Trump Has a Pronoun Problem

In the recently released recording of President Trump’s “discussion” with Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger about alleged voter fraud in the state, the President makes more than 100 references to the group of people at the root of every conspiracy theory he peddles: “THEY.”

Sculpture Samson by Brian Goggin at Sacramento Airport

“THEY” are groups of people that Trump believes were disenfranchised: “substantial numbers of people, thousands and thousands, who went to the voting place on November 3, were told THEY couldn’t vote, were told THEY couldn’t vote because a ballot had been put on THEIR name.”

“THEY” are dubious ballots: “THEY weren’t in an official voter box; THEY were in what looked to be suitcases or trunks, suitcases, but THEY weren’t in voter boxes.”

“THEY” even exploited dead people to vanquish Trump! “The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted, and I think the number is close to 5,000 people. And THEY went to obituaries. THEY went to all sorts of methods to come up with an accurate number, and a minimum is close to about 5,000 voters.”

But Trump’s favorite “THEY” are those invisible forces out to steal the election from him: “this just came up this morning, that THEY are burning their ballots, that THEY are shredding, shredding ballots and removing equipment… THEY supposedly shredded I think THEY said 300 pounds of, 3,000 pounds of ballots.”

Pause for a long sigh by the country’s English teachers…


Okay, now we can continue…

Trump’s “THEY” is what those of in the grammar biz call an “ambiguous pronoun.”

The problem with ambiguous pronouns is that they are… well… ambiguous. They lack a properly-defined or clearly-referenced antecedent (noun that comes before the pronoun… you know, like an unambiguous person, place or thing). Confusing? Let me give you some examples:

Child: “THEY told me I could take an extra piece of chocolate cake!”
Parent: “Who told you that?”
Child: “You know… um… THEY did.”
Parent: “Who is THEY?”
Child: “Those people over there” (points at group of adults standing by the buffet table).
Parent: “Okay, then I’ll just go over there and ask THEM why THEY told you that,” (starts to walk to the buffet table).
Child: (Panics and makes a run for it.)

In this case, “THEY” doesn’t exist. The child made up “THEY” in an attempt to legitimize his, her or their choice to swipe an extra piece of chocolate cake. In a related scenario, a speaker might use “EVERYONE” instead of “THEY” in order to invoke quantity as a means to legitimize his, her or their argument:


Child: “But EVERYONE is eating extra chocolate cake!”
Parent: “Who is EVERYONE?”
Child: “You know… um… EVERYONE!”
Parent: “Name EVERYONE.”
Child: (Pouts and gives up.)


Still don’t get it? Here’s a sad knock-off of Schoolhouse Rock that explains the relationship between antecedents and pronouns:

Once you’ve watched that, do yourself a favor and go watch Conjunction Junction.

Yikes, that was painful. And while this video is so 2015 with its demands for cisgenderaligned pronouns, the grammar point is made: if you want to use a pronoun properly, you need an antecedent. Otherwise your pronoun is at best ambiguous and at worst the placeholder for a lie.

Trump’s pronoun problem is so bad it could inspire Jordan Peele to make a sequel to his 2019 psychological horror film US:

Please release another movie soon, Mr. Peele! Please?!?!


Look, Mr. President, I’ll offer you a deal (you like those, right?). If you and “they” leave office on January 20, 2021 without a tantrum, you can all have an extra piece of chocolate cake. And if someone asks who authorized the extra cake, you can tell them: We the People of the United States.

Dear Diana: You can recover and be a Wonder Woman again.

Dear Diana:

By now, I am guessing that you’ve heard the news: Your foray into 1984 was… how shall I put it?… a bust. It’s not all your fault! Who sets a feminist superhero movie in 1984 and doesn’t expect some bizarro cultural blunders? I mean, it is the year that brought us that Tom Hank’s – Daryl Hannah masterpiece Splash, in which the female lead appears unwittingly naked in public multiple times (because that’s funny, right?). 1984 also premiered the “power woman“-led sitcom Who’s the Boss? (When you have to ask who the boss is when it clearly is the woman, you know you have a problem with gender roles.)

