A Washington state judge in Bellingham ordered a 8-year-old girl to wear her bilateral CIs at all the time at request of her hearing mother while she visits her deaf father who uses ASL.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/04/29/1410284/spokane-father-wont-force-deaf.html
This is frustrating. What business does a judge have in this type of family affairs? How much does a judge understands about CIs and Deaf Culture? All the information he received came from the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant. As a hearing person, he is naturally inclined to accept that CI is essential to process language from the word of a representative in his courtroom.
What he failed to realize is that when the deaf girl visits her father, there is silence. ASL is a silent language. CI is useless and worthless when the father and daughter communicates in ASL. This is also what the hearing mother failed to realize as well.
So what is the point in going to court to force the deaf girl to wear her CIs when visiting her deaf father? It is called Audism, folks. The mother is using her power as a hearing parent to force the issue on her daughter. It also may be a classical case of two bitter parents having a private war and the girl has little to do with it. The hearing mother may be using the arsenal as a hearing person to oppress both her ex and her daughter.
None of this belongs in a courtroom. This is a private issue and should be left up to the girl. It appears one CI is painful and she is reluctant to wear that one but is okay with the other one. Couldn't her mother be satisfied with that?
I've seen this a lot. I've seen a mother struggle with stopping speech service for her son who wore CI. The speech therapist tried to explain that his speech hadn't improved in years, and that he didn't process language through spoken language. It took almost an hour of going rounds on this topic before the mother finally gave in and agreed to stopping the speech therapy service.
Another mother was upset her son stopped wearing CI and declared that he is deaf. We the team explained that it sounded like he developed an identity as a deaf person and decided he did not want the CI, and showed her data that his academic progress continued to improve in the year he stopped wearing his CI. It did not impact his learning. She went to say that she was awfully glad her daughter liked her CI and wouldn't stop like her brother did. Guss what? Her daughter was more language delayed than her son was. However, the mother failed to recognize that. All she thought was because her daughter spoke well, she was smarter than her brother because she was able to communicate with her daughter orally and struggled to communicate with her son. You got it - she didn't sign.
This goes on and on. The parents are seriously undereducated about the benefits of CIs. They do have benefits, but not necessarily equal for every child. Children don't necessarily acquire language from CI alone. Most of them don't. They continue to need visual support.
Either this Washington State mother is undereducated about what CI can do (from what I've read, it may be that she is afraid that by not wearing CI 24/7, the girl will lose language acquisition over a weekend with her father which is not true) or is exercising oppression upon her ex and her daughter through audism. Either way, the victim is the girl. She should be given a choice.
The girl speaks well and utilizes her CIs for their intended use at school and at her mother's house. I would think the judge might see that as sufficient to support her language acquisition, so I am left to believe the judge doesn't accept ASL as a language which may be why he failed to recognize that while at her father's house, her CIs are useless. That is why the courts should not be involved.
So, what is a better way to meditate this type of dispute between parents over CIs? This will happen again. There will be another parent suing an ex to force a deaf child to wear CI. How to meditate in such a way where only people involved are experts in CI, ASL, language acquisition, and so forth, and leave judges out of the picture?
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Karma
I am a firm believer of the laws of Karma. What goes around goes back to you. I learned the hard way as a young adult. A lot of things I did wrong came back to bite me on the butt. I paid the price and learned to respect the laws of Karma.
However, what does one do about someone who acts like a victim when s/he is not? S/he goes on and on about it as if s/he is a victim. S/he is like a sexual predator who says, "It is not my fault I am like this. Someone made me that way. It is their fault I am that way." A predator acting like a victim. This describes this person to a T.
So, how do we go about this? Pretend we didn't hear her/him? Rub it in her/his face? Talk to her/him about it? Exact a revenge upon her/him? Reject her/him? What? It'd be nice to hear from Candace McCullough from ACS to see what she has to offer on this. From my position, I could only offer the ideology of Karma. Think before you act. Think how you do will come back to you. Think about how you like to be treated and treat others accordingly.
The latter applies to the case in point. The insults thrown upon others freely could not be how the person wishes to be treated by others, correct? So, why does the person inflict insults and belittlement upon others? I can only assume he/she actually likes being insulted and belittled? It is actually hard to swallow, but really, could it be so?
