prove anything. There comes a point when you have to simply accept overwhelming evidence.

I think there is far less evidence to support vaccines (generically) being safe than there is for breastfeeding being healthier, but yet we are sold a line that there is no risk of vaccines, or at least the risk is always worth it in the face of the alternatives, when actually the evidence doesn't really lead to that conclusively.

Although, I'm not claiming why theory to have overwhelming evidence to support it. It quite clearly doesn't. ASD is extremely complicated and the causes are likely to be more than one, and the autisms, more than one.

And some of the things I have suggested might reduce numbers of children with autism would be very unlikely to be researched in the political and financial context that we live in. Mainly, our patriarchal society.

Doesn't good research accept confounding factors and aim to work within those boundaries though? You mention those but you explain the most likely scenarios as well.

So back to the black dx rate in USA, if only x% have access to decent healthcare then it is obvious that willa ffect mecial dx, regardless of confouding factors- the facotors may affect the extent of the phenomenon but it doesn;t mean teh obvious explanation isn't right- and of course occaam's razor comes in to play here too.

You'd kinda think that a good researcher would factor in any already known facts about the Afro-American population and their access to decent healthcare though. Perhaps they took the more affluent ones, or those in fairer-resourced communities!?

I remember an American IQ test of the 50s, that managed to 'prove' that black immigrants were less intelligent than white people. The IQ test had questions very specific to the American culture, and were largely about Amercian history. They got their proof all right

Peachy, I'm not suggesting that conditions themselves are a social construct, it is that conditions have to be recognised/named as a illness/disability in order to be 'seen' . This is why for many of us dx is important as it is through the naming that our dcs move from a category of deviance to disability. Yet the recognition is complicated and unless (which may happen) discrete biological markers are found cause and effect can never be certain.

Star, trust me I have read much of the evidence of breastfeeding when you factor in issues such as maternal health, diet, housing etc it is not as strong as many beleive.

But as I ardent feminist, I am all in favour of changing our patriarchal society www.mumsnet.com/te/1.gif

daireen I have read them too, and I argue that these factors/variables are taken into account repeatively (easy enough with the mahoosive samples that they use) and are quite convincing.

Where the work is to be done is not 'whether' breast milk is healthier, but 'why?'.

I remember that test too Starlight

But the research- or to be exact the research I read on teh subject- was simply a data collection, nothing more.

Cause and effect for avriants of teh condition are being found; there are identified genetic pathweays and areas of brain damage. The isue is imply that there are myriad causes.

All research is convincing if you have a pre-existing belief in the conclusion. If you approached most medical research with a completely open mind, you would conclude that very little of it proves anything whatsoever (except that it's more complicated than you initially thought).

Star, we'll have to agree to disagree about the standard of the evidence. Personally, my assessment is that whilst BF has proven advantages in developing countries particularly where water supplies are uncertain, there is very little evidence that there are significant postive benefits in western affluent areas.

I also hate the way that currently in the UK BF is promoted extensively in one way, to the extent women are made to feel guilty if they don't, whilst at the same time we live in a society which makes it haed to BF.

But in relation to ASD, whilst it is possible that it is related to Oxytocin, in practice it would be very difficult to investigate. It is quite easy to get correlations between two elements, but showing one causes the other is difficult. It is interesting to look cross-culturally of course, but it can be very difficult to do research this way. T different ways in which health services are organised is a major hurdle. Studies often show differences in illness rates between ethnic groups, but again it is often difficult to know for those without biological markers if this is an outcome of the different relationship that ethnic groups have with health services. So in Britain, Black men are more likely than white to be detained under the mental health act. But is this different serverity of illness, racism on the part of the service providers, or a reluctance for Black patients to accept treatment....

'I also hate the way that currently in the UK BF is promoted extensively in one way, to the extent women are made to feel guilty if they don't, whilst at the same time we live in a society which makes it haed to BF.'

I agree with this, but I absolutely cannot agree that in the western affluent world breastfeeding is still not far superior in terms of health outcomes for mother and baby. I 'do' think that 'some' of the health outcomes are overstated, but generally the conclusion is the same.

IBut back to the ASD argument. In terms of discovering causal relationships however, you first have to discover a 'relationship'.

We have already the research that shows that people with autism have an increased likeliness to have had a tricky birth. Current explanation seems to imply that it was the ASD and inability to 'work with the mother to be born, as a diad' that is to explain it, but I reckon that is just a convenient way to avoid having to look more closely at maternity services.

I have never seen this before until just now, - but this blog is quite interesting:

aspergermindspeaks.blogspot.com/2008/11/autism-and-neurotypicality-simply.html

Actually, I think this blog is quite a lot like what I am trying to say, but probably a little bit more sexist than I would have said it.

Don't buy the women is a vessel that needs filling with love crap. It is badly written for sure, but the points I was trying to make are all there.

rabbitstew,

you are so right. But it is also often the case that work which doesn't fit the 'right' way of thinking doesn't get funded. Look at the medical history of ulcers. For years it was beleived that it was stress related, and so research looked in all the wrong places, in desperation to be taken seriously one researcher infected himself with the bacteria and then cured the ulcer he gave himself.....

It was only a few years ok that 'refrigerator' mothers were seriouslyy considered to cause ASD and few people were looking anyway further....

People with autism are apparently also more likely to have a mother with a pre-existing anxiety disorder or depression (or just a mother willing to admit to one/believe she's always had one when she feels she can't cope very well with life with an autistic child?). Maybe that's a bit like the stomach ulcers - stress and anxiety could possibly exacerbate the problem, but who's to say they cause it? Despite extensive research into the effects of stress and anxiety on the developing foetus, there still doesn't seem to be an awful lot of concrete proof, just lots of possiblys and maybes to frighten any parent who has a child with a learning disability or autism and wants to make themselves more anxious by blaming their anxiety for the problem.

I actually found that website offensive, yes maternity could offer better services, but no I do not believe that birth is more stressful, than it has ever been, autism is to complex with many fathers having the traits as well as women. A bad labour where the child is without oxygen puts a child at risk but I would probably link very stressful mothers may actually be the genetic carriers or be ASD dx or not. I did not have bad labours and I bf but I still have a hidden guilt that it was my fault and my son where autistic well before I stopped breast feeding.

DS4;s biorth was on the living room, over in 35 minutes start to finish, doula..... some kid of home birth legend tbh!

Now ds1 was induced but I reckon the reason for the induction (failing placenta due to eclamptic fit) is mroe likely to ahve been the risk factor, esp. when his heart went AWOL for a bit

ds3- most severe of all in my family- perfect delivery, 3 hours start to finish, only reason I didn;t make mate's Baptism at midday next day was becuase Paed was delayed to sign us off.