CI--Deaf or Hearing?

[DeafCaroline]

I think it often takes aggressive action, such as initiating letter-writing campaigns, traveling to lobby and speak to legislative bodies, organizing protests, to make change happen. Unlike passive behaviors, like seething about having no control, grumbling about what's wrong -- without taking constructive action.

I described what I think Deaf militancy might consist of early on in this discussion, but I wouldn't label someone else as a Deaf militant, given that we all have very different perspectives on what that means, and as you and others have said, you see it as an insult, as referring to violence and riots. Some might see it as a badge of honor or call to action.

If I call myself deaf militant, it's a badge of honour. If I say I'm concerned about pediatric CIs and get branded as militant for it, that's an insult.

Letter-writing is aggressive? No, it's called taking action. If you write a letter to your teacher to explain your daughter had to stay home cause she's sick, that's aggressive?

It's so funny - makes me think of how powerful men are called "assertive" and powerful women are called "aggressive bitches".

It's sad you think that lettering writing and lobbying for the Deaf is "aggressive", it implies negativity, not positivity.

anyway, I have a feeling this conversation is just going to go around and around in circles so I'm stepping off.

 

[jillio]

Yep, as I said, the term has different implications and purposes depending upon who is using it. The Deaf have a completely different purpose than do the deaf or the hearing. The deaf and the hearing use it as a way to discredit what a Deaf individual is saying. "Oh, she's a militant. Too extreme. That isn't the way things really are." It is kind of like saying, "Don't listen too much to what she says. She's a little off her rocker." Patronizing and insulting.

 

[cdmeggers]

Aye thanks I went to the audiologist yesterday and we talked about the CI. Only one problem is that in the state law of North Carolina, my medicare insurance will not cover me for the CI because I am over 21 years old. They won't even cover senior citizens either for the hearing aids or CI. I had that same exact problem when I was getting new hearing aids while I was at RIT last fall, that my insurance (from SSI) won't cover me for my hearing aids so my mom had to help me pay for the pair of hearing aids over $30,000. Sigh...I don't know why, but it is real stupid. Since I have relatives living outside North Carolina, they may help me with their insurance to cover my surgery for the CI so...I won't be getting surgery until next summer so that I can have more time for the testing and everything else then.

Really? my CI audie says Medicare will cover CIs usually if the patient falls within medicare's criteria (my medicare coverage starts up Nov. 1 and I've been trying to get as much info as I can about CI coverage for myself). Or is that just a NC deal? I find that really odd. Urgh, government!

 

[GrendelQ]

If I call myself deaf militant, it's a badge of honour. If I say I'm concerned about pediatric CIs and get branded as militant for it, that's an insult.

Letter-writing is aggressive? No, it's called taking action. If you write a letter to your teacher to explain your daughter had to stay home cause she's sick, that's aggressive?

It's so funny - makes me think of how powerful men are called "assertive" and powerful women are called "aggressive bitches".

It's sad you think that lettering writing and lobbying for the Deaf is "aggressive", it implies negativity, not positivity.

anyway, I have a feeling this conversation is just going to go around and around in circles so I'm stepping off.

You can interpret it in many ways, which is why I sure wouldn't use such a term on someone else unless they had already used the term, but I do understand why someone would apply the term to himself or herself in a positive fashion, as I've described. It's why I asked you what it meant to you.

You can define aggressive as quarrelsome, offensive, and hostile.

Or you can define aggressive as "assertive, bold, and energetic," which I think is how Beo and others who consider themselves Deaf militants use the term. Taking aggressive action is far more often used as a positive description, in my experience, than as a negative description -- it implies action vs. inaction or passivity. I think initiating a good letter-writing campaign is assertive, bold, and energetic. Same with speaking to Congress. So, if I'm lobbying for the rights of my daughter with regard to her deafness, I might consider myself a "Deaf militant" someday. I don't think of writing a letter to my daughter's teacher as either a 'letter-writing campaign' or as aggressive action, so I'm not sure how you see that fitting in with my description of "Protests, lobbying, letter-writing campaigns, meetings with legislative bodies, etc."

