CI--Deaf or Hearing?

[jillio]

But that is exactly my point. Deaf people influenced society at large (in the form of the U.S. Congress) to get these changes made. It took cooperation between deaf interests and the hearing powers-that-be.

So much of this conversation has been about slicing and dicing various groups down into ever-smaller numbers, when in reality, for anything much to really happen, you have to engage LARGER numbers. Inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness.

Again, I refer you to DPN. This is evidence that inclusiveness is not necessary, and indeed holds the very real possibility of assimilation. The Deaf do not want to be hearing. They want the right to be Deaf. By their own definition and as a cultural and linguistic minority that determines the issues that affect their lives.

Any one who wishes to join the fight and enter into it from a Deaf perspective is readily welcomed. But this is not a fight that can be fought from a hearing perpsective. To do that is to completely invalidate the very principles behind the fight.

 

[Liza]

Personally, when I think of militant, I think of extreme radicals. Like people who break into labs to set free the animals kinda of radical or people who bomb abortion centers.

But if someone were to call me a deaf militant in the media simply because I was vocal about being anti-pediatric CIs, then my attitude would be "if my speaking up for those who can't speak for themselves gets me labeled a deaf militant, then fine, I'm proud to be one." This is a perfect example of what the hearing world sees as a negative - a deaf person speaking up in concern for babies getting implanted - is a positive for me. When I claim the label deaf militant and make it a positive, then it is. But not because I'm a militant person by nature but because I took what was meant to be derogatory and make it a symbol of power and strength.

I don't think it's militant to be an activist. I don't think it's militant to speak up and demand to be heard. I don't think it's militant to become political. I don't think it's militant to lobby, to spread awareness, to propel movements and actions.

But the hearing world does evidently. And it's very unfortunate because then they can use it as an excuse to brush us off. Like my fight with this parent on youtube. He proudly bragged his CI kid is mainstreamed and "hearing". I told him that he should be aware that deaf kids in mainstream is not always a success and that he should be aware that she's not a hearing person, she's deaf. His attitude was immediately to call me a loser, a liar, etc etc etc even though I told him I am deaf and was mainstreamed. I knew he immediately saw me as one of those "deaf militants" and that's when I realized there's no point in having a rational discussion with him because he's put up that big wall. I don't understand, I really don't understand why the hearing world does not listen to what we're saying about deaf issues. WE ARE DEAF and yet we don't know what we're talking about? And when we insist we do, we get branded as militant.

It's very demeaning, disrespectful and offensive. So that's why when drphil liberally uses that label in nearly every post he makes, it's like a slap in the face like everything I went through, everything I worked so hard for was for naught, was meaningless, insignificant like I'm a nobody.

So the more he keeps using that label, the harder I'm going to be on him because I've had enough.

KISSFIST this post. Well articulated. It's just warped how intelligent people's opinions are dismissed simply because they take a stand on this stuff, even though they don't break into labs to free rabbits or something like that. It's just sharing of minds and opinions online and in other avenues. I agree that being called a militant is very offensive especially when one has done nothing truly radical to deserve that.

 

[Shoshana]

Bingo!

:fruit:

 

[AlleyCat]

KISSFIST this post. Well articulated. It's just warped how intelligent people's opinions are dismissed simply because they take a stand on this stuff, even though they don't break into labs to free rabbits or something like that. It's just sharing of minds and opinions online and in other avenues. I agree that being called a militant is very offensive especially when one has done nothing truly radical to deserve that.

I just wanted to like this twice.

 

[Liza]

I just wanted to like this twice.

Aw!

 

[Shoshana]

This is copied from WIKIPEDIA:

The word militant, which is both an adjective and a noun, usually is used to mean vigorously active, combative and aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in 'militant reformers'.

 

[Liza]

Angry White Man: Asshole
Angry Woman: Bitch
Angry Black Man: The N word
Angry Deaf Man: Militant
Angry Gay Man: Well you get the idea, I think....

I am sorry I had to write something offensive but I wanted to illustrate HOW offensive Militant is to me, when I am called one.

