Experiences with my daughter.

[jag]

Ah ha!, but only you assume that, I noticed you used the words 'family experience', the reality is though that the eagerness of a deaf child duped into believing they are 'knowing what is going on' in tbe family activity is quite different from actually Involved in the activity. Second-hand or delayed repeats to the update of recounted events is NOT inclusion - it is a pitiful situation to be in, like staring through some sort of ethereal anti-linguistic glass barrier all day.

.

My guess is that the child raised with both speech and sign but still deaf would still have problems being included in the family outings because speech does tend to be fast paced and delayed as you say. Translating in family gatherings and activities where not all people sign can also cause those communcation delays and one does not always know what transpired.
But when the element of understanding speech through a CI is added there should be less stress, much easier to lip read when one has some hearing. Of course not everyone will get the same level of comprehension and the CI will not work for everyone but things are much more relaxed when trying to enjoy anything that includes larger groups.

 

[jillio]

deaf children are too in predominantly hearing world, and have to be taken on purpose to be in the deaf enviroment, so that's different.
Hearing child is already in a hearing enviroment, that is why i can't see how it is possible to keep them away from it... like I've said- they hear sounds even in their own home, deaf parents or not...

Fuzzy

Simply being able to hear sounds is not living in a hearing world, just as simply being unable to hear sounds is not living in a deaf world. It has to do with values and norms, and being exposed to others who share life circiumstances, and thus, being able to develop meaningful relationships with those people. It has to do with envirnmental influences on self concept.

Living in a religious home does not make one religious. One has to practice the beliefs, the values, and subscribe to the norms; in other words, adopt the cultural values. Same with deaf and hearing. It is far too simplistic to reduce it to whether one is able to perceive sound or not.

 

[jillio]

They can hear each other.

When the CI is functioning. But behind that little CI is still a deaf child. And the sad fact of the amtter is.cloggy, that the very fact that she is wearing a CI will be sufficient to illustrate the fact that she is different fromthe hearing children. If you think that will not be an issue, you are sadly mistaken.

As Lotte gets older, her focus will change from family to peers. It is a developmental stage that all children, hearing or deaf, go through. There will be a time, at approximately 8-10 years of age, when her CI will cause her to stand out as "different", jsut as HAs do, or the use of sign language does, or being made to wear a large FM system does, or having an interpreter follow youfrom class to class does. That difference, in and of itself, will suffiecient for the majority of hearing kids to reject her as being different from them. It is sufficient for hearing peers to reject her. Things that very young children don't take notice of suddenly become very important at this age. And it is also very important that she have an environment where she is not so different as a buffer to this treatment fromthe majority.

This is something that occurs on a daily basis with deaf children inthe mainstream. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen. Every deaf adult or older child who has been mainstreamed has stories of the emotional isolation they have experienced in such a situation. It is a common thread that binds deaf individuals together. To have supportive ties within a community of those who share your circumstances acts as a buffer for what is to come, and insures that the danange that is not only possible, but inevitable, will have far less impact.

The issue is not just whether one child can hear another. The whole experience of living and growing is a social experience. That social experience will impact her life and her sense of well being far more than whether or not she can hear and speak. The social experience of an oral deaf person is not the same as the social experience of a hearing person. And try as you might, you cannot protect her from that, and you cannot make it so by ignoring the fact. What you can do, however, is provide her with an environment that will mitigate it. Those connections need to be made when a child is young, so that they are available when they get older.

You keep emphasizing the fact that Lotte is young....yes, she is, and you have a great deal of influence over her now. But that will change. It is inevitable. You cannot keep her insulated from the rest of society. There is much that she will face as a result of her deafness that has absolutley nothing to do with her ability to speak and hear with her CI.

 

[jillio]

Not likely.... She can hear (and I don't mean residual hearing..)..... can you....
Do you really understand the world of having a choice between hearing good, and deaf??

You are assuming that your deafness is identical to Lotte's deafness.... and I think you are very wrong..