I think Disney+ and I object to the nude scenes for different reasons…

Having actually lived through the 1980s, I find it hard to be nostalgic for those “simpler times” when catcalls were compliments and sexual harassment was something you learned to live with if you wanted to succeed. It was the kind of era when Wonder Woman was more sex object than superhero.

Since Wonder Woman 3 is already in the works, I thought I’d do you a solid, Diana, and share with you some of the insights that American women have gained since 1984. Hopefully, you will be able to fast-forward on the female empowerment journey before you start shooting the next film. Here goes:

1. You can’t the save the world until you save yourself.

I get that an unresolved past is kind of a superhero thing, but the trope is broke. Your mom disappeared when you were a little kid to “save the world” and how did that work out? Does the world seem saved to you? No. Instead, she burned into your psyche that anyone you love and depend on in the universe will ultimately abandon you in order to save strangers who won’t appreciate it, turn on them, and ultimately screw the place up even more so that their offspring can repeat the cycle of dysfunction. Co-dependent no more!

It’s time to break the cycle by setting some boundaries, Diana. When a narcissistic televisual-capitalist tries to take over the world, is it really necessary for you to jump in an invisible plane and jet over to the Middle East to confront him? Instead, consider taking some “me time” to ask yourself: What does Diana need? (See #2, below, before you answer that because it’s not your deadish boyfriend.)

2. It’s clinical depression, not a missing boyfriend.

You rarely go out socially, you have no close friends, things that used to spark joy like lassoing crooks at the mall leave you feeling listless and sad. I know you think it is because you have been missing your boyfriend for decades. And that may have been what started this cycle. But what you suffer from, Diana, isn’t lonely girl syndrome. It’s clinical depression. You are only two years away from the beginning of a pharmaceutical and cultural breakthrough. When Prozac hits the market in 1986, people will stop hiding their depression and be able to seek out treatment.

Stigma around mental illness is one of the leading reasons people don’t seek out treatment. You are a superhero! You battle stereotypes and cultural oppression! Don’t displace your real mental health needs onto a false narrative of lost love. Get the help you deserve.

Want to learn more? Check out this ad for Zoloft, another anti-depressant from 2001:

3. It’s your invisible jet, so fly it.

As a kid, you fearlessly leapt onto the back of racing stallions and dove from great heights into the open sea. Hell girl, you even defied General Antiope! But by 1984, when your ghostish pilot boyfriend shows up, you take the passenger seat of life? And then you gaze out the “windows” while he weaves elementary-school-level poetry about being one with the air?

Wake up! You are a m-f-ing superhero! Get behind the controls and fly that plane! I hate to play the comic-geek-origins-card, but don’t you remember that your mother originally gifted you that plane when you set off for the WWII version of “Man’s World”? You were able to use your tiara to make the jet appear and control the plane with your mind. So why would you just hand your ride over to Steve? If you think it’s going to get him to love you enough to stay in 1984, please see advice item #1, above.

Wonder Woman piloting her invisible jet in the television series.

This all comes dangerously close to the “I made that bitch famous” practice of men claiming or getting credit for women’s accomplishments. No. You are Wonder Woman. Demand your herstory!

4. Stop apologizing for other people’s bad choices.

In your showdown with Barbara/Cheetah, you apologize for electrocuting her into submission when she refuses to renounce her wish. If anyone had anything to apologize for during this scene it was the production team that thought a CGI-generated cheetah would look badass in the year following the horror movie that was Cats. You took the action necessary in the situation. Don’t apologize!

Kristen Wiig as Cheetah in Wonder Woman 1984… Taylor Swift called, she wants her horrible CGI from Cats back (Actually, she says to keep it).