 

[Jane B.]

How do you know when any one individual that you don't know personally started to use an aid?

Well, to be honest, it is pretty obvious in their posts and the way they see themselves and their deafness. But they usually tell us that they are late deafened when they introduce themselves or identify a problem they are having.

I am not good at keeping things in order when I try to do a number of “quotes” so I will copy and paste.

First it started with this: where Beowulf was responding to the quote from Grendel Q

Originally Posted by GrendelQ View Post
I think that's the position of my ASL teacher, as well. She has called herself a Deaf militant. I've seen others here call themselves Deaf militants. I wouldn't have thought they were referring to any violent action or riots, but rather to aggressive action. Protests, lobbying, letter-writing campaigns, meetings with legislative bodies, etc.

Are there really no deafies in legislative bodies? Even at a state level? Seriously?

None on either state or federal level. Seriously.

I asked “How do you define "deaf" for this purpose. I feel sure their are some that use hearing aids.”

Bottesini quoted me and replied with “We call those late deafened.”

I quoted that reply and asked “How do you know when any one individual that you don't know personally started to use an aid?”

I thus am not sure how Jillio got to replying with “Well, to be honest, it is pretty obvious in their posts and the way they see themselves and their deafness. But they usually tell us that they are late deafened when they introduce themselves or identify a problem they are having.” when she started with of quote of my “How do you know when any one individual that you don't know personally started to use an aid?” post. Not sure how much of all this I should have strung together as quotes in the first place to make it clear that it was still in reference to legislators not posters here.

 

[jillio]

You can interpret it in many ways, which is why I sure wouldn't use such a term on someone else unless they had already used the term, but I do understand why someone would apply the term to himself or herself in a positive fashion, as I've described. It's why I asked you what it mean to you.

You can define aggressive as quarrelsome, offensive, and hostile.

Or you can define aggressive as "assertive, bold, and energetic," which I think is how Beo and others who consider themselves Deaf militants use the term. Taking aggressive action is far more often used as a positive description, in my experience, than as a negative description -- it implies action vs. inaction or passivity. I think initiating a good letter-writing campaign is assertive, bold, and energetic. Same with speaking to Congress. So, if I'm lobbying for the rights of my daughter with regard to her deafness, I might consider myself a "Deaf militant" someday. I don't think of writing a letter to my daughter's teacher as either a 'letter-writing campaign' or as aggressive action, so I'm not sure how you see that fitting in.

I see letter writing as better than nothing, but still relatively passive and non-involved. One doesn't have to devote much time, or make personal sacrifices to write letters. What we need is face to face involvement from someone who carries political power. That is what Beo was talking about.

 

[DeafCaroline]

You can interpret it in many ways, which is why I sure wouldn't use such a term on someone else unless they had already used the term, but I do understand why someone would apply the term to himself or herself in a positive fashion, as I've described. It's why I asked you what it meant to you.

You can define aggressive as quarrelsome, offensive, and hostile.

Or you can define aggressive as "assertive, bold, and energetic," which I think is how Beo and others who consider themselves Deaf militants use the term. Taking aggressive action is far more often used as a positive description, in my experience, than as a negative description -- it implies action vs. inaction or passivity. I think initiating a good letter-writing campaign is assertive, bold, and energetic. Same with speaking to Congress. So, if I'm lobbying for the rights of my daughter with regard to her deafness, I might consider myself a "Deaf militant" someday. I don't think of writing a letter to my daughter's teacher as either a 'letter-writing campaign' or as aggressive action, so I'm not sure how you see that fitting in with my description of "Protests, lobbying, letter-writing campaigns, meetings with legislative bodies, etc."

Cool! Then I guess next time drphil ridicules such positive assertive action as "so called deaf values - is this deaf militancy?" - you can jump to his defense even if his mockeries include people like you and children like yours.

Knock yourself out.

 

[jillio]

I am not good at keeping things in order when I try to do a number of “quotes” so I will copy and paste.