 

[jillio]

Angry White Man: Asshole
Angry Woman: Bitch
Angry Black Man: The N word
Angry Deaf Man: Militant
Angry Gay Man: Well you get the idea, I think....

I am sorry I had to write something offensive but I wanted to illustrate HOW offensive Militant is to me, when I am called one.

And it seems no matter how many times they are told that it is offensive, they continue to use it and to support the use of it. That tells me they really don't give a damn that they are offensive.

 

[posts from hell]

And it seems no matter how many times they are told that it is offensive, they continue to use it and to support the use of it. That tells me they really don't give a damn that they are offensive.

Exactly.


And Liza...

DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. You hit that nail with a sledgehammer.

 

[jillio]

Exactly.


And Liza...

DAMNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. You hit that nail with a sledgehammer.

Knocked the heck out of it, didn't she?

 

[Shoshana]

And it seems no matter how many times they are told that it is offensive, they continue to use it and to support the use of it. That tells me they really don't give a damn that they are offensive.

when I was reading I had an image in my head trying to understand and picture it....I ended up with someone running through a hospital wearing a lula skirt setting off stink bombs to prevent someone from getting a CI...It kinda made me laugh because I cant imagin this ever happening in real life so there for its not right to use that name

 

[DeafCaroline]

I could not care less how others label me. However, I would rather "I" be the one to label myself.

So here goes...

I am a deaf Advocate.

I use the lower case "d" to indicate that I advocate for all that have lost some or all of their hearing regardless of the medical technologies they employ. The Capitol "D" Deaf would probably not consider me one of their staunchest supporters and I would probably appear too soft. the "militant" group would probably consider me a hindrance and someone that takes attention away from their platform. This also means I support deaf/Deaf rights above that of the general population. This might not win me friends in some circles

All this talk about defining "Deaf militant" is just that... all talk. there is no one way to define something that changes from person to person (or from group to group).

Sometimes I think life would be so much easier if I could be a Deaf militant because in my mind that would mean I would take a very narrow view of what it means to be Deaf and shout obscenities at anyone that dared to disagree with me. The real world is not so black and white. There are shades of gray everywhere and exceptions to almost any rule you can think up. If we cannot change and adapt, eventually we die off. Oh, thought for a new topic... "Will new technologies change what it means to be deaf/Deaf? If so, how far off do you think that new technology is?"

That was my point - one does not need to be a "deaf militant" to advocate for deaf issues. Nor should being an advocate automatically get you branded as one.

 

[GrendelQ]

So, Grendel, do you think drPhil was not calling us out as deaf militants? What made you get involved in this subject?

I think I became most involved early today after reading Jillio's post to Beach girl describing sweetmind as a deaf militant, and deafcaroline's post explaining that Lane and Marsden's concepts of what a Deaf militant , which she said drphil was harping on, are outdated and no longer reflect today's issues.

She is very well known in the Deaf community, and she is a deaf militant, not was. She is still alive and well..

Given that they were applying the term to people, and correcting what they saw as outdated definitions, and Beowulf described sweetmind in positive terms, I asked Beo and deaf caroline what they think defines a Deaf militant, and what role they and their actions play in our community, in our society.

I have a somewhat loosely formed idea based on some individuals I know in varying degrees who self-identify as Deaf militants, people who fight for the Deaf cause, which I put out there as well, but I wanted to hear from people who have been entrenched in Deaf culture far longer than I've been involved, who would really know.

Beo, what makes someone a "Deaf militant", in your opinion?

When I think 'militant', I think of someone who is fighting aggressively for a cause. So, combined with Deaf, what's the platform or cause? ASL language parity + other economic, social, academic rights for all who are deaf? Seems like that would make any and all of us who lobby our congress reps for insurance coverage for hearing aids, fight for public awareness of what it means to be deaf, work towards bettering our schools and making academics accessible, etc.

Or is 'militant' more oriented towards violence, as opposed to activism/advocacy or Deaf activism/advocacy?

 

[Shoshana]

well im off to bed, my mind is about 5 million miles away lol good night everyone!

Hopefully people soon understand!! (Because you advocate for polar bears dosent make you PETA!)

