Tag-Archive for » bias «

06
Mar

Parental Choice: Truth or Illusion?

Interesting.  I just viewed the three-part blog series “The Right to Be…Deaf” at Patti Durr’s People of the Eye.  This series reminded me of the v/blog posts I created last May on the subject of neutrality. The question raised in my two posts was whether the information being given to parents of newly-diagnosed Deaf babies and children was neutral or not.  Here are the titles which you can click to view (Neutrality: Does It Exist? and Got Neutrality? )

In Patti’s blog series, she raises the question on whether parents were given choices without undue pressure to go for a specific option.   Part II of Durr’s series describes what ensues at hospitals soon after babies are born (with infant hearing screenings).  That particular post brought a flashback of  my experience at an audiology clinic with my second eldest infant son.

Before I go into details about that experience, I must let you know that I am a Deaf mother of 5 Hearing boys.  Despite the fact that my babies were found to be hearing, I still encountered audism during one of my boys’ testings.  My eldest was born in a hospital.  Two weeks later, I brought him to an audiology clinic to find out if he was hearing or deaf.  My suspicion that he was Hearing was confirmed.

My third son, who was born at home rather than at a hospital, never took an official hearing screen test.   My husband and I decided to skip the infant hearing screen because it was so obvious that the baby was Hearing.  Our home-made hearing test came in the form of our two older sons, aged 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 or 3 years old.  The noise they produced kept startling the baby.  That cheap home-made hearing test sure saved the government oodles of dollars that time!

My youngest, the twins, were born in the hospital rather than in the home due to the fact that twin pregnancies are automatically considered high risk.   The morning after the boys were born, they each received an on-site hearing screening test.  The results were that they were hearing.  Technology have clearly improved to the point that there was no need for drugs to sedate them (unlike the situations described in the comments section of Patti’s Part III blog).

My experience with my second eldest son was different from that of my other boys.  He was born at home, so that meant I had to take him to the audiology clinic a couple or so weeks later.  It was eleven and a half years ago, but the memory is still fresh in my mind.  I had to nurse him to sleep so the ABR test could be performed.  Halfway through the test, I had to switch him to the other breast so his other ear could be tested.  While nursing him to sleep, I inadvertently fell asleep as well.  I must have been tired that day!

After a few minutes, I woke up just as the test was completed.  The audiologist was looking at her computer and machines when suddenly she seemed disturbed. I could perceive a look of alarm on her face. That caused me to think that something was up.  She looked back at us then at the screen and back with anxiety in her body language and on her face.   I looked down at my sleeping infant and noticed that one of the wires fell off his scalp.  I brought the audiologist’s attention to that fact.  She administered the test on that ear once more.  Once the results were in, there was an obvious look of relief on her face.

“He is hearing.”

Supposing the results were like this: One ear was Hearing, but the other ear was deaf.  She would likely still have that look of alarm on her face and tension in her body.  That would give me a clear message right there.  Supposing my boy were hard of hearing, what kind of message would her body and words impart?  I don’t know, but her alarm and body language were indelibly marked in my memory.  I will never forget that.

Patti Durr’s description of the type of pressures American parents face in hospitals, regardless of whether these parents were Deaf or Hearing.  When babies are diagnosed Deaf, audism run rampant in hospitals.  Buzz phrases like ” your baby failed the hearing test” are used and impart negative messages to the parents.   Pamphlets on cochlear implants are given out to parents soon after the Deaf babies are diagnosed.   Deaf parents of Deaf babies experience and react to audism in the approaches used by medical professionals in dealing with them. (See comments section here.)

The combination of  infant hearing screening tests, cochlear implant pamphlets and “neutral” websites cause me to question whether parents were given true choices.

Are parents given TRUE choices?

Remember: I am a Deaf parent.  I have witnessed the negative facial and body language of that audiologist.  I cannot help but conclude that if my child were diagnosed to hard of hearing, I would have received a negative message.   Of that, I have no doubt.

