Which Choices of Communication should Hearing parents use for their implanted child?

[Cloggy]

I'm glad that it appears to be working well at this point in time. But I might ask, from whose perspective?

Ours, our family, our friends, the kindergarten and - not I have not fogotten her, for Lotte!.
I could have put her first, where she should be, but that would make it not possible for you to show that it is us that we think of, and not Lotte.

Darn... I just said it was Lotte that comes first... sorry Lijjio.

But I'll give you another statement to react to.

I believe that Lotte could not be happier.!

 

[Cloggy]

There it is! The statement that is resposnible for the language deprivation and undereducation of so many deaf childre.......If all else fails. And under it is the covert statement that speech is superior to sign. And then the question is posed, why do CI kids look down on signing, non- implanted kids? The answer is simple.....they have been taught to do so by the covert messages provided by their home environment.

Yes, you are right... it sounds like sign is the last thing to use.
I'm sorry that you haven't noticed that I have mentioned that sign-language should be used for the first communication. My mistake that you don't read well. (Or isn't it..?)

Jillio,
Please refer from saying "CI kids". They are children with CI. CI is not what defines them. Far from that.
So that is how you look at those children.! The CI first, and don't think of the child...


Oh, and about "looking down on sign"... is not taught. You really are stirring up the pot.
The problem might be that hearing parents don't think about sign. But to automatically assume the look down upon it.That's a sad statement.. and a wrong one...

But, just to clarify:
I don't think speech is better than sign,
I do not look down on sign,
Lotte is a child with Ci, not a CI-child
Anything else to clarify?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Just question:

Is it an offensive when I use those word like that

CI/HA users
CI/HA children/adult



Should we use those word...

The deaf children/adult with HA or CI ?

 

[Cloggy]

Just question:

Is it an offensive when I use those word like that

CI/HA users
CI/HA children/adult



Should we use those word...

The deaf children/adult with HA or CI ?

It's up to you, but it is all within context.....
"Listen" to this:

Lotte is a CI-kid - vs - Lotte is a kid with CI

Lotte is a CI-child - vs - Lotte is a child with CI

Do you feel the difference?

 

[Maria]

It's up to you, but it is all within context.....
"Listen" to this:

How do deaf people " listen " ? They are deaf.

Lotte is a CI-kid - vs - Lotte is a kid with CI

Lotte is a CI-child - vs - Lotte is a child with CI

Do you feel the difference?

How do they feel the difference ? They may think different by readin' before they feel what it tells them.

 

[Cloggy]

How do they feel the difference ? They may think different by readin' before they feel what it tells them.

OK....
how about this then:

I am writing to deaf maria.
I am writing to maria who's deaf.

Do you feel the difference?

 

[Angel]

Jillio,
Please refer from saying "CI kids". They are children with CI. CI is not what defines them. Far from that.
So that is how you look at those children.! The CI first, and don't think of the child...

What's the difference does it make? I've said deaf kids, hard of hearing kids in the past, no one said anything, then all the suddenly you had a problem with how Jillio wrote " CI kids " in her post good grief...

 

[Angel]

OK....
how about this then:

I am writing to deaf maria.
I am writing to maria who's deaf.

Do you feel the difference?

Jillio did not say CI Lottie, she said CI kids so don't try to twist it around ....

 

[Angel]

I agree with most of the posters on here.
Using many tools to help your child is the best way to go instead of restricting to one tool.

Too many parents didn't think about using a full toolbox, like deafdyke mentioned.

Exactly I agree with you there!!!

 

[Cloggy]

Jillio did not say CI Lottie, she said CI kids so don't try to twist it around ....

It's Lotte.... but I guess it's the first time you read the name... After all, it's the first time I mention her ...

Lotte is a deaf child. She's a deaf child with CI. Not a deaf CI-child!

 

[Cloggy]

.........
Using many tools to help your child is the best way to go instead of restricting to one tool.
Too many parents didn't think about using a full toolbox, like deafdyke mentioned.