Is it really because s/he truly believes s/he was made that way by other people? That s/he is truly a victim of her/his upbringing? A vicious cycle? Or is the physiology of the person responsible? In other words, is it in the genes? Or what??
All I know is, I learned from my life experience and modified my behavior. I only can assume some people are not capable of correcting their behavior. Some just keep repeating the same things over and over even after getting bit in the butt by the laws of Karma. Is it because s/he is too dense to realize it is Karma or ....just is incapable to see the reality of what is happening? Does s/he distort the truth to fit his own reality? In other words, s/he actually thinks s/he is a victim...that everyone else is mean and vicious to her/him for no reason, that s/he absolved self of any wrongdoing?
This goes for cyberbullying. It has been a problem on DR for a long while now. There have been some disciplinary actions taken by Tayler Mayer who banned certain individuals from DR and DVTV. Those cyberbullies were WARNED to stop or it would turn around to them one day. It's happened. It is called Karma. As I said, it is hard to swallow that they were victims.
Respect the laws of Karma. What you do to others will be undone upon you. It is simply a golden rule in the matters of life.
However, what does one do about someone who acts like a victim when s/he is not? S/he goes on and on about it as if s/he is a victim. S/he is like a sexual predator who says, "It is not my fault I am like this. Someone made me that way. It is their fault I am that way." A predator acting like a victim. This describes this person to a T.
So, how do we go about this? Pretend we didn't hear her/him? Rub it in her/his face? Talk to her/him about it? Exact a revenge upon her/him? Reject her/him? What? It'd be nice to hear from Candace McCullough from ACS to see what she has to offer on this. From my position, I could only offer the ideology of Karma. Think before you act. Think how you do will come back to you. Think about how you like to be treated and treat others accordingly.
The latter applies to the case in point. The insults thrown upon others freely could not be how the person wishes to be treated by others, correct? So, why does the person inflict insults and belittlement upon others? I can only assume he/she actually likes being insulted and belittled? It is actually hard to swallow, but really, could it be so?
Is it really because s/he truly believes s/he was made that way by other people? That s/he is truly a victim of her/his upbringing? A vicious cycle? Or is the physiology of the person responsible? In other words, is it in the genes? Or what??
All I know is, I learned from my life experience and modified my behavior. I only can assume some people are not capable of correcting their behavior. Some just keep repeating the same things over and over even after getting bit in the butt by the laws of Karma. Is it because s/he is too dense to realize it is Karma or ....just is incapable to see the reality of what is happening? Does s/he distort the truth to fit his own reality? In other words, s/he actually thinks s/he is a victim...that everyone else is mean and vicious to her/him for no reason, that s/he absolved self of any wrongdoing?
This goes for cyberbullying. It has been a problem on DR for a long while now. There have been some disciplinary actions taken by Tayler Mayer who banned certain individuals from DR and DVTV. Those cyberbullies were WARNED to stop or it would turn around to them one day. It's happened. It is called Karma. As I said, it is hard to swallow that they were victims.
Respect the laws of Karma. What you do to others will be undone upon you. It is simply a golden rule in the matters of life.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
My Canadian Blogger Pal's Intake on Deaf Canadians' Predicament
Hi Cy,
I hadn't followed this controversy surrounding the language mode of the cochlear implant surgery recipients. Interestingly, I have a friend who is a CI recipient. She was not forced to drop visual language and that was not what she used anyway. She was raised an oralist.
Yes, our health care system is on the socialist principle. Indeed it complicates the process when you try to intertwine that with the democratic process. How do you combine medical decisions that our health care system are constitutionally authorized to make with the federal law? I think perhaps this is a first.
Upon reading the excerpts you sent me, my take on this is that our government is interested in protecting our tax dollars. I believe they view that by allowing CI recipients continue to use visual language is a misuse of tax money. My understanding is that CI surgery importunes the recipients to be able to hear that they cannot with a hearing aid. This device enables them to acquire speaking skills. This is where I see how our government assess that by allowing the CI recipients to use sign language they are misusing tax money upon which the health care system operates. I can see how they feel that by passing a law for CI recipients to follow an aural/oral regimen justifies spending tax dollars on providing CI surgery to Deaf Canadians.