Supposing that I were a Hearing mother with a newly diagnosed Deaf baby, and saw that alarmed facial expression and body language, what would my reaction be?  I would have been taken aback, confused and upset .  To make matters worse, I would be regretfully told, “Your child has failed the hearing test.”  Shock, dismay and grief would follow that statement, especially when combined with the negative message given with that type of body language.

The audiologist would follow up with a reassuring “Don’t worry.  There are cochlear implants and speech therapy available to help your child become more like us.  The Infant Hearing Program will help you with this. “  Pamphlets are given to the beleaguered mother who is overwhelmed with what has to be done to rehabilitate her child.

Supposing that parent is told: “Don’t worry. I have a Deaf mentor available to support you.  Your Deaf child is fortunate to be able to develop two languages–English and ASL–and grow up in two cultures. This will be a wonderful experience for you”?  That would be great, but that has not happened.  To date, I have not heard of any audiologists or other medical professional say that, ever.  It’s usually ”Sorry, your baby failed the hearing screening test.”

Now, that’s BIAS for you! Usually, information about ASL is not shared (or at least mentioned briefly).  Pamphlets on CIs are available to be given out, with alacrity. ”

“and we get the news – it is delivered to us with concerned looks, wringing of hands, and glossy pamphlets, DVDs, and display models of what CAN be DONE to overcome what IS

yes, instead of another basket of goodies and words of congratulations on your wee things Deafhood, we are whacked on the head with ….. the A word folks.  And no it is not spelled with a “v” (ask the NAD they know how to spell it correctly)

we see the news and we sigh – just what we wanted “A healthy baby and we knew s/he was healthy all along” – healthy for us means Deaf or Hearing -  y nada mas importa

but wait despite our joy and relief – they “the specialists” are still frowning – they is VERY worried now

they start selling their wares – they start tooting the scope of their practice ”

(Durr. People of the Eye blog. March 5)

Is that giving out neutral information?  Can you say websites like this give out neutral and balanced information? Can you say that parents are given complete unbiased information with which to make their decisions? No, you cannot. (That particular website doesn’t even mention ASL. You have to make an effort to look for it in a link there somewhere.) There is CLEAR BIAS here in favour of making Deaf children hear rather than allow them to be Deaf bilinguals, exposed to ASL and ASL Deaf culture as well as English.

Back to my question…

Are parents of newly diagnosed babies given true choice in raising their Deaf children?  Are they being given the chance to make a  true choice without undue influence or pressure from audistic medical professionals and biased pamphlets and websites? Without subtle and subliminal messages that it is not a good thing for a child to be Deaf?

QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Have parents of  Deaf babies able to exercise TRUE choice in the first place?  Or is “True Choice” an illusion?

 

ADDENDUM: Here is another vlog (captioned) by Dr. Donald Grushkin for your viewing pleasure on the same issue.

Category: Audism, Bilingualism, Deaf, Family  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  7 Comments
10
Oct

MYTH-BUSTING TIME: Discrimination Name Game

Boy, am I in the mood to stomp on myths and put them through the shredder!!!

MYTH:  The term DISCRIMINATION is sufficient, so there is no need to use the term AUDISM.

A blogger indicated his refusal to recognize the term audism by deliberately misspelling the term, and avoiding the use of the term audism in other ways. This guy stated he preferred to use the term discrimination, which is actually a umbrella term for various -isms such as racism and sexism for instance. This is my response to his blog post.

Here we go again…

If discrimination is discrimination, then there’s no need for words like racism or sexism, or even heterosexism. hmmm? Let’s throw out racism and sexism too! Just call the above discrimination. That’s it.

Riiight.

Racism, sexism and heterosexism have been abused before as well (of that you can be sure) and yet I don’t see any of you going to ridiculous lengths to discredit those terms as you are with the word audism.

*shaking my head*

This is his response to my above comment.  My response to each “let’s have a special word for that” phrase is in bold RED letters. Some go with links for you to view.  You can also google each term as I give them.

—Shel, then you also agree that very every condition that people have where they were discriminated against should also have a special word made up to go with it, too.

There are ALREADY terms for each of act of discrimination.

