Stereotypes of the deaf and hard of hearing

Rose Immortal said:
I wonder if the assumption is that because hearing people are so attached to their hearing, that they'd be unable to cope without it as a deaf person could? ;)
Click to expand...
Blocking your ears is not the same as being deaf. I cannot imagine NOT having the possibility to hear. I enjoy putting plugs in my ear in the airplane and lock myself out with a book, but I have an option.

And being able to cope with it... some can after time, some cannot. I recall the President of Galaudet university say that it took a while, but that he accepted deafness. It's a process. It is not a proces people choose.

What is interesting in another topic is how a deaf person cannot cope with hearing. She had CI which worked fine. She could even hear and enjoy music, something that is not a given for every CI-bearer.
But after the initial excitement, she realised she could not handle the noise around her.
 
Originally Posted by Rose Immortal
I wonder if the assumption is that because hearing people are so attached to their hearing, that they'd be unable to cope without it as a deaf person could?

This is a wrong assumption then ! I was very MUCH attached to my hearing, (Did no good it still went !), while people like me can have difficulty coping (As would (D)eaf WITH hearing thrust on them !), of course we cope. We also LEAD advances in deaf access, campaign as strong as any other deaf person (More, we have that extra impetus to alleviate because we know what loss IS), we also RUN signing groups, elected by sign users), our extra 'hearing' skills are an advantage, because born deaf don't have them.

We have a stronger empathy with the sector we have to influence, don't knock it ! We can also acquire (D)eaf skills, (Signing etc), but they can't acquire our hearing ones ! There's a slight ring of elitism in the assumption, hearing do go deaf AND can't cope, of course it's impossible...erm ... no it isn't. I suppose born deaf have no issues at all ? NOT what we read ! We also can suffer badly by losing hearing that's true too, that is the disablement that is deafness, and a truism no culture can change with a letter. We live it. But proportionally it is only more apparent, because simply, there are more of us.

The contribution bythe acquired deaf person is CONSIDERABLE, look up deaf history, and be amazed at what we have done, often without a sign anywhere, now that IS hard to do ! Let's hear it for the deaf, the unsung heroes and heroins. Mark well too, this sector of the deaf can be your most powerful ally in access areas, or your greatest opponent to, all the more need for the eradication of the divisive terms.
 
NFGTragedy said:
Side question...
How come deaf drivers get a tag on their license that says they have a hearing problem? ( I know this doesn't apply to all states ) I don't remember getting a hearing test before getting my license :dunno: ... Seems unfair in my honest opinion.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if such an indicator is required in Wisconsin or not, but Sharon is very glad she has the notation of her hearing loss on the back of her licence. This is because some cops don't believe people are deaf when they pull them over. How many news stories have we read about a deaf individual who was mistreated by police because the police assume the individual is a hearing person who is merely "mouthing off" and not obeying the officer's instructions? Having that notation on her license will hopefully allow her to avoid such situations, or if it ever does happen, then the offending officer is in even hotter water because it is clearly noted in a location he should be checking before taking any forceful action with a citizen.

So yeah, she likes the fact that it is there.
 
ksbsnowowl said:
I'm not sure if such an indicator is required in Wisconsin or not, but Sharon is very glad she has the notation of her hearing loss on the back of her licence. This is because some cops don't believe people are deaf when they pull them over. How many news stories have we read about a deaf individual who was mistreated by police because the police assume the individual is a hearing person who is merely "mouthing off" and not obeying the officer's instructions? Having that notation on her license will hopefully allow her to avoid such situations, or if it ever does happen, then the offending officer is in even hotter water because it is clearly noted in a location he should be checking before taking any forceful action with a citizen.

So yeah, she likes the fact that it is there.
Click to expand...

I don't think they have such an indicator in Wisconsin. I grew up in Milwaukee.
 
LuciaDisturbed said:
I don't think they have such an indicator in Wisconsin. I grew up in Milwaukee.
Click to expand...
It's not a sticker. On the back of her license it has a line clearly stating that she is hearing impared (though I don't recall the exact wording). It allows her prove, quickly and legally (since it is a gov't issued ID), that she is deaf.
 
ksbsnowowl said:
It's not a sticker. On the back of her license it has a line clearly stating that she is hearing impared (though I don't recall the exact wording). It allows her prove, quickly and legally (since it is a gov't issued ID), that she is deaf.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I never had a license or a learner's permit When I lived in Milwaukee so I wouldn't know that. But I had a learner's permit in Minnesota and I didn't have anything on the back or front of it saying I am deaf or hearing impaired or anything like that. *shrugs*
 
ksbsnowowl said:
It's not a sticker. On the back of her license it has a line clearly stating that she is hearing impared (though I don't recall the exact wording). It allows her prove, quickly and legally (since it is a gov't issued ID), that she is deaf.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly my girlfriend's says "Hearing Impairment" like you said and right under that it says "Requirement: Mirrors"... or something of the sort... Apperently I guess cars are made without mirrors still? ANYWAYS, I just wonder why it has to be posted?... not that it bothers her at all. Its just more of a wondering question. In the sense that everyone continues to say then if you speak spanish, your license should say "Language: Spanish" on it... no? :dunno: I'm just confused with the full logic behind it. I mean yes its probably different not hearing anything then hearing a foreign language spoken... but I would argue then that atleast deaf people share a common written language.
 