It is true our health care system makes health and medical decisions for us. We pay taxes to them and they budget our tax dollars to operate the health and medical processes. Our health care system is not privately operated - it is governmental operated. We must fill out forms to request surgical procedures and we must wait weeks, sometimes months, to hear a decision. Our doctors indeed can make in-office decisions for certain routine procedures, but when it comes to expensive procedures such as in-office procedures, expensive medication, hospitalizations, and so forth, we must get authorization. Because our health care is a "Goliath," it can be difficult and complicated. They take so much time to make those kinds of decisions.
For instance, when I had my gall bladder, it took 4 months before I heard back from them. In the meanwhile, I was in a lot of pain and heavily medicated with painkillers. I got the green light, and had to request a surgical appointment. That was another 3 weeks. They found a hospital for me and set it up. After nearly 5 months in pain, I finally had my gallbladder removed. I understand this goes much quicker in the U.S.
As a principle, our socialism-based health care is a wonderful thing. All of us have coverage. However, the levels of coverage vary based on how much tax you pay. As a city employee, I get the full coverage. They automatically deduct specific amount of health care tax from any city and federal employee following a formula.
My mother, on the other hand, is a homemaker. She pays health care tax on a form annually, following a formula upon her income tax. If the formula shows she doesn't work and does not pay taxes, she gets the minimal coverage. Her selection of providers is severely limited. I believe this is similar to America's Medicaid system. Nonetheless, every Canadian, job or no job, has coverage.
Back to your CI controversy, this is perhaps a first (as far as I personally know of) that our health care system attempts to intertwine with the federal government process to make it federal law for the CI recipients follow the aural/oral regimens and depart the visual language route. This would certainly set a precedent for future health and medical cases.
Indeed, I agree with you it is not all that surprising that our health care system would attempt to dictate a social decision in the interest of protecting a capitalistic operation in form of tax dollars. The question here is who initiated this - the health care system or the federal government? I would be curious to know. My bet is on the federal government as it is capitally motivated.
Tracy, a proud Canadian.
Folks, Tracy is a blog pal of mine on another blog. She is not deaf. Knowing she is a Canadian, I sought to get her insight into this controversy and debate on the Canadian health care. I wanted a clarification and a confirmation that what I understood about their health care is accurate.
I received some responses that I am mistaken about their governmental system. I am not referring to the federated democractic part of their government system which IS indeed the same as ours. Their health care is the exception and in that, the reason why their health care can dictate the post-surgical care for their CI receipents.
As I've said time and again, I sincerely hope Americans' and Canadians' voices came loud and clear to them that they will change their position on forcing this law on their Deaf Canadians. Like Oscar and I discussed - what do they know about the Deaf?? Zip. All they understand is the money.
I hadn't followed this controversy surrounding the language mode of the cochlear implant surgery recipients. Interestingly, I have a friend who is a CI recipient. She was not forced to drop visual language and that was not what she used anyway. She was raised an oralist.
Yes, our health care system is on the socialist principle. Indeed it complicates the process when you try to intertwine that with the democratic process. How do you combine medical decisions that our health care system are constitutionally authorized to make with the federal law? I think perhaps this is a first.
Upon reading the excerpts you sent me, my take on this is that our government is interested in protecting our tax dollars. I believe they view that by allowing CI recipients continue to use visual language is a misuse of tax money. My understanding is that CI surgery importunes the recipients to be able to hear that they cannot with a hearing aid. This device enables them to acquire speaking skills. This is where I see how our government assess that by allowing the CI recipients to use sign language they are misusing tax money upon which the health care system operates. I can see how they feel that by passing a law for CI recipients to follow an aural/oral regimen justifies spending tax dollars on providing CI surgery to Deaf Canadians.
It is true our health care system makes health and medical decisions for us. We pay taxes to them and they budget our tax dollars to operate the health and medical processes. Our health care system is not privately operated - it is governmental operated. We must fill out forms to request surgical procedures and we must wait weeks, sometimes months, to hear a decision. Our doctors indeed can make in-office decisions for certain routine procedures, but when it comes to expensive procedures such as in-office procedures, expensive medication, hospitalizations, and so forth, we must get authorization. Because our health care is a "Goliath," it can be difficult and complicated. They take so much time to make those kinds of decisions.