For people who stutters and get discriminated, let’s have a special word for that.  ABLEISM

For people who cannot hear or hear very well and get discriminated, let’s have a special word for that. AUDISM AND ABLEISM (See CHS position paper on audism)

For people who are not pretty and get discriminated for it, let’s get a special word for that. LOOKISM  (Please view this link.)

People who are overweight and get discriminated for that, let’s get a special word for that. Again, LOOKISM

People who cannot walk get discriminated, let’s get a special word for that. ABLEISM

Each and every one of them ripe for abuse use of the word. It never ends.

The same is true of ALL new terminology that name controversial ideas and concepts.

What makes deaf/hh people so “special” and why should people have to accept that new special word? They don’t have to. That’s the point.

MY RESPONSE to that last question:

Deaf/HH people aren’t “special”.  Deaf and Hard of Hearing people are members of a minority group that experiences marginalization on the basis of their hearing ability, just like other minority groups who experience marginalization on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. As such, they deserve the empowerment with naming a form of discrimination,in the same way other minorities were empowered.  Oh, by the way, Canadians have legislation that protect people against the forms of discrimination that are named:

RACISM, SEXISM, HETEROSEXISM, ABLEISM and yes,  AUDISM.

Category: Audism, Deaf  Tags: , , , , , , , , ,  10 Comments
10
Sep

It’s a Hearing World, After All…

It’s a Hearing world, did you know that?  Yessireebob! Sure enough!  This came up at Patti’s blog where the debate continues to rage on the issue of cochlear implants.  A commenter there just reminded us that it’s a hearing world that we live in.  Yet another politically incorrect statement if I ever saw one!

It’s a man’s world, after all.  This has been said to women who dared challenge male-dominated bastions of business, government, and elsewhere..  Women were told to remember their place in society.  Today, women are in positions of power in different areas of society.

It’s a White man’s world.  Said to Aboriginals, African-American and other non-WASP upstarts who were reminded to stay in their place.  Civil Rights Movement happened in USA.   Canadian aboriginals got an apology from our Prime Minister.  We got First Nations people in government.  We have Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq (First Inuk from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut to obtain such an august position). Oh,  and let’s not forget Barack Obama, President of the USA.

It’s a Straight world.  Said to the Gay people who were once told they suffered from mental deviancy.  We got gay politicians in both USA and Canadian governments.

Once, members from each minority group had to “pass” in order to succeed.

For the African Americans, it was the “high yellow” folk who made it in the White man’s world.

For the Native Americans, they had to conform to white values (at the expense of their  own cultural values) to make it in the White Man’s world. .

Women once had to submerge their feminity to make it in the man’s world.

Gay people have had to remain in the closet to make it in the Straight world, though more and more are coming out.

NOW you tell us Deaf that it’s a Hearing world, and we have to conform, and lose our Deaf nature and be surgically altered so we can hear to make it?  It’d make our lives easier?

Has conforming to WASP man’s world make the lives of women, nonwhite folk, Gays easier ?   At what cost to their identities, souls?  Has history shown that it is better to adhere to the values imposed upon others by the group in power? Nope.

Quite the opposite, in fact.  ALL the aforementioned groups REBELLED.

Women’s suffrage movements were born in both USA and Canada. “Extremists” like Susan B. Anthony and Nellie McClung respectively led those movements.

Martin Luther King Jr. (arguably an extremist) led the Civil Rights Movement, along with the more “extremist” Malcolm X.

First Nations people also revolted. Lawsuits ensued.  MPP Elijah Harper  singlehandedly killed the Meech Lake Accord in Canada and damaged the image of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney with a single eagle’s feather. The First Nations People also won an apology from our Prime Minister.

The Gay people in Canada won legal protection against discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and  Ontario Human Rights Code.  Bill C-250 accorded Gays the same legal rights as straight people.

NOW you’re telling us, the Deaf, that it’s a Hearing world and we MUST conform? We must hear in order to make our lives better?

Right now, we are rebelling against that.  Where’s the proof of that rebellion?