Passivist said:
Originally Posted by Rose Immortal
I wonder if the assumption is that because hearing people are so attached to their hearing, that they'd be unable to cope without it as a deaf person could?

This is a wrong assumption then ! I was very MUCH attached to my hearing, (Did no good it still went !), while people like me can have difficulty coping (As would (D)eaf WITH hearing thrust on them !), of course we cope. We also LEAD advances in deaf access, campaign as strong as any other deaf person (More, we have that extra impetus to alleviate because we know what loss IS), we also RUN signing groups, elected by sign users), our extra 'hearing' skills are an advantage, because born deaf don't have them.

We have a stronger empathy with the sector we have to influence, don't knock it ! We can also acquire (D)eaf skills, (Signing etc), but they can't acquire our hearing ones ! There's a slight ring of elitism in the assumption, hearing do go deaf AND can't cope, of course it's impossible...erm ... no it isn't. I suppose born deaf have no issues at all ? NOT what we read ! We also can suffer badly by losing hearing that's true too, that is the disablement that is deafness, and a truism no culture can change with a letter. We live it. But proportionally it is only more apparent, because simply, there are more of us.

The contribution bythe acquired deaf person is CONSIDERABLE, look up deaf history, and be amazed at what we have done, often without a sign anywhere, now that IS hard to do ! Let's hear it for the deaf, the unsung heroes and heroins. Mark well too, this sector of the deaf can be your most powerful ally in access areas, or your greatest opponent to, all the more need for the eradication of the divisive terms.
Click to expand...

I think the context wasn't quite clear...what I meant was, maybe whoever wrote the law about headphones and stuff thought hearing people can't cope with not hearing road sounds because they're so attached to their hearing. As for those laws...well, they're not always written by the sharpest tools in the shed. Also known as our Congress-critters. ;)

But, I think that in general, your points are good.
 
LuciaDisturbed said:
Hmmm...I never had a license or a learner's permit When I lived in Milwaukee so I wouldn't know that. But I had a learner's permit in Minnesota and I didn't have anything on the back or front of it saying I am deaf or hearing impaired or anything like that. *shrugs*
Click to expand...
I took a look at her license tonight, and it has a restriction on the back, stating she must have hearing aids or mirrors. She's telling me that restriction is optional.... Again, she wants the notation on there so she can quickly and easily prove she is deaf, should the need arise.


I'm not sure I get the logic behind the restriction; maybe some warped opinion that hearing individuals can "hear" a car beside/behind them? I don't get the tie either...
 
ksbsnowowl said:
I took a look at her license tonight, and it has a restriction on the back, stating she must have hearing aids or mirrors. She's telling me that restriction is optional.... Again, she wants the notation on there so she can quickly and easily prove she is deaf, should the need arise.


I'm not sure I get the logic behind the restriction; maybe some warped opinion that hearing individuals can "hear" a car beside/behind them? I don't get the tie either...
Click to expand...
the restriction is not optional. I have had that restriction, the officer tells me it is required that I have either ha(or in my case a ci) or mirrors. (that was in NY)

The reason for that is for being able to recognize emergency vehicles that has siren on. most hearing can hear the siren then look at mirror to find where.

as for me, i am required to have mirror or hearing aid. So I choose the mirrors so I end up making sure my vehicles are equipped

That was my NY License it show up as "Hearing Aid/Full View Mirror" meaning I must have either in order to drive.

My Georgia License says I must have both L and R mirrors

my Washington License shows "Z" which means "has specific restriction on file" and I forgot what was it.

I don't have Arizona license yet. I have to get one soon.
 
Ummm....interesting.

I have lived in three states Md, Va, and NC and I never had any requirement for such a restriction on my license. I wouldn't even know if they even had such a thing. Wait a minute...I checked NC's list of restrictions and it does have one for HA. I guess they had no reason to think I needed one (the last time I got my license renewed I had a HA at the time).
 
Boult said:
the restriction is not optional. I have had that restriction, the officer tells me it is required that I have either ha(or in my case a ci) or mirrors. (that was in NY)

The reason for that is for being able to recognize emergency vehicles that has siren on. most hearing can hear the siren then look at mirror to find where.
Click to expand...

I would have to say that driving in a car with the windows up, ac on, and music playing at a moderate to noisy setting you would see the lights in the mirror well before you ever hear that siren. If that person was not paying attention to their mirrors... now then I could understand their statement, but then its more the fault of the driver not paying attention then it is anything else. If you want to drive with the windows up, ac on, and music on then everyone should be required to have full view mirrors, no? I really just don't see the logic behind it.. I don't use my ability to hear to drive my car. Driving is hands, feet, and eyes.