 

[jillio]

when I was reading I had an image in my head trying to understand and picture it....I ended up with someone running through a hospital wearing a lula skirt setting off stink bombs to prevent someone from getting a CI...It kinda made me laugh because I cant imagin this ever happening in real life so there for its not right to use that name

Yep. It conjures up pictures of Deaf people running around acting like Peta...throwing fake blood around and chaining themselves to operating room doors! Firebombing CI clinics. Kidnapping deaf kids.:roll:

 

[Liza]

Hey guys, I will give credit where it is due --- people do have poor attitude, but hold them personally accountable for that -- and not go on the slippery slope that is generalism regarding the 'M' word, which degrades Deaf and Hearing people for being advocates.

 

[jillio]

I think I became most involved early today after reading Jillio's post to Beach girl describing sweetmind as a deaf militant, and deafcaroline's post explaining that Lane and Marsden's concepts of what a Deaf militant , which she said drphil was harping on, are outdated and no longer reflect today's issues.

Given that they were applying the term to people, and correcting what they saw as outdated definitions, and Beowulf described sweetmind in positive terms, I asked him and deaf caroline what they think defines a Deaf militant, and what role they and their actions play in our community, in our society.

I have a somewhat loosely formed idea based on some individuals I know in varying degrees who self-identify as Deaf militants, people who fight for the Deaf cause, which I put out there as well, but I wanted to hear from people who have been entrenched in Deaf culture far longer than I've been involved, who would really know.

I described sweetmind in postive terms, as well. But you really can't comment on her without having interacted with her.

Here we go again with the "our society" and "our community". That renders the very question moot by being all inclusive. All inclusive is diametrically opposed to the Deaf perpsective. All inclusive smacks of assimilation. That is exactly what the Deaf fight against.

 

[DeafCaroline]

KISSFIST this post. Well articulated. It's just warped how intelligent people's opinions are dismissed simply because they take a stand on this stuff, even though they don't break into labs to free rabbits or something like that. It's just sharing of minds and opinions online and in other avenues. I agree that being called a militant is very offensive especially when one has done nothing truly radical to deserve that.

Thank you!

 

[GrendelQ]

I described sweetmind in postive terms, as well. But you really can't comment on her without having interacted with her.

Here we go again with the "our society" and "our community". That renders the very question moot by being all inclusive. All inclusive is diametrically opposed to the Deaf perpsective. All inclusive smacks of assimilation. That is exactly what the Deaf fight against.

I have interacted with sweetmind directly, very memorably. But I'm not the one calling her a deaf militant, you are. And that's why I wanted to know what the term means to people, what it means to call someone a deaf militant seems to vary widely.

Do you think that Deaf militants should be restricted in their roles to interact and have an impact within some narrowly defined segment of society, rather than more broadly as I've described? If so, how do you see a Deaf militant achieving public office, as Beo indicated?

 

[AlleyCat]

I think I became most involved early today after reading Jillio's post to Beach girl describing sweetmind as a deaf militant, and deafcaroline's post explaining that Lane and Marsden's concepts of what a Deaf militant , which she said drphil was harping on, are outdated and no longer reflect today's issues.

Given that they were applying the term to people, and correcting what they saw as outdated definitions, and Beowulf described sweetmind in positive terms, I asked Beo and deaf caroline what they think defines a Deaf militant, and what role they and their actions play in our community, in our society.

I have a somewhat loosely formed idea based on some individuals I know in varying degrees who self-identify as Deaf militants, people who fight for the Deaf cause, which I put out there as well, but I wanted to hear from people who have been entrenched in Deaf culture far longer than I've been involved, who would really know.

Do you still think drPhil was not calling us out as deaf militants? (That was my first question to you on previous page.)

You PM'd me earlier -- I know per AD rules we cannot disclose the contents of others' PMs, so no worries as far as your PM. But, in my response to you, I mentioned that I'd like an explanation of drPhil's "select group of NON militant deafs". What/who (not referring to specific AD'ers) do you see that fits in there? Those who are passive and keep their mouths shut and don't voice any opinion, wants about d/Deafness?