For instance, when I had my gall bladder, it took 4 months before I heard back from them. In the meanwhile, I was in a lot of pain and heavily medicated with painkillers. I got the green light, and had to request a surgical appointment. That was another 3 weeks. They found a hospital for me and set it up. After nearly 5 months in pain, I finally had my gallbladder removed. I understand this goes much quicker in the U.S.
As a principle, our socialism-based health care is a wonderful thing. All of us have coverage. However, the levels of coverage vary based on how much tax you pay. As a city employee, I get the full coverage. They automatically deduct specific amount of health care tax from any city and federal employee following a formula.
My mother, on the other hand, is a homemaker. She pays health care tax on a form annually, following a formula upon her income tax. If the formula shows she doesn't work and does not pay taxes, she gets the minimal coverage. Her selection of providers is severely limited. I believe this is similar to America's Medicaid system. Nonetheless, every Canadian, job or no job, has coverage.
Back to your CI controversy, this is perhaps a first (as far as I personally know of) that our health care system attempts to intertwine with the federal government process to make it federal law for the CI recipients follow the aural/oral regimens and depart the visual language route. This would certainly set a precedent for future health and medical cases.
Indeed, I agree with you it is not all that surprising that our health care system would attempt to dictate a social decision in the interest of protecting a capitalistic operation in form of tax dollars. The question here is who initiated this - the health care system or the federal government? I would be curious to know. My bet is on the federal government as it is capitally motivated.
Tracy, a proud Canadian.
Folks, Tracy is a blog pal of mine on another blog. She is not deaf. Knowing she is a Canadian, I sought to get her insight into this controversy and debate on the Canadian health care. I wanted a clarification and a confirmation that what I understood about their health care is accurate.
I received some responses that I am mistaken about their governmental system. I am not referring to the federated democractic part of their government system which IS indeed the same as ours. Their health care is the exception and in that, the reason why their health care can dictate the post-surgical care for their CI receipents.
As I've said time and again, I sincerely hope Americans' and Canadians' voices came loud and clear to them that they will change their position on forcing this law on their Deaf Canadians. Like Oscar and I discussed - what do they know about the Deaf?? Zip. All they understand is the money.
Monday, October 16, 2006
1988 DPN's Letter
The DPN leaders from 1988 were mostly silent during the 2 week long protests. Bridgetta Bourne-Firl flew to DC last May. Greg Hlibok lives nearby and was seen around, but he did not publicly speak out. Jerry Covell was also mum somewhere in the Midwest as well as Tim Rarus up at CSD. These were my government classmates. In January 1988, at beginning of spring semester, our teacher, Mary Malzkuhn, who taught our Public Policy class, discussed the presidential selection process, the BoT, etc. She predicted that they would appoint yet another hearing individual with no background in deafness, but with administrative and financial background. We all discussed on how we can do to change that. January slipped in February, and the topic became more serious. It reached a near-boiling point in early March when I had to leave Gallaudet due to health issues. By then, Tim, Bridgetta, Jerry, and Greg were handpicked to lead/represent the student body. Greg and Tim just won the Student Body Government campaign as President and Vice President, Jerry for his great knowledge in Public Policy and research, and Bridgetta for her people skills, and possibly to draw the female body. I left wondering if these 4 would accomplish what they spoke of doing. Two weeks later, they announced Dr Elizabeth Zinser's appointment and things boiled over. DPN was born.
To think I missed all that! I witnessed the beginning and missed the ending. The rest is history. However, I was bewildered that the foursome were silent. Until Tim Rarus showed up last Friday, now termed as "Black Friday." I went, "Whew! Finally." These students needed inspiration and support, and these 4 were in position to give them! If they did it, so could they! I realize DPN of '88 could not compared to this new protest in its magnitude, but our original 4 leaders stood up and demanded to be HEARD! And led a campus into a protest. That is the inspiration. The current students needed them.
Tim's arrest completed a cycle. He was instrumental in getting IKJ appointed as president and also instrumental in him losing his legacy. How appropriate. IKJ got his just dessert. Tim lost nothing but IKJ lost a lot. Talk about "poetic justice." His arrest also brought forth the 3 others. They came back into the limelight. They wrote an open letter to IKJ and signed together.