  1. Deaf President Now Movement in the USA, 1988.
  2. Deaf Ontario Now movement 1988 led by Gary Malkowski, who went on to become the first Deaf (federal) MP (Member of Parliament) in Canada. He was one of the key people who got Ontario gov’t to recognize ASL as a language of instruction that may be taught in schools in Ontario (google Bill 4 that was passed in Ontario Provincial Parliament in July 2007) today.
  3. Gallaudet Unity protests (2006)
  4. Vancouver ICED 2010′s repudiation of the Milan 1880 Resolution and the authoring of the New Era Document by the BC Deaf community committee and ICED 2010 Committee… which had Deaf members!  The New Era Document calls upon all nations and educational systems to respect all sign languages of the world and to involve the Deaf in every level of decision making especially when it affects the Deaf.
  5. Most recently: CDNIAS’ opposition of AB2072 as pushed by Mendoza in California the last few months.

And  we are still being told  to remain in our place and accept modifications because it’s a Hearing world lest our self-esteem suffer?

Category: Audism, Bilingualism, Deaf  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  4 Comments
23
May

Got Neutrality?

A commenter in my previous blog  referred me to a glossy website, Communicate With Your Child with the claim that this  website provided unbiased information from many various organizations.  She suggested that I click on “My baby has a hearing loss” section, which leads the viewer to various states that we could research.  She stated “Neutrality is now in the works. It still exists.”  

Is this commenter correct? Does this website actually provide unbiased information from many various organizations?  Has it got neutrality?

 Let’s analyze this website:

1. Count the number of times the words “hearing” and “hear” have been used on the homepage alone.  Total: 11!

2. Count the number of times ASL as a term is used on that same homepage. Total: ZERO

Talk about subliminal messages!

Now, let’s use this checklist to dissect the contents further:

a) Is t bilingual? Check! (English with Spanish translation)

b) Is it trilingual? Mais non.  Nowhere on this website do I see ASL translation.  
c) It has audio for those who may have reading issues: Is it accessible for the Hearing? Check!
d) FOCUS: the ability to hear words and songs. Check!
e) FOCUS: the ability to see ASL words and poetry. Where? Zilch and nada!

I checked “My Baby has a hearing loss” and clicked on states as instructed. This is what I found:

 The number of hearing loss professional organizations like AGBADHH, NICDC, Hearing Association, Let them Hear Foundation, etc etc far outweigh the number of Deaf-centered, or at least ASL-friendly organizations.

 I also clicked on http://www.raisingdeafkids.org which is on the list for any of the states you click on: Go to Communication choices, then you will see:

- Auditory-Oral, (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Auditory-Verbal (Emphasis: Hearing/Speaking)
-Bilingual-Bicultural- ASL and English (Emphasis: Bilingual Language Development)
-Cued Speech (Emphasis: Hearing/speaking)
-Total Communication (signing and talking with voice simultaneously… Emphasis: still hear and speak)

Consider the evidence submitted above.  One cannot help but reach the following conclusion:

 There’s an overwhelming emphasis on hearing and speaking, and little focus on ASL.  Therefore, this website is NOT unbiased.  It’s in fact heavily biased in favour of the hear-and speak ideology.  It’s got NO neutrality.

 But it’s sure got audism.

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,  6 Comments
02
May

Neutrality: Does It Exist?

Neutrality: the absence of a declared bias

In other words, neutrality means having no opinion and declining to take sides.  ”I’m neutral about this. I refuse to take an opinion. Here are the options, and each has equal viability.   I take no stand either way.”

Does this type of neutrality exist in reality? No.  It’s unheard of.  Really.  Each, and all, of us has a bias, a philosophy in life that we follow.   My own personal bias is simply this: ASL and English are of equal value.  To be Deaf is great.   I do not want to be hearing at all.  No thank you very much.   I like the way I am now.

Now, if you want to look at biases,  take the hearing loss professionals who claim to be neutral as an example.  These professionals are audiologists, speech pathologists, medical professionals who work with newly-diagnosed Deaf babies, early childhood educators.   These people say, “Oh yes, we provide all options neutrally, and lay them out for the parents to look at.”  (True, ASL is included, but in such a way that it is not  emphasized, and overwhelmed by the array of other options. ASL is offered, but usually as a last option. )

SEE, Cued Speech, AVT/CI, Signed English, etc… all those options are geared for the development of the English language with emphasis on the hearing and speaking component,.  Even Signed English places emphasis on the hearing and speaking as it includes voice, mouthing as well as signing.  So does Simultaneous Communication and total communication that are included in the wide array of options.   ASL, although seriously underemphasized, is offered on the table for the overwhelmed and bewildered parents to ponder.