Now they may also say, well then you could atleast hear someone driving up next to you... which YET AGAIN is false. With the condition I described just before, you would have no idea someone was driving up next to you especially with how quiet newer cars are nowadays. Everyone needs to be observant when they drive so why single out people with hearing disabilities?

And someone said this was getting a bit off topic... And yes maybe it is getting a bit off topic and a bit more indepth then it should be but please remember this is stereotypes of the deaf and hoh we are talking about... What better a place to discuss having a special note on their license degrading their ability to drive a vehicle normally? If anything this is a great description of how the law makers(hearing) assume that deaf people are unable to do normal day things, such as drive a car like any hearing person could, just because they may not be able to hear as well as they(hearing) can... which is also known as a stereotype.
 
Alabama Drivers license: More than a 50db loss in one hear, somehow results in a restriction where you must have a mirror on the side with the hearing loss.

*looks at license* : Restrictions: H, H-Outside Mirror-Right. First time I went in the courthouse, they started debating on my 'restrictions'... :mad: I'm 18, I shouldn't have to deal with those people any time soon.
 
Once I was with my girlfriend and someone saw us signing, people often assume I am deaf because I dont speak while signing i just mouth the words, I have overheard people say many things such as "fucking deaf people theyre like mexicans you just wish you could speak spanish so you know that they are talking about you, at least they cant hear me hahaha stupid deaf people"

I turned about and said, my girlfriend is deaf, but sadly for you, i am hearing.

Also I have had people come up to us and ask me to translate a lot of odd things for them, for example a man once asked me "hey will you ask her if she really uses those braile things at the ATM"

I looked at him and said....what? why would she use braile? And he replied "because shes deaf, isnt she" I said "yes she is deaf, not blind"

People really make some odd assumptions about deaf people.
 
lso I have had people come up to us and ask me to translate a lot of odd things for them, for example a man once asked me "hey will you ask her if she really uses those braile things at the ATM"

I looked at him and said....what? why would she use braile? And he replied "because shes deaf, isnt she" I said "yes she is deaf, not blind"
Click to expand...

Blame Hellen Keller. (Well, not her personally. Just her popularity)

Nothing like having the American public remember a "deaf icon" that embodies the exception rather than the rule.
 
Because my deaf son can speechread very well, I've had people tell me "He can hear more than you think he can!" I always say, Oh, yeah? When did you get your audiology degree? People can be such idiots sometimes!!
 
Passivist said:
Originally Posted by Rose Immortal
I wonder if the assumption is that because hearing people are so attached to their hearing, that they'd be unable to cope without it as a deaf person could?

This is a wrong assumption then ! I was very MUCH attached to my hearing, (Did no good it still went !), while people like me can have difficulty coping (As would (D)eaf WITH hearing thrust on them !), of course we cope. We also LEAD advances in deaf access, campaign as strong as any other deaf person (More, we have that extra impetus to alleviate because we know what loss IS), we also RUN signing groups, elected by sign users), our extra 'hearing' skills are an advantage, because born deaf don't have them.

We have a stronger empathy with the sector we have to influence, don't knock it ! We can also acquire (D)eaf skills, (Signing etc), but they can't acquire our hearing ones ! There's a slight ring of elitism in the assumption, hearing do go deaf AND can't cope, of course it's impossible...erm ... no it isn't. I suppose born deaf have no issues at all ? NOT what we read ! We also can suffer badly by losing hearing that's true too, that is the disablement that is deafness, and a truism no culture can change with a letter. We live it. But proportionally it is only more apparent, because simply, there are more of us.

The contribution bythe acquired deaf person is CONSIDERABLE, look up deaf history, and be amazed at what we have done, often without a sign anywhere, now that IS hard to do ! Let's hear it for the deaf, the unsung heroes and heroins. Mark well too, this sector of the deaf can be your most powerful ally in access areas, or your greatest opponent to, all the more need for the eradication of the divisive terms.
Click to expand...

That explains a lot. Now I know why you focus on the disablement of deafness. You had hearing, you lost hearing, you see yourself as disabled. Very different experience than one who is born deaf. Yes, prelingually deaf have made contributions, but your experience is no more valuable than one who was born deaf. Talk about an elitist attitude! Geez!
 
I've had a case, it wasn't hostile though, where one person from school thought that HoH people were just 'deaf' or 'not deaf' ... Well out of the blue. .. "Hey Deaf kid!" ... *i retorted towards him due to his glasses* "Hey Blind Kid!" Situation solved. lol.
 
After reading all those above, I have been through all those issues. I would like to share the oddest comment I ever heard from several people ( so far its usually over age of 70's but I am not trying to sterotyping them but it happens to me so far)... Can deaf people get pregnant? That is the one I usually get when I get pregnant (3 times and never fail to hear those comment each time). Grrr..... :rl:
 
Back
Top