I get the impression that IKJ would be a happier man if he is not reminded of these 4 leaders' roles in his becoming Gallaudet's president. They are 4 thorns in his side. IKJ insisted that the protest from 1988 was about civil rights and this protest is all about disliking Jane which does not justify the protest. He tries to justify his role and decisions in relation to current protests by making the 1988 protest a different circumstance/atmosphere and unrelated to the current protest. Good try, but no cigar. They are not so different. They are many parallels. Both protests are about students being not heard. The 1988 protest was about civil rights, indeed, but this protest is about paternalism. Both protests are about BoT who failed to hear and to acknowledge. BoT continue to display attitudes of planationism, paternalism and egocentricism. These were true in 1988 and still true now. Simply put, Both BoT and IKJ have one-track mentality and tunnel vision.
To quote Tim Rarus, "IKJ is not the same man from 20 years ago." He spoke true. He has become corrupt with power and ego. Over the past 18 years, we witnessed a man change from a "for people" person to "for me" person. He handpicked Jane Fernandes and handpicked BoT to shepherd them like a cattle dog to appoint Jane Fernandes. That much is quite clear.
The problem? We can't prove it.
To think I missed all that! I witnessed the beginning and missed the ending. The rest is history. However, I was bewildered that the foursome were silent. Until Tim Rarus showed up last Friday, now termed as "Black Friday." I went, "Whew! Finally." These students needed inspiration and support, and these 4 were in position to give them! If they did it, so could they! I realize DPN of '88 could not compared to this new protest in its magnitude, but our original 4 leaders stood up and demanded to be HEARD! And led a campus into a protest. That is the inspiration. The current students needed them.
Tim's arrest completed a cycle. He was instrumental in getting IKJ appointed as president and also instrumental in him losing his legacy. How appropriate. IKJ got his just dessert. Tim lost nothing but IKJ lost a lot. Talk about "poetic justice." His arrest also brought forth the 3 others. They came back into the limelight. They wrote an open letter to IKJ and signed together.
I get the impression that IKJ would be a happier man if he is not reminded of these 4 leaders' roles in his becoming Gallaudet's president. They are 4 thorns in his side. IKJ insisted that the protest from 1988 was about civil rights and this protest is all about disliking Jane which does not justify the protest. He tries to justify his role and decisions in relation to current protests by making the 1988 protest a different circumstance/atmosphere and unrelated to the current protest. Good try, but no cigar. They are not so different. They are many parallels. Both protests are about students being not heard. The 1988 protest was about civil rights, indeed, but this protest is about paternalism. Both protests are about BoT who failed to hear and to acknowledge. BoT continue to display attitudes of planationism, paternalism and egocentricism. These were true in 1988 and still true now. Simply put, Both BoT and IKJ have one-track mentality and tunnel vision.
To quote Tim Rarus, "IKJ is not the same man from 20 years ago." He spoke true. He has become corrupt with power and ego. Over the past 18 years, we witnessed a man change from a "for people" person to "for me" person. He handpicked Jane Fernandes and handpicked BoT to shepherd them like a cattle dog to appoint Jane Fernandes. That much is quite clear.
The problem? We can't prove it.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Deafhood
What's your take on Deafhood??
I shared with a friend in CA that I found the term awkward. The core word, "hood", to me, refers to a certain time in a lifetime, a phase. Motherhood is the time in a woman's life when she is raising her children, but when her children leave home, the motherhood chapter of her life ends, and her life transits. Empty Nest Syndrome? Grandmotherhood? Career? Back to school? Among few instances. My friend listened to my take of the word and shared with people in her town in CA....and brought back some feedback. One person said it can apply in the same way as in a "brotherhood," as in a fraternity. I replied to my friend I accepted the concept when given in that context.
However, now I had time to ponder upon this...even with a fraternity, the time phase applies. A fraternity brotherhood is active during college years, however, often as is the reality, the brotherhood diminishes or becomes insignificant when the members graduate or leave college. The "hood" is gone. They reunite every few years and do some kind of ceremony or whatever, but go their separate ways afterwards. So...Deafhood remains an awkward, inappropiate word. I wonder how the heck Paddy came up with the idea to use "hood"??