Study after study shows that women apologize more often than men. One possible reason why is that girls are conditioned to be more empathetic—they are trained to think about how their behavior affects others. Dr. Steven Hinshaw, author of The Triple Bind and how girls get screwed up during adolescence explains it like this:

“if a boy wins a race, he’s less likely to consider how his victory affected his competitors, whereas a girl might win and be happy for it, but downplay her success out of concern for the loser’s feelings. Girls are more often rewarded for focusing on others’ feelings while boys are more often rewarded for asserting themselves.”

Sound familiar?

5. It’s not your job to reform a narcissist. Just get him off the airwaves.

Okay, so this lesson is one that America is still working on so it’s understandable that you got suckered in by the gaslighting and thought your mission was to save the narcissist rather than the world. Here’s the thing about people with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD): no one can “cure” them other than themselves. And even then, it’s nearly impossible because of the nature of the disorder.

The Mayo Clinic explains that the people with NPD “have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence lies a fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism.” Intensive, long-term talk therapy along with pharmaceutical treatment are the paths recommended for NPD “recovery” but because of their fear of criticism, many suffering from NPD avoid therapy or terminate it early. NPD isn’t funny. It’s sad and destructive to everyone, especially the person suffering from NPD. Having said that…

The only thing more mythical in your movie than the rock that can grant wishes is this narrative of redemption for Maxwell Lord. The film could have been over at least an hour earlier if you had just understood that the only thing you can do with a narcissist who commands international television broadcasts is to cut off his oxygen—get him off the airwaves. (CNN, I’m talking to you: Just stop giving him oxygen, already!)

6. If a person doesn’t ask for tea or can’t ask for tea, assume they don’t want tea.

Okay, so we need to have an uncomfortable conversation. I realize that in 1984 you probably had just watched Revenge of the Nerds where one of the “geeks” steals a “jock’s” costume to trick the jock’s girlfriend into having sex with him, and that it is okay because (get ready for the joke…) the girlfriend finds that the geek is better at sex than the jock. This may have given you the false sense that it would be okay to have sex with your body-snatcher boyfriend while he was in the snatched body. But here’s the thing… If someone can’t answer the question “Do you want tea?” don’t make them tea. And if you meet some guy named Brett Kavanaugh in your journeys through Washington D.C. in the next couple of decades, I suggest you leave quickly if he mentions tea. Or if Bill Cosby invites you back to his hotel room for a cup of tea, do not drink it. Trust me on this one.

Don’t get the reference to tea? Watch the video below.

It’s a lot to take in, I know, I lived through it all myself. But if you work on these issues, you have a decent shot at making Wonder Woman 3 something other than a giant steaming hot piece of sh*t dropped into our Christmas stockings.

Your friend and long-time fan,

Amy

Failure to Launch the Space Force Brand

“Austin, we have a problem.”

I can only imagine those were the first words out of Duff Stewart’s mouth on December 19, 2020 when Vice President Mike Pence unveiled the moniker for members of the U.S. Space Force: Guardians. As CEO of GSD&M, the Austin-based ad agency charged with building the brand for this new branch of the military, Stewart must be asking himself if he shouldn’t have just left this final frontier alone.

Since Trump announced formation of the Space Force in 2018, the mocking has been non-stop. Trump has been compared to Buzz Lightyear, the space superhero who is unaware that he is just a toy. The logo looks like a dumbed-down Star Trek insignia. The uniform is camouflage… in space (?). There is even an entire poorly-written Netflix series that mocks the new branch brand of the US military.

And there, in lies the problem. The Space Force may not be a 100% bad idea as far as bad ideas go (I really don’t know). But that’s all it is. A bad idea… with even worse branding.