Of course, the parents would go for the options that support the development of the English language solely.  They would go for what is familiar to them: hearing and speaking.  For further explanation on how the system is stacked in favour of the monolingual, hear-and-speak ideology, view Don G’s excellent vlog.  That vlog shows that neutrality is nonexistent when it comes to offering options to parents of Deaf children.

If you want actual evidence that the hearing loss professionals are NOT neutral, just take a look at the large number of Deaf children that end up in the mainstream setting with cochlear implants, and taught to speak.  Look at the smaller number of Deaf children that are enrolled in Deaf schools.   That, to me, indicates a definite bias on the part of the hearing loss professionals who influence parental choices that impact their Deaf children.

Further evidence of that bias can also be seen in the recent passage of AB-2072 in California.   Here is the link to this article that proves that neutrality DOESN’T exist on the part of the professionals behind the writing of AB-2072.

REMEMBER: There is no such thing as neutrality in real life!

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , ,  80 Comments
18
Apr

Imbalance in the Advocacy of Parental Rights re: AB2072

Sigh… I wasn’t planning to blog on the AB2072 issue that was raised lately; however, I was a little disturbed by the lack of balance in this blogger’s post.  This blogger and her commenters were all het up on the behalf of Hearing parents of Deaf children at the possibility of having the mythical ASL-only option foisted upon them.  She mentioned two scenarios, and I quote:

(1.) The Deaf parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must have their deaf child undergo surgery for a cochlear implant at 6 months and employ only speech therapy  in English for the child’s language development, no other options are allowed.  How would the Deaf parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

(2.)  The hearing parents of a deaf infant recently screened for hearing loss have been told by the state that they must implement ASL only to begin the child’s language development.   How would the hearing parents feel upon learning that they have no choice on how to raise and communicate with their child?  Of course, resentment and anger.

Then she spent the entire rest of her post defending the Hearing parents’ right to NOT have ASL foisted upon them by the state against their wishes.  Fair enough,  I agree that the state should not infringe upon the rights of the parents.

Yet, I see NO one on that post, either on the blogger’s or the commenters’ part, stand up for the Deaf parents of Deaf children who had their rights forcibly infringed upon in the name of the hear-and-speak ideology.  The blogger implies that Scenario 1 has not happened yet.  I submit that this is inaccurate information.   To wit:

The Deaf Sherlock’s post

Implanting against Legal Parents’ Wishes at Deafness.about.com

Parental Rights at Deafness.about.com

I have not seen much if any outrage re: Scenario 1 on the part of these people, and yet Scenario 2 causes them to blame Deaf ASL activists for the possibility of Hearing parents’ rights to decide for their Deaf children being infringed upon.   Why is this the case?

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , ,  38 Comments
18
Mar

Breaking Attitudinal Barriers in Canada

Into which category do we Deaf people fit? Race or Disability? Well, this vlog is a sequel to the first vlog (The Canadian Definition of Audism). In that vlog, the CHS (Canadian Hearing Society) is of the view that Deaf people are not only disabled, but also an ethnic (race) minority.

How might we use existing legislation to combat attitudinal barriers? We may do so upon racial and disability grounds. Before I explain how to do this, I must first explain what happened during Gary Malkowski’s presentation Breaking Attitudinal Barriers in Policy and Practice. He asked his audience, one of which I was, this question: Which category do you think Deaf people fit into? Race or Disability? Gary then qualified this by explaining that race no longer has to do with biological characteristics, such as skin colour. Race includes these characteristics: accent or manner of speech (or language), culture, history, beliefs and practices, traditions and social constructs”.
Silly question, I thought, with a tinge of arrogance. Race, of course, especially since we have all these characteristics of a race! I don’t accept disability as a label for us! Gary’s answer startled me. He said: We fit into both racial and disabled categories. He explained that since we claim disability tax, use ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program), and use ADP (Assistive Devices Plan) in which the government pays half of what it costs to obtain TTY, and other devices we need, we have accepted the label of disability for ourselves. So, that indeed means we are both a race and a disability group. So what do we do? How do we use legal means to combat attitudinal barriers? Two significant pieces of Human Rights legislations are as follows:

ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (AODA):

•Remove attitudinal barriers that discriminate against people with disabilities

•Eliminate systemic barriers in organization’s policies, practices or procedures that discriminate against people with disabilities

•Engage in public awareness activities designed to raise employer and service providers awareness of disability issues and to combat negative attitudes and stereotypes about persons with disabilities

Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policies and Guidelines

•Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination

•Policy and Guidelines on Disability and the Duty to Accommodate

•Policy and Guidelines on Accessible Education (this component will not be discussed here.)

(Malkowski, 2010)

Although we can use AODA to help us break down attitudinal and discriminatory barriers, OHRC is a significant piece of legislation. It needs to be made clear that racism and audism are both attitudes. The former is the ideology that one racial group is inherently superior to other racial groups. The latter is another ideology that to be hearing is superior to those who are deaf; have hearing loss. However abhorrent these attitudes are, we cannot take racists and audists to a human rights tribunal just on the basis of these attitudes. We cannot prove anything.

But, when these attitudes and ideologies manifests themselves openly in language and behaviours that are discriminatory against, for instance the Deaf, out of unfounded concern for safety. This then poses barriers. The use of discriminatory language in policy for instance, then becomes grounds for complaint to the Human Rights Commission.

This indeed happened in BC (British Columbia), where the Ministry of Transportation imposed a policy against Deaf people driving 18-wheelers due to safety concerns. So, of course this prevented Deaf truckers from getting trucking jobs there.

The Ministry of Transportation got hauled before the Human Rights tribunal. The lawyers for the discriminated deaf drivers asked the government for the premise they came up with for their discriminatory policy. The Ministry of Transportation pointed to the medical association in BC, who recommended that Deaf people not be allowed to drive large trucks for safety reasons. When challenged on this, the medical association revealed they based this recommendation on the number of elderly people who lost their hearing and got into vehicular accidents.

Needless to say, none of the Deaf complainants were elderly. Their lawyer called in an insurance company and asked for their statistics. The company answered that statistically speaking , deaf drivers had better than average driving records due to the fact that driving is a visual skill, and that many Hearing people tended to be distracted by music or using the cellphone. As a result, the discriminatory policy was scrapped. That is how we can use the Ontario Human Rights Commission Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial legislation to combat discriminatory policies and practices that are rooted in racial and or audist attitudes. (Malkowski, 2010)

Here’s a scenario: Your employer refuses to provide you with an interpreter based on his perception that he would experience financial undue hardship as a result of providing you. This unwillingness “to use or put accommodations in place because of cost seems almost reasonable until faced with the Duty to Accommodate” (Malkowski. Vibe’s The Canadian Hearing Society Magazine, Spring/Summer 2003) Malkowski revealed during his presentation that the Ontario government has financial assistance available to support small businesses in meeting their duty to accommodate. Should your employer refuse to provide an interpreter for you, he would have failed in his duty to accommodate, and that would be grounds for you to bring your complaint to the Human Rights Commission using the OHRC Policy and Guidelines Disability and the Duty to Accommodate.

Remember, as a racial group, we Deaf people may may use the OHRC Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination to break down attitudinal barriers. As a disabled group, we may use the Duty to Accommodate component of the OHRC if we are denied accommodations that we require.

Category: Audism  Tags: , , , , , , , ,  9 Comments
14
Jun

Perspective of a Child of Hearing Parents: A Response

Readers, this is my rebuttal to a comment made by the author of A Weeping ASL Deaf User on the Cochlear Implant Online blog.

Dear OpenMinded Deaf Observer,

This is in response to your comment (#59)

I’m sorry for your pain of feeling “subhuman” in your family of hearing people.