It is not really a process as he describes if he insists on using the "hood" word. It would mean more like a "fraternity", a group of people sharing same views, ideas, values, goals and such. In that context, I would be comfortable about using the "hood". Otherwise, somebody will need to come up with another word if the key concept remains " a life process towards identity as a deaf person and reaching out to others towards unity."
Not that I am against the "Deafhood" concept. I absolutely agree with the part where the medical perspective of deafness needs to be removed, and to instill deafess as a life process, acceptance, and self-identity. It is only the word chosen to describe the process that is awkward to me.
Maybe I am just picky.
What do you say?
I shared with a friend in CA that I found the term awkward. The core word, "hood", to me, refers to a certain time in a lifetime, a phase. Motherhood is the time in a woman's life when she is raising her children, but when her children leave home, the motherhood chapter of her life ends, and her life transits. Empty Nest Syndrome? Grandmotherhood? Career? Back to school? Among few instances. My friend listened to my take of the word and shared with people in her town in CA....and brought back some feedback. One person said it can apply in the same way as in a "brotherhood," as in a fraternity. I replied to my friend I accepted the concept when given in that context.
However, now I had time to ponder upon this...even with a fraternity, the time phase applies. A fraternity brotherhood is active during college years, however, often as is the reality, the brotherhood diminishes or becomes insignificant when the members graduate or leave college. The "hood" is gone. They reunite every few years and do some kind of ceremony or whatever, but go their separate ways afterwards. So...Deafhood remains an awkward, inappropiate word. I wonder how the heck Paddy came up with the idea to use "hood"??
It is not really a process as he describes if he insists on using the "hood" word. It would mean more like a "fraternity", a group of people sharing same views, ideas, values, goals and such. In that context, I would be comfortable about using the "hood". Otherwise, somebody will need to come up with another word if the key concept remains " a life process towards identity as a deaf person and reaching out to others towards unity."
Not that I am against the "Deafhood" concept. I absolutely agree with the part where the medical perspective of deafness needs to be removed, and to instill deafess as a life process, acceptance, and self-identity. It is only the word chosen to describe the process that is awkward to me.
Maybe I am just picky.
What do you say?
WHAT freakish species is THAT??
HELP! Can anyone identify the sharks my son caught in the surf at Doheny Beach 2 weeks ago?? The first one is a pup. Most fishermen on the beach said it was a Sand shark, and I thought it was a Bull because there is an estruary down the beach at San Juan creek where Bull shark pup nursery is...After Googling up an image of Bull shark pup, it is definitely NOT a Bull...So what species is it??
As for the weird looking one above...It looked like a cross breed of a skate (sting ray type of fish) and a shark...Not far-fetched considering that skates belong to the shark family. After some research, it seems to be a Sandskate Shark. The physical description seems to fit...Top half resembles that of a skate...Eyes on top, wings on side, the bottom has a tail with double dorsal fins (back) and caudal fins (side) and characteristic shark tail fin. Sort of like a centaur type species - half and half, but within the same species family, while a centaur sure is not!
My husband and I have been debating on the species of these fish. Help us settle our difference of opinions!
My son also caught a 4 foot Leopard shark - beautiful shark, but too big and unsafe for him to handle, so the line was cut off. Did not dare to unhook it...We Deafies value our hands! The tide took it back to the sea. Darn too bad I and my camera were not on the beach when my son caught it.
FYI - we are strong advocates of our precarious ecosystem...We did not keep these sharks - they were safely released back to the sea. Sharks provide essential role in the ocean ecosystem. They are the top predators and keep the ocean clean and healthy! On the sportfishing boat, they did catch some reef fish such as perch, sea basses among others and they did keep those and ate them for lunch.
Joey Baer's comments about deaf clubs
If you haven't viewed Joey Baer's ASL blog on the dying culture of Deaf Clubs, log on at joeybaer.com and click on the one with blue shirt, and "5 minutes" caption underneath. Interesting narrative on diminishing numbers of deaf clubs across the country. He resolves to resurrect these old days of deaf clubs, for us to toss aside the modern technology that took us away from personal socialization/interactions, and is the cause of changing landscape of the deaf community. He is right - technology HAS changed the landscape even though it brought us closer to the mainstream society and enable us to communicate with the public at large without language barrier which is great. The question is DO we want to resurrect the deaf clubs or accept it as part of a life cycle of a community? A beginning is a means of an end. Is it just time for the deaf club to die out? Or should we hold on to it Or just create a different kind? For me, the third is the logical option.