And you are very naive. Lotte's hearing is not the same as a hearing child's hearing. And the question of understanding is extremely pertinent. And it is not just an undertanding of her speech that is being discussed. Hearing is not the most important variable. The difference in her hearing is the important variable. And if you think that the fact that her CI makes her deafness even more visable, and therefore, more of a cause for rejection by hearing peers a she gets older, you are living in a fantasy world. People on this board who have lived through it have tried toshare the importance of thse social experiences and the harmful effects that they have had on them, yet you continue to insist that, because Lotte can hear with her CI, it will not happen to her. But it will, cloggy, and it will ahve nothing to do with whether she can hear and speak. The very fact that she is wearing a devise that points out beyond a shadow of a doubt to all hearing people that she is deaf will insure that she is perceived by her peers as different from them; that in a very fuindamental way, they are hearing and she is deaf. And I can guarantee you, she will be treated as being different. Why are you so reluctant to provide her with a support system within the deaf community where she is not fundamentally different?

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Simply being able to hear sounds is not living in a hearing world, just as simply being unable to hear sounds is not living in a deaf world. It has to do with values and norms, and being exposed to others who share life circiumstances, and thus, being able to develop meaningful relationships with those people. It has to do with envirnmental influences on self concept.

I have yet to meet a hearing child of deaf parents who never learned to hear and speak. So although your theory is acceptable, it does not relate into practice. And comparing being in hearing WORLD to religious HOME is fallicious argument. Even so, a child who grew up in religious home although not religious himself inadvertently KNOWS about religion more than those who grew in non- religious one.

When the CI is functioning. But behind that little CI is still a deaf child. And the sad fact of the amtter is.cloggy, that the very fact that she is wearing a CI will be sufficient to illustrate the fact that she is different fromthe hearing children. If you think that will not be an issue, you are sadly mistaken.

The problem with you jill is that you are trying too hard to exaggerate Lotte's disability to your own benefit. You need to keep yourself self convinced that only the deaf world is a right way for deaf- it isn't, and not anymore, thanks to technology.
More and more deaf people chose to CI and like it so much they preffer to spend more time in a hearing world than their own. That was the main complain on this board of many deaf people about their friends who got CI - "they left/betrayed deaf community".

True, Lotte is by disability deaf and has to wear CI in order to hear, to be able to communicate with others, but so what. To be accepted by her hearing peers she does not need to depend on her ability to hear.
I am suprised you with your degrees doesn't know that.
People with any values will not reject her because of her disability, and those who will are simply not worth her (Lotte) anyway. As long as she will have good self esteem, she will be accepted by those who matter. And she WILL have good- GREAT! self esteem thanks to parents she have.


As for CI failing- exactly how many CIs failed disastrously and irreparably during use so far? again I see a lot of exaggeration - short of natural disaster and war there shouldn't be any problem for quick fix in case of CI failure.
The same as applies to HAs - you can even loan for the time of repair if none of yours are working. As a last resort- Lotte ALWAYS can learn sign language.

You are segregating deaf from hearing. Not good. By this way of thinking, what chances your son has of succeding in hearing world?
we all know generally hearing pple are not going to learn ASL for him.


Fuzzy

 

[deafskeptic]

I have yet to meet a hearing child of deaf parents who never learned to hear and speak. So although your theory is acceptable, it does not relate into practice. And comparing being in hearing WORLD to religious HOME is fallicious argument. Even so, a child who grew up in religious home although not religious himself inadvertently KNOWS about religion more than those who grew in non- religious one

Fuzzy

Audiofuzzy, Jillo is talking about cultural values - not just the ability to hear and speak. To illustrate what I mean, I know one terp who's retired now who's a CODA. CODA stands for child of deaf adults and refers to hearing children of deaf adults. I've met his relatives and they all consider themselves Deaf even though they're all hearing.

I remember talking to that terp one day when a deaf person came up and asked me if I'm the terp. I said no he is and that he's CODA. I told her I grew up oral which is why I don't sign like a native ASLer. Many deaf mistake me for hearing when they meet me for the first time. I've never been hearing.

 

[jillio]

I have yet to meet a hearing child of deaf parents who never learned to hear and speak. So although your theory is acceptable, it does not relate into practice. And comparing being in hearing WORLD to religious HOME is fallicious argument. Even so, a child who grew up in religious home although not religious himself inadvertently KNOWS about religion more than those who grew in non- religious one.
And may bery well, because of that knowledge, opt out of endorsingthose values and norms of the religious community.