The Space Force’s failure to launch (pun intended) is reminiscent of past brand launch blunders such as Google Glass, New Coke, the DeLorean DMC-12 or the Segway, which weren’t necessary bad ideas or products (okay, the Segway was a lousy idea) but just didn’t connect with the public. We literally didn’t “buy it” when it came to these brands because they seemed like a joke within their industry:

When General John Raymond, Chief of Space Operations for the Space Force, implored reporters, “This is not a farce. This is nationally critical.” I couldn’t help but think of Donald Sutherland in Animal House, begging students to take him seriously.

So, when Vice President Pence announced that those enlisted in the Space Force would be known as Guardians, it too was received as a joke. This “name chosen by space professionals, for space professionals” (what?!) immediately broke the Internet as James Gunn, Director of Guardians of the Galaxy, asked via Twitter “Can we sue this dork?”

Social media goes wild with memes after unveiling of Space Force  'Guardians' | Daily Mail Online

Answer: maybe, maybe not. Marvel trademarked “Guardians of the Galaxy” in 2015. In 1985, Lucasfilm Ltd. filed a lawsuit against High Frontier and the Committee for a Strong, Peaceful America for referring to the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI) as “star wars” in television messages and literature. Lucasfilm lost and got schooled in the court decision. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell wrote:

“Not so long ago, in a studio far, far away from the policymakers in Washington, D.C., George Lucas conceived of an imaginary galaxy where fantastic creatures and courageous knights battled an evil empire with spaceships, ‘blaster’ guns and light sabers… Plaintiff has built on the national success of these movies and the goodwill associated with STAR WARS by using the STAR WARS mark to merchandise dolls, toys, comic books, cookies, paper cups, watches, candles and even bubble bath… Meanwhile, in the real world of defense strategy and international politics, newspapers, politicians, scientists and spokesmen of allied and enemy nations have chosen to characterize the Reagan Administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) as its ‘star wars’ program…When politicians, newspapers and the public generally use the phrase star wars for convenience, in parody or descriptively to further a communication of their views on SDI, plaintiff has no rights as owner of the mark to prevent this use of STAR WARS. Even though the descriptive meaning is originally derived from the trade use, courts obviously cannot regulate the type of descriptive, non-trade use involved here without becoming the monitors of the spoken or written English language. Since Jonathan Swift’s time, creators of fictional worlds have seen their vocabulary for fantasy appropriated to describe reality. Trademark laws regulate unfair competition, not the parallel development of new dictionary meanings in the everyday give and take of human discourse. Plaintiff is in the difficult position of objecting because what he has depicted as fantasy may be frightening when depicted as a potential reality.”

So much to analyze there, but I digress from my point…

As you enjoy the memes of Groot enlisting and Rocket the Racoon leading a squadron to conquer Martians, puzzle me this: Why was the “launch” of a new division of the US military a branding event? My WWII veteran father would be rolling his eyes at this one (I’d say rolling over in his grave, but he was cremated so, yeah).

Internet hive mind, here’s what I suggest: Find out how much we paid the ad agency GSD&M for this botched branding fiasco and get our money back. Don’t get me wrong. If what we needed was a branding campaign, these guys are a great choice. After all, they came up with the “Don’t mess with Texas” campaign, inflicted us with the “babybackbabybackbabyback” jingle, and took Walmart from some podunk store in Arkansas to a global empire of 11,500 stores in 26 countries. They are the “Mad Men” of the 21st Century! (This time with ironic toxic masculinity instead of the straight up toxic masculinity of Don Draper and crew. See their website… they are “solving the world’s problems, one breakfast taco at a time” with 4 founders described as a cowboy, Big Daddy, Reverend, and a woman who is the “&” that holds them all together. Their words, not mine)

Look, they were hired to create a brand, not a branch of the military. And it’s hard to brand something that doesn’t exist and has no clear mission or purpose other than to make the current administration look like badass pioneers ready to colonize outer space. (An impossible mission if ever there was one.)

I say, let’s get our money back, America, and find someone who knows a how to launch a rocket ship rather than a brand campaign. (Not Space Karen Elon Musk!) Because I think that might be helpful to launching a Space Force. Just sayin’.