First it started with this: where Beowulf was responding to the quote from Grendel Q

Originally Posted by GrendelQ View Post
I think that's the position of my ASL teacher, as well. She has called herself a Deaf militant. I've seen others here call themselves Deaf militants. I wouldn't have thought they were referring to any violent action or riots, but rather to aggressive action. Protests, lobbying, letter-writing campaigns, meetings with legislative bodies, etc.

Are there really no deafies in legislative bodies? Even at a state level? Seriously?


None on either state or federal level. Seriously.

I asked “How do you define "deaf" for this purpose. I feel sure their are some that use hearing aids.”

Bottesini quoted me and replied with “We call those late deafened.”

I quoted that reply and asked “How do you know when any one individual that you don't know personally started to use an aid?”

I thus am not sure how Jillio got to replying with “Well, to be honest, it is pretty obvious in their posts and the way they see themselves and their deafness. But they usually tell us that they are late deafened when they introduce themselves or identify a problem they are having.” when she started with of quote of my “How do you know when any one individual that you don't know personally started to use an aid?” post. Not sure how much of all this I should have strung together as quotes in the first place to make it clear that it was still in reference to legislators not posters here.

Well, I was using an example of how we can tell on AD that people are late-deafened. That would transfer to how to tell in wider society.

No, there are no deafies, as in deafies who are making deaf issues a priority and have experienced the oppression and social obstacles that someone who has been deaf from birth or for a majority of their life. Those who are late deafened have a very different understanding of deafness. They have not experienced the oppression, the educational deficiencies, the lack of employment opportunity, the fight for accommodation from people as important to existence as doctors and hospitals, the refusal to communicate by utility companies, the stereotyping of hearing society, etc, etc, etc.

There may be a few hard of hearing in lower level positons. Hard of hearing are generally not concerned with the issues that the Deaf are. Again, their personal experience is totally different. Nor do they identify themselves as "deafies." They generally are hearing, and have hearing beliefs, values, norms, and traditions. They just don't hear as well as they once did.

 

[AlleyCat]

Why, then, would you say this when I asked DC her opinion?

Huh. Interesting misread.

DC is entitled to her opinion. I never said it wasn't important.

 

[jillio]

Huh. Interesting misread.

DC is entitled to her opinion. I never said it wasn't important.

I am becoming familiar with more and more people that would not make good interpreters. They add too much of their own stuff into the communication. Stop trying to interpret, and just read and accept what is there, for heaven's sake.

 

[GrendelQ]

Cool! Then I guess next time drphil ridicules such positive assertive action as "so called deaf values - is this deaf militancy?" - you can jump to his defense even if his mockeries include people like you and children like yours.

Knock yourself out.

What are you asking here? Are you asking me to step up and defend him? For what, asking if deaf values = deaf militancy? I don't even know what his view is and I haven't engaged drphil in a conversation about his perspective, you have. So if you feel qualified to defend or attack his view, have at it.

Do you have some problem with me asking questions about how others see the concept of "Deaf militants"? Seems to me you had a whole lot of questions as well. Why is my interest a thorn in your side? And what has it to do with drphil's opinion?

 

[Smithtr]

sound reading on arguement debate

I notice it I precpetive
cool

 

[jillio]

Cool! Then I guess next time drphil ridicules such positive assertive action as "so called deaf values - is this deaf militancy?" - you can jump to his defense even if his mockeries include people like you and children like yours.

Knock yourself out.

**nodding** This tendency to do that is what makes her positon unclear and vacilating. She appears to play both sides of the fence with no true committment to either one. I have attempted to explain this to her prior, and in relation to other posters who ridicule the Deaf perspective and promote rabid oralism and CIs.

 

[jillio]

What are you asking here? Are you asking me to step up and defend him? For what, asking if deaf values = deaf militancy? I don't even know what his view is and I haven't engaged drphil in a conversation about his perspective, you have. So if you feel qualified to defend or attack his view, have at it.