Once agian fuzzy, you have totally missed the point. I said, it is not dependent upon hearing and speaking, but on accepted and transmitted values and norms. Look beyond the obvious. And, in fact, this is real practice as you put it. And no it is not a fallicious argument,as both incorprotate specific values and norms. And knowing about and living are two different concepts. Obviously, a point you are incapable of understanding. Look beyond the ears and the mouth, fuzzy, if you can.The problem with you jill is that you are trying too hard to exaggerate Lotte's disability to your own benefit. You need to keep yourself self convinced that only the deaf world is a right way for deaf- it isn't, and not anymore, thanks to technology.

Technology has absolutely nothing to dow ith the concepts I am talking about, fuzzy. And how in the hell is it a benefit to me to exaggerate Lotte's disability? You really are off the deep end with this one.More and more deaf people chose to CI and like it so much they preffer to spend more time in a hearing world than their own. That was the main complain on this board of many deaf people about their friends who got CI - "they left/betrayed deaf community".

You completely miss the poit. CI does not amke one hearing. It provides sound perception to a degree. And there is more to a community than ears and mouth. You really are naive.

True, Lotte is by disability deaf and has to wear CI in order to hear, to be able to communicate with others, but so what. To be accepted by her hearing peers she does not need to depend on her ability to hear.
I am suprised you with your degrees doesn't know that.

Quite obviously, you know nothing about acceptance issues. Stick to what you know, fuzzy.
People with any values will not reject her because of her disability, and those who will are simply not worth her (Lotte) anyway. As long as she will have good self esteem, she will be accepted by those who matter. And she WILL have good- GREAT! self esteem thanks to parents she have.

What world do you live in, fuzzy? Evidently, is is one of unreality.


As for CI failing- exactly how many CIs failed disastrously and irreparably during use so far? again I see a lot of exaggeration - short of natural disaster and war there shouldn't be any problem for quick fix in case of CI failure.
The same as applies to HAs - you can even loan for the time of repair if none of yours are working. As a last resort- Lotte ALWAYS can learn sign language.

Oh, please! Again with talking out of your mouth before your brainhas been engaged.

You are segregating deaf from hearing. Not good. By this way of thinking, what chances your son has of succeding in hearing world?
My son has already achieved success. What are your successes, fuzzy? Care to outline them?
we all know generally hearing pple are not going to learn ASL for him.

And, exactly how is it that you know that? Hearing people learn ASL from deafies every day of the week. They might not learn it from you.......you don't know it.


You really need to stop seeing deaf people as nothing more than ears and a mouth. You are incapable of seeing past the superficial issues intot he deeper issues. Perhaps that is why people have such a hard time "understanding" your posts, fuzzy. We are attempting to discuss issues that have nothing to do with CI, or hearing, or speech, but arr fundamentally human. You can't seem to grasp those concepts because all you are focused on is the abiltiy to hear and speak. If that is the totality of your existence, it is an empty one, indeed.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

Audiofuzzy, Jillo is talking about cultural values

EXACTLY- that wasn't what I was talking about. there you go. and yet you talk to me like I don't know what I am doing.


Fuzzy

 

[jillio]

Audiofuzzy, Jillo is talking about cultural values - not just the ability to hear and speak. To illustrate what I mean, I know one terp who's retired now who's a CODA. CODA stands for child of deaf adults and refers to hearing children of deaf adults. I've met his relatives and they all consider themselves Deaf even though they're all hearing.

I remember talking to that terp one day when a deaf person came up and asked me if I'm the terp. I said no he is and that he's CODA. I told her I grew up oral which is why I don't sign like a native ASLer. Many deaf mistake me for hearing when they meet me for the first time. I've never been hearing.

Exactly, deafskeptic. Evidently, fuzzy has a problem with seeing below the superficial. Very concrete thinking.

 

[jillio]

EXACTLY- that wasn't what I was talking about. there you go. and yet you talk to me like I don't know what I am doing.