I am a Child Of Hearing Parents like you. However, you and I differ in our perspectives of the world. My parents decided to not go the oral route with me, but raise me normally (my mother’s words, not mine) with sign language from 6 months old, and “bathe” me in language through the visible, accessible ASL surrounded by Deaf adults, and the strong supportive Deaf community where I hail from.
I have never grown up feeling like a black sheep in my Hearing family. True, not many people in my extended family signed, but that did not mean I did not grow up bilingual. I was surrounded by BOOKS, and by relatives including my grandparents and many uncles, aunts, and cousins who were more than happy to chat with me through writing, or fingerspelling or signing. Throughout my childhood, I got to see a variety of written English, from primary levels up to Ph.D level, so my English skills flourished.
Never once did I feel subhuman. In fact, I grew up feeling loved, and involved in family games and activities. True, I wasn’t able to participate in conversations fully, but that didn’t really bother me as I preferred to READ. I never felt that I HAD to fit into my family or that I HAD to use my speech. I was ACCEPTED for the unique Deaf individual I am by my family. True, I was occasionally curious about how things sounded, but I never had the burning desire to HEAR. How could I miss something that I never had in the first place? Silence is golden especially when you have 40+ cousins in your grandparents’ house! ;-)

As a Deaf Canadian, I support the bilingual approach for Deaf Children. True, more children are implanted these days, but that does not mean they shouldn’t have the advantage of ASL as well as spoken English.

As for technology:
TTY or Videophone? I’ll take both!! I use TTY for conversing with Hearing people through relay service. I don’t mind that. Videophone are great for connecting me with other Deaf people across Canada, and yes, USA. It sure is easy on the gas budget and the phone bill!
DVD vs VHS? I’ll take both! VHS is good especially since you don’t have to search for that tiny subtitle button on your remote. DVD is great since you press MENU button and skip the previews, and find that favourite scene.
Small gas-saving cars vs horse? Neither. Small cars don’t fit my large brood of children… 5 kids. Horses? Sorry. I always lose arguments with gravity.
“Disliking non-walking people to use wheelchair who want to see the real world as you prefer them to look at pictures of the real world and disallow them to explore the real world.” HUH?? That doesn’t make sense to me. I HAVE used a wheelchair 24 hours just to see what it was like for my best friend who is wheel-chair-bound. It didn’t stop me from seeing the real world, nor did it stop her from seeing the real world. It helped me better see the world from her perspective. Those of you who have Deaf relatives or friends, try those white out noise earplugs… you’d be surprised at what it’s like to walk in your kids or Deaf friends’ shoes.
If you are trying to tell me I’m not seeing the real world because I don’t use CI, I most definitely object. A person’s perspective of the real world differs from that of another. You cannot tell me that the world I live in, which is full of ASL and Deaf culture is any less real than that of the hearing world. That is definitely hogwash, and doesn’t wash with me. *

To borrow and change YOUR words: “What do you see in these analogies? POSITIVE RESPONSES!

Moi, selfish for wanting to give the GIFT of ASL to CI babies? PUHLEEZ! It is a gift for a child to be bilingual. I’m not opposed to Deaf babies being exposed to both English AND ASL. My problem is that when Deaf children DON’T benefit from the CI or AVT therapy, and I know of quite a few, they end up getting ASL AFTER their window of opportunity for language acquisition has long closed. THEN, it’s too late for them to become fully fluent in ANY one language, be it spoken or signed.

“The REAL WORLD is run by people with spoken language.” Hmmmm. Define “REAL WORLD”. It’s all in the perspective, dear. My REAL WORLD is my family, the communities in which I live, both Deaf and Hearing, my country, which is officially bilingual, by the way, and obviously the Internet ;-)

Just because Deaf children have CI doesn’t always mean they have better choices than we do. It’s all values. We all make value judgements as to what constitutes better choices. I KNOW I have excellent choices in my life. I exercise my choices as a Deaf ASL individual. THAT is a gift I will ALWAYS thank my parents for!

Shelley

* I have since re-read my post and revised. This revision is in a different colour since I have given this more thought after trying to figure out OMDO’s logic.

Category: Audism, Bilingualism, Deaf, Family  Tags: , , , , , , ,  15 Comments