Do you have some problem with me asking questions about how others see the concept of "Deaf militants"? Seems to me you had a whole lot of questions as well. Why is my interest a thorn in your side? And what has it to do with drphil's opinion?

No one is asking you to do anything.:roll: You quite obviously don't need to be asked.

If you don't know what his view is you certainly have not been reading the culture threads or the CI threads. He has made his view quite clear in here.
If you are unsure of his view, then you really don't need to reference his posts in the way you did today.

What you are exhibiting does not come across as "interest".

 

[GrendelQ]

**nodding** This tendency to do that is what makes her positon unclear and vacilating. She appears to play both sides of the fence with no true committment to either one. I have attempted to explain this to her prior, and in relation to other posters who ridicule the Deaf perspective and promote rabid oralism and CIs.

I simply don't see it as "sides." I don't think life and relationships among individuals = war games. If I differ with an individual's opinion on some topic, that doesn't make him "the enemy," to be attacked at every turn.

I've seen what I might consider the equivalent of your "rabid oralism," but certainly not here on AD -- I've never seen anyone who is anti-ASL here, and I can't imagine someone with that perspective giving a damn what we think here.

 

[Smithtr]

I already once reading i aware it seems expression funny His behavior, It is very complain or argue, I netural I am cool I know understand once time respect to deaf cultures strong lots of communication!, blocked communication or something problem serious! reason!

I believe his is very blocked communication limit English Words not understand! I wonder myself believe! I study research deaf cultures I find out!!

 

[Jane B.]

Aye thanks I went to the audiologist yesterday and we talked about the CI. Only one problem is that in the state law of North Carolina, my medicare insurance will not cover me for the CI because I am over 21 years old. They won't even cover senior citizens either for the hearing aids or CI. I had that same exact problem when I was getting new hearing aids while I was at RIT last fall, that my insurance (from SSI) won't cover me for my hearing aids so my mom had to help me pay for the pair of hearing aids over $30,000. Sigh...I don't know why, but it is real stupid. Since I have relatives living outside North Carolina, they may help me with their insurance to cover my surgery for the CI so...I won't be getting surgery until next summer so that I can have more time for the testing and everything else then.

Really? my CI audie says Medicare will cover CIs usually if the patient falls within medicare's criteria (my medicare coverage starts up Nov. 1 and I've been trying to get as much info as I can about CI coverage for myself). Or is that just a NC deal? I find that really odd. Urgh, government!

Could this be confusion between two different programs with very similar names? Medicaid varies greatly from state to state but I didn't think that Medicare did. As a retiree on Medicare I have found nothing to indicate that it would vary based on which state I live in.

 

[GrendelQ]

No one is asking you to do anything.:roll: You quite obviously don't need to be asked.

If you don't know what his view is you certainly have not been reading the culture threads or the CI threads. He has made his view quite clear in here.
If you are unsure of his view, then you really don't need to reference his posts in the way you did today.

What you are exhibiting does not come across as "interest".

Oh, so you see this as, not a request, but, what, a demand? "Then I guess next time drphil ridicules such positive assertive action as "so called deaf values - is this deaf militancy?" - you can jump to his defense even if his mockeries include people like you and children like yours."

In which case, my response is, "No thank you. Do it yourself."

I have not been referencing drphil's posts. I don't see how he "owns" the term "Deaf militant," which I have used in my questions about what it means to people. Deafcaroline quoted him to me and told me to defend him. Which is rather bizarre and out of the blue.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

I simply don't see it as "sides." I don't think life and relationships among individuals = war games. If I differ with an individual's opinion on some topic, that doesn't make him "the enemy," to be attacked at every turn.

I've seen what I might consider the equivalent of your "rabid oralism," but certainly not here on AD -- I've never seen anyone who is anti-ASL here, and I can't imagine someone with that perspective giving a damn what we think here.

Most of us have, though, Grendel. But, you're right. He doesn't give two craps what we think. The person I am thinking of doesn't post very much anymore, but he probably still lurks.

 

[Smithtr]

Locked thread we are tried give up because satifisticated because prevent to discrimation serious !

irony on seems behavior!