Fuzzy

We KNOW that wasn't what you are taliking about fuzzy.
But it was what I was talking about. You attempted to counter a discussion of cultural values and norms with something totally unrelated. If you are goingto reply to my posts, do so with some coherence and pertinent points. And you don't know what you are doing when you attempt to bring everything back to speech and hearing.

If you have any knowledge that can assist you in engaging in a discussion regarding cultural values and norms, and the way inwhich they impact the individual, then please do so. If not, it is best not to reply and make another ineffective attempt at taking everything back to speech and hearing.

 

[Grummer]

"However I still find this highly questionable, as there is no doubt it is the the self-justifying 'parents' rather than an expression of deaf childrens rights. "
You could be talking about parents making the choice to raise their child with sign only... .selfjustification using Deaf culture's point of view..

No9, you know full well what this meant. How can a child self-justify? unless given freedom to be themself as they are.

Deaf Culture/ or Deaf individualist are in the battle to assert their rights to be recognised, what the hell do you think that is? it is the case they (hearing or dominant groups justify thier exploitation or more accurately into this case, assimilation. Hearing/ abled people dont like difference they want to adjusted to fit their norm/ normalcy of hearing as to fill the gap missing so-called imperfect- a missing element of the child - hearing abilty.

So, NO, Deaf culture are the minority, from this there's is no self-justification element in there (except some silly deafism, and overused audism).
It is a case of self-asserting !!
This is VERY different, - and YOU know it, dont be cheeky, Shame on you Cloggy.
It is typical of you, so more shame on you for continuing to twist around other poster's words. That is a mark of pure rudeness, Especially when you pretend you dont know what we are talking about or that you deny the very truth.

Parents make the decision. No matter what. I still have to see hearing parents that try to put the resposibility to the child when they choose CI for their child.

However, when choosing not to allow the child the chance to hear, the responsibility is put on the child... "the child has to make the choice"...

The child do have and should be entitled to full access to choice.

However in this modern present settings, then maybe yes (but i disagree with it), it's not a that the parents 'really' did the choosing, is the 'modern world which has the whole range configuration geared in society which allow it. If Lotte was born 100 years ago, (and you, a further 100 years ago) you would NOT by a slight chance to have that "parent responsibility" to make a decision, the State, or otherwise hospitals would seize your child.....so ok , given that 'hearing aids technology" has paved way for parents to have more autonomy, however never free of medical interventions. The cilmate has changed, despite in the light of 'increased' or over-esteemed 'success' CI, time will tell if CI is not that good as cracked up to be.
It's good for some, especially a person who is previously hearing, then yes its a miracle, it still has its limits. Acquired Deafness is entirely different thing altogether, often it is 'forgotten cohort' in society that is invisible when discussing the social construction of deafness, while that said, medical side of the impairment take advantage of this silent (about acquired/or accidental deafness) to justify its medical worth. I see nothing wrong with that restorin to help a heairng person to hear again, however when it comes to overstepping the birthright of the child - that's where everything goes wrong.

 

[Grummer]

The child do have and should be entitled to full access to choice.

However in this modern present settings, then maybe yes (but i disagree with it), it's not a that the parents 'really' did the choosing, is the 'modern world which has the whole range configuration geared in society which allow it. If Lotte was born 100 years ago, (and you, a further 100 years ago) you would NOT by a slight chance to have that "parent responsibility" to make a decision, the State, or otherwise hospitals would seize your child.....so ok , given that 'hearing aids technology" has paved way for parents to have more autonomy, however never free of medical interventions. The cilmate has changed, despite in the light of 'increased' or over-esteemed 'success' CI, time will tell if CI is not that good as cracked up to be.
It's good for some, especially a person who is previously hearing, then yes its a miracle, it still has its limits. Acquired Deafness is entirely different thing altogether, often it is 'forgotten cohort' in society that is invisible when discussing the social construction of deafness, while that said, medical side of the impairment take advantage of this silent (about acquired/or accidental deafness) to justify its medical worth. I see nothing wrong with that restorin to help a hearing person to hear again, however when it comes to overstepping the birthright of the child - that's where everything goes wrong.