Oh wait, I think we already have that: NASA. <sigh>

Dear Mr. Epstein – You Failed

It is the end of the fall 2020 semester (perhaps the looonnngggeeesssttt semester in modern history), and while I am swamped with term papers to grade, I felt it was my civic duty to “correct” a recent Op-Ed published by the Wall Street Journal. Below is my mark-up of the piece–or as much as I could read before WSJ demanded a subscription–as well as my summary note to Mr. Epstein (scroll to the very bottom). Please feel free to provide Mr. Epstein additional feedback in the comments section if you wish to help him become a proper writer.

Dear Mr. Epstein:

While I appreciate your efforts to generate “clickbait” for the Wall Street Journal, I cannot give you a passing grade on this piece for the following reasons:

  1. You do not provide a clear thesis statement. Therefore, it is challenging to understand of what, precisely, you are attempting to convince the reader. If you need guidance on how to write an effective thesis statement, you can Google “How to write a thesis statement” and choose from the more than 185,000,000 resulting links. Do confirm the quality of the website and its sources before using it, though! This brings me to my next point…
  2. You do not provide any evidence for your claims. Teachers use the term “evidence-based writing” to describe the kind of writing required of non-fiction publications such as newspapers. In evidence-based writing you use outside sources to support your ideas. This gives your writing credibility and strengthens an argument (which you would need in order to use evidence-based writing — see point #1, above). To learn more, you may want to contact an elementary school teacher or go to Khan Academy to learn more. Actually, definitely go to Khan Academy. Our country’s teachers are busy these days, I hear
  3. You use passive voice throughout the piece. I know that it can be scary to assert your voice as a writer but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to learn how to avoid the use of passive tense. In fact, using passive voice can call into question the credibility of your claims by inadvertently exonerating you from any errors (e.g. “mistakes were made”). There is a nice piece on Grammarly.com that might be helpful. Just search “misuse of passive voice” in the Grammarly search bar and the piece will come up in your browser.
  4. Your piece is incomplete. A paywall is not an acceptable excuse for submitting partial work. This is akin to students uploading the “wrong” research paper on BlackBoard moments before the deadline. I may only have a Ph.D., but even I know when to call bullshit.

I realize that you are intending to apply to graduate programs to earn a Ph.D. as a means to overcome your self loathing and sense of total inadequacy. Unfortunately, based on this writing sample, I cannot provide a recommendation letter for your applications. It would only contribute to …. how did you put it?… ah yes, “the erosion of seriousness and the relaxation of standards in university education”.

Sincerely,
Amy Shore, Ph.D.

P.S.: This message also serves as a model for future correspondence. Note that one should use a formal mode of address when writing to individuals with whom they do not have a pre-existing and personal relationship. Additionally, always use the individual’s proper title as a means to demonstrate respect. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to offend a woman such as Dr. Jill Biden who has dedicated her life to education and public service, would you?

What’s Wrong with the Queen’s Gambit?

Spoiler Alert: I may ruin this show for you. Not because I’ll share plot points (I will), but because I’ll poke at the show’s issues.  If you just want to love it, read no further…

Okay, still here? Then I’ve got four chief complaints:

1. No more male saviors, please!
2. Jolene should have her own Netflix series instead of being a prop to punctuate 1960s white culture.
3. Alcoholics and drug addicts want their diseases back.
4. People on the autism spectrum want their disorder back.

Details follow….

1. No more male saviors, please!

Benny Watts, a chess-slinging cowboy, first explains Beth’s mistakes to her then becomes her rival, then her coach and then her lover.

In a show about the power of a woman to succeed in a “man’s world,” there sure is a lot of mansplaining going on. While the first episodes make such mansplainers eat their instructions (the twins in episode 1 or Benny Watts in episode 3), the later episodes turn these jerks into Beth’s mentors and gurus. No. Just no. Writers, you had a choice: make the mom, Jolene, ANYONE Beth’s coach and you could have made a show about female empowerment instead of female exceptions.