No mechanic in his right mind would take a full toolbox with him/her. That's too heavy, and not-nessasary. He/she will take the tools needed for the job...

Perhaps THAT is what these parents do!

 

[Maria]

Jillio did not say CI Lottie, she said CI kids so don't try to twist it around ....

Right, exactly !! I don't think it gets through to his hard head. Gee *smh*

 

[Cloggy]

Right, exactly !! I don't think it gets through to his hard head. Gee *smh*

So, you didn't feel the difference between "deaf maria" and "maria who's deaf"...
Pitty..

 

[Maria]

So, you didn't feel the difference between "deaf maria" and "maria who's deaf"...
Pitty..

I just agree with Angel. I use " CI kids " most of the time. And, yes I see the difference. You don't say like " deaf & mute " Maria, otherwise I will be .

 

[Tousi]

I am not sure if some of you will understand this but I think since what Cloggy is saying comes from a perspective of sensitivity; therefore, I think we should give him that since it does not detract from anyone's opinions on this whole discussion. He's saying if we say a "CI kid" that appellation has too much of a sense of finality to it and that that would be all there is to that child's growth, etc., in addition to looking like too much a medical model. A "kid with a CI" (that Cloggy is asking for) gives the impression, or can, anyway, that, along the line of the child's progression, that child and or his parents are open to adding new tools to the child's development to make the child more well-rounded and ready to take on the whole world. This also would be a positive step to fulfilling what Deafhood is supposed to mean which VERY briefly incorporates every kind of deaf person you can think of.

I want to note that, as I drink my first cup of coffee this morning, I have written this very off-the-cuff; I didn't consult with Cloggy nor anyone else; I just read the last half dozen posts above and there ya go! lol....

 

[Angel]

You're right I don't understand....

 

[Tousi]

You're right I don't understand....

Angel, yeah, that's always the risk I take but I'll let this go a little further to see what others say..deal?

 

[jag]

So, you didn't feel the difference between "deaf maria" and "maria who's deaf"...
Pitty..

I understand your point Cloggy. I see saying CI kid to bug you the way 'wittle smashie' bugs me, even tho I know the person who uses it is trying to get a point accross that is basically a good point.

I just do not see the need to put down the people whom 'wittle smashie' really does refer to when one knows its a demeaning way of referring to them. One can say a person is mentally retarded, but while 'retard' means the same it's demeaning.

All is in the context, I do not call those who are deaf and can't speak deaf/mute because they do not like the history connected with the words, even tho that is what they may be. Terms change, people with mental retardation are no longer referred to as imbeciles or idiots, but those terms are still to this day used everyday to put people down by normal people.

So if we who have CI's would perfer to be described as a person with a CI rahter then that CI person so be it. That should be respected.

Gotta get ready for work.

 

[Tousi]

Great, thanks for stopping by, Jag.

 

[Angel]

I understand your point Cloggy. I see saying CI kid to bug you the way 'wittle smashie' bugs me, even tho I know the person who uses it is trying to get a point accross that is basically a good point.

I just do not see the need to put down the people whom 'wittle smashie' really does refer to when one knows its a demeaning way of referring to them. One can say a person is mentally retarded, but while 'retard' means the same it's demeaning.

All is in the context, I do not call those who are deaf and can't speak deaf/mute because they do not like the history connected with the words, even tho that is what they may be. Terms change, people with mental retardation are no longer referred to as imbeciles or idiots, but those terms are still to this day used everyday to put people down by normal people.

So if we who have CI's would perfer to be described as a person with a CI rahter then that CI person so be it. That should be respected.

Gotta get ready for work.

But you said in another thread about hearing impaired, as long as words are used in correct context and that's exactly what Jillio did.. even through I personally do not like the word " hearing impaired " but still people referred me as " hearing impaired " anyways and you said this

IMO one needs to worry more about if they words are used in a nasty way. I concider calling a person with MR trainable (as they once did) more offencive then saying someone is hearing impaired.

This doesn't sound fair to me at all...If you want us to respect those CI's then where yours and everyone else's respect on those who described us as hearing impaired?