When I used an example of what might have happened if you and Lotte was situated in 100 years ago from now, and the said 'evolvment' of society being technologised thus 'giving permission to the parents' to raise the child on their own. This is because the device is created to 'make institutionalisation portable' so that, this is the training, use of instruments (HA and/or CI), with overtone of society's infrastructure (hearing ideology) is used to justify that the essence of social research is about getting to know and understand ‘how and why things are as they are’ in society. (below are snips from my essay)
It is differrent from a mere ‘finding out’ about the social from, say, a newspaper, insofar as research involves a systematic, purposive effort to find out more about a particular social phenomenon in order to understand it better.

Indeed, much of what we know about the society in which we live is the product of our experience as well as how we are informed by the dominant paradigm, that is the dogmatic hearing beliefs, put other way freewill played very little in part of all the soceital schemes which pre-determines how 'different' people will be treated.
(back to the thread)
Fears or not, it is still there the yearning to aspire to normalcy. That 'choice' to normalise, is from you, the parent not Lotte's, so there you have self-justifed this decision, given you had been granted 'permission' from society. Now, back to deaf culture, I have to remind you, its not related to the normative ideology, it is an undercurrent of society, from being so, they struggle to counter the imbalance of power. Justification doesnt come into that, period.

 

[loml]

How exactly, is CS a tactile system?

Cueing is very tactile, it is very much about the sense of touch. How could it not be tactile?

And what about inclusion of the family in the child's experience?

Communicating with each other in the family unit, is inclusion.

CS more readily addresses needs fromthe parent's perspective of looking for a quick, easy method of communication. That can hardly be considered full inclusion in experience.

CS allows the family to communicate in their language, the fact that it is easy to learn is a bonus. How you would view this as not being inclusive is quite simply ludicrious.

 

[Grummer]

Cueing is very tactile, it is very much about the sense of touch. How could it not be tactile?

Communicating with each other in the family unit, is inclusion.

Inclusion ?? Only theortical , in practical, reality terms, the deaf person STILL feels left out, just ask ANY late-deafened person they will tell you, AND chances are they'd probably still possess ALOT more audigramical level of hearing than does a 'real' deaf person, moreso they are likely to have spoken language skills acquired from during the time they WERE hearing, and yet, they still can tell you they feel LEFT out, even if not completely out but surely uncomfortably distanced. This is one the "best side", it's pretty bad in anyone's books

CS allows the family to communicate in their language, the fact that it is easy to learn is a bonus. How you would view this as not being inclusive is quite simply ludicrious.

BUT what about for the Deaf person < Learning English is NOT easy, so how can you view this is inclusive when the skills required are uneven for both sides of this 'hypothetical communicative equation' ???

 

[Angel]

Umm....excuse me here, what does CS stands for?..

 

[deafskeptic]

It stands for cued speech.

 

[jillio]

Cueing is very tactile, it is very much about the sense of touch. How could it not be tactile?

Communicating with each other in the family unit, is inclusion.



CS allows the family to communicate in their language, the fact that it is easy to learn is a bonus. How you would view this as not being inclusive is quite simply ludicrious.

Unless one is cuing into the hand of a blind individual, as in tactile signing, no, I don't see how a system of using handshapes arranged at the head upper body of the speaker is tactile. How exactly is the sense of touch involved. And I doubt seriously that this system has ever been used with deaf/blind, as it is necessary to see the mouth movements for the cuing to be relevant.

And it isn't inclusion because it is still adapting based on the needs of the hearing family members and not the needs of the deaf family member. Perhpas you don't understand the concept of inclusion.

And, youdid not answer my question, but simply posed another one, which is a classic example of avoidance. How is CS tactile? AYou made the statement, it is up to you to support and validate your assumption.

 

[Angel]

It stands for cued speech.

Ahh

 

[jillio]

Umm....excuse me here, what does CS stands for?..

Sorry angel......cued speech. I was taking short cuts in my typing.

 

[Angel]

Sorry angel......cued speech. I was taking short cuts in my typing.

Oh it's okay, I should have knowing what CS stands for but my mind was somewhere else at that moment LOL