In a study of 72 of the top films from 2012, Chloe Beighley and Jeff Smith of the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy found that “Men are seen as the protectors, the saviors, the breadwinners, and the know-alls… In the few movies where we see strong lead female characters, we also see them having the support of at least one male who is involved in their situation in some way where the female ends up needing their help.” It’s been eight years since that study and we have had the #metoo movement, for God’s sake! Can’t we have a strong woman who is just that—strong? Making these unlikable guys into Beth’s heroes at the end is at best undercutting of her character’s unique gifts and at worst a hedge to assuage male egos (yes, she’s the greatest chess player of all time, but she still needs men to help her win!).

And if that isn’t enough, Beth falls in love with one of these ego-maniacs. Sigh.

2. Jolene should have had her own Netflix series instead of being a prop to punctuate 1960s white culture.

Jolene befriends Beth at the orphanage.

It is set up in episode one: the Black-white buddy scenario where the Black person helps the white person overcome obstacles, achieve the seemingly impossible, and become a “whole” person (see Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop and just about every 1980s comedy where a white and Black man are friends/co-workers). Then Jolene disappears until that critical moment when Beth needs divine intervention: enter the Magical Negro. Here’s how author and critic Nnedi Okorafor-Mbachu describes the character: “The archetype of the Magical Negro is an issue of race. It is the subordination of a minority figure masked as the empowerment of one. The Magical Negro has great power and wisdom, yet he or she only uses it to help the white main character; he or she is not threatening because he or she only seeks to help, never hurt. The white main character’s well-being comes before the Magical Negro’s because the main character is of more value, more importance.

Jolene helps Beth “find herself” after she hits rock bottom from her addictions (see below) and then lends her the money she needs to go to the world championship. Beth calls Jolene her “guardian angel.”

Spike Lee called out this stereotype almost two decades ago. The nation has been in the streets demanding respect and understanding of Black lives. And yet the top-grossing Netflix series of all time gives us a Magical Negro. Come on.

3. Alcoholics and drug addicts want their diseases back.

Beth questions where her “green pills” are after the orphanage is ordered to stop giving children tranquilizers.

When Beth and her fellow orphans are plied with tranquilizers in the opening episode, the show exposes a hideous and all-too-real practice of 1960s institutions intended to provide care for the vulnerable. Not a new critique (see Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar that was written in 1963 and published in the US in 1971, in which the protagonist undergoes electroshock therapy). But powerful, none-the-less.

Yet when the show presents the drugs as the gateway to Beth’s genius, it distorts this critique and creates a concept of dependency related to ambition rather than disease. Yes, addiction causes changes in the functioning of the brain, particularly those systems that are involved in reward, motivation and memory. That’s a bad thing. But in The Queen’s Gambit, the brain changes are transposed onto ways of thinking and reasoning that make her a savant. The message? Take drugs and you too can become brilliant.

Beth is a goddess on a mountain top…. with Pabst Blue Ribbon.

And if that intense thinking becomes too much? Well drown it out with alcohol. The show definitely depicts Beth’s alcoholism as a problem and certainly does not glorify it. However, when she hits “rock bottom” we see her dancing in her underwear, more uninhibited than her usual staid self and belting out lyrics that seem empowering on the surface but reveal deep insecurities: “I’m your Venus, I’m your fire, At your desire.” A drunk woman dancing as an object for male desire. Ugh.

But don’t worry, she sobers up. And with the help of her male saviors she stays sober long enough to win! Thank God alcoholism can be cured so easily. Just a matter of personal choice, will power and a few goading friends. Never mind that the American Medical Association (AMA) declared alcoholism a disease in 1956 and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) focuses on alcohol use disorder (AUD), which NIAAA Director George F. Koob, Ph.D. explains is “a medical disorder ranging from mild to severe, rather than a moral failing.” The NIAAA defines AUD as “a chronic relapsing brain disorder characterized by an impaired ability to stop or control alcohol use despite adverse social, occupational, or health consequences” and estimates that 15 million people in the United States have AUD.