During my parents' time, it was a NECESSITY. These deaf clubs provided a support system. Deafies flocked to the clubs to rant and rave, to ask questions, to listen to advice on how to solve problems at work, with families, with children, with bosses, etc. It was a bloodline for the Deafies. They attended deaf clubs religiously. My time, as a young child, it was more social. Workshops. Celebration. Holidays. Sports. You get the idea. Within 20-30 years, it evolved. We had interpreters, relay service and increased awareness of the deaf. We had IDEA. We had Civil Rights laws. Now, it evolved again. What does a deaf club serve for us now? Seems to be uncertain. What is the "job description" of a deaf club? Sports remains a mainstay part of the club in most places. Referrals is another part in places where there is no state agency for the deaf. We have one here in Arizona, so our PAD (Phoenix Association of the Deaf) does not provide a referral service. Ah, yes, KODAs organization. A relatively new organization for increasing number of parents experiencing parental difficulties with hearing children and a support system for the KODAs. Deaf parents nowadays are more articulate with issues with raising hearing children, the issues they face as CODAs, thus needing an organization.
So, creating a new kind of deaf clubs may be unnecessary since it apparently already has evolved, but for the social aspect, it seems to become an irrevelant part of the deaf club culture. As for myself, I dislike going to deaf clubs solely for social functions due to the fact deaf people are notorious gossipers. I have had my fill of that in my youth and had experienced the destruction of idle gossip, so I avoid that like the plague. I believe many other Deafies feel the same and avoid deaf clubs for similar reasons. It is simply that there is more to life than gossip. I'd rather do other things. An organization is supposed to serve a shared goal by their members for the betterment or enhancement of their lives, not to gossip about others and to destroy others' reputations. That is my view of a deaf club.
So, Joey, you have a genuine passion to preserve the deaf culture which is commendable, but time has an annoying way of evolving, of changing, so the reality is not always accommodating. We STILL have deaf culture, but different from our parents' time. That is part of life. We need to re-define what a deaf club constitutes of and how it should serve the deaf.
Any comment, anyone?
During my parents' time, it was a NECESSITY. These deaf clubs provided a support system. Deafies flocked to the clubs to rant and rave, to ask questions, to listen to advice on how to solve problems at work, with families, with children, with bosses, etc. It was a bloodline for the Deafies. They attended deaf clubs religiously. My time, as a young child, it was more social. Workshops. Celebration. Holidays. Sports. You get the idea. Within 20-30 years, it evolved. We had interpreters, relay service and increased awareness of the deaf. We had IDEA. We had Civil Rights laws. Now, it evolved again. What does a deaf club serve for us now? Seems to be uncertain. What is the "job description" of a deaf club? Sports remains a mainstay part of the club in most places. Referrals is another part in places where there is no state agency for the deaf. We have one here in Arizona, so our PAD (Phoenix Association of the Deaf) does not provide a referral service. Ah, yes, KODAs organization. A relatively new organization for increasing number of parents experiencing parental difficulties with hearing children and a support system for the KODAs. Deaf parents nowadays are more articulate with issues with raising hearing children, the issues they face as CODAs, thus needing an organization.
So, creating a new kind of deaf clubs may be unnecessary since it apparently already has evolved, but for the social aspect, it seems to become an irrevelant part of the deaf club culture. As for myself, I dislike going to deaf clubs solely for social functions due to the fact deaf people are notorious gossipers. I have had my fill of that in my youth and had experienced the destruction of idle gossip, so I avoid that like the plague. I believe many other Deafies feel the same and avoid deaf clubs for similar reasons. It is simply that there is more to life than gossip. I'd rather do other things. An organization is supposed to serve a shared goal by their members for the betterment or enhancement of their lives, not to gossip about others and to destroy others' reputations. That is my view of a deaf club.
So, Joey, you have a genuine passion to preserve the deaf culture which is commendable, but time has an annoying way of evolving, of changing, so the reality is not always accommodating. We STILL have deaf culture, but different from our parents' time. That is part of life. We need to re-define what a deaf club constitutes of and how it should serve the deaf.
Any comment, anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