Send Beth to Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or a therapist or something so that she and the spectators can understand her diseases instead of learning the myth that all an addict needs to do is make better choices. AA was well-established by the 1960s with publication of the second edition of its main text in 1955 hitting more than 1,150,500 copies. It was a thing. Would have worked well for the time period. So, yeah.

A.A. International Convention, 1955. The telegram from President Dwight D. Eisenhower reads: “Please convey to all who participate in your twentieth anniversary gathering my good wishes for a successful meeting. Your society’s record of growth and service is an inspiration to those who through research, perseverance and faith move forward to the solution of many serious personal and public health problems.” https://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/en_OurGreatResponsibilities_images.pdf

4. People on the autism spectrum want their disorder back.

It is never made explicit that Beth is on the autism spectrum, which arguably is because autism wasn’t established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of Mental Disorders until 1980 (DSM-III) when it was defined as a “pervasive developmental disorder.” And while it is a strange idea to try to “diagnose” a fictional character with a disorder, that is what the viewers of A Queen’s Gambit are left to do. She takes things literally, displays little affect, is socially awkward, doesn’t talk much, becomes fixated on things (books, clothes, chess), and has extraordinary analytical/cognitive skills.  

Beth plays multiple chess champions simultaneously in “speed chess,” demonstrating her almost superhuman abilities.

Beth’s character embodies the media’s favorite version of autism: the autistic savant. Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory, Dr. Shaun Murphy in The Good Doctor and Raymond in Rain Man are just a few of the most well-known versions of this stereotype. While it is true that some people on the autism spectrum exhibit savant abilities (about 10%), many more (approximately 40%) have an intellectual disability or a lower range IQ. Writing for Vice in 2017, Sarah Bradley explained the problem of the media’s obsession with the autistic savant, noting that while 1 in 68 children are diagnosed as on the autism spectrum, “we are still afraid to look autism in the face on screen and accept it for what it really is: a disability that is difficult, challenging, exhausting, and sometimes painful. This kind of convenient erasure does all of us—particularly those in the autism community—a deep disservice. Living with, working alongside, and caring for someone with autism is messy.”

Environmental activist Greta Thunberg responded to critics that attempted to use her ASD diagnosis by claiming it as her “superpowerr”. She wrote on Twitter: “I have Asperger’s and that means I’m sometimes a bit different from the norm. And – given the right circumstances – being different is a superpower.”” While empowering for some, focusing on “good” ASD in the media eclipses the experiences of the majority of people on the autism spectrum. See Joanne Limburg’s piece in The Guardian for a fuller discussion of this issue.

My nephew is autistic and when his mother explains to people his disorder, she often adds the caveat “and not the kind where he’s going to make a billion dollars coding” (referring to the frequent representations of those with extraordinary computing skills as on the spectrum). That she has to add this to her explanation of his autism tells you everything you need to know about how these kinds of representations impact the community. There is “good” autism and there is “bad” autism. Media turns the spectrum into a hierarchy where characters like Beth Harmon make what is for most people a disability seem like a superpower.

But I loved the show

Now, it would be easy for me to throw all of the blame for these problems on the writers, producers, Netflix, etc. And don’t get me wrong… SHAME ON NETFLIX! However, I binged the show. Had to watch it. Loved it. Couldn’t get enough of it. Was sad when it was over. And clearly, I’m not alone. 62 million Netflix members streamed the show within the first 28 days of its release, making it the most-watched scripted limited series on Netflix.

The show is irresistible. We clearly desire these representations whether we acknowledge it or not. So, maybe a better title for this piece would be “What’s Wrong With 62 Million People?” The answer? I don’t know but I’ll be talking with my therapist about it and suggest that you do too.