Rock & a Hard Place

[Mrs Bucket]

Thank you Botts for your level-headed comment.

Jillio, sometimes an abstract answer is needed for your comment. You're not helping yourself with your condensing comments. I've been absent & noticed quite a bit of this pattern across the board. It'd be helpful if you dropped this condensing tone.

 

[Mrs Bucket]

I mean exactly what I said. Why is that so difficult to understand? I was referring to the statement made by WeeBeastie in the post I was replying to. Evidently, people are looking for an excuse to become offended.

If you look at your comments, you've become quite offensive.

I see no reason and rhyme for you to persist this pattern, please stop it. Thank you.

 

[faire_jour]

I mean exactly what I said. Why is that so difficult to understand? I was referring to the statement made by WeeBeastie in the post I was replying to. Evidently, people are looking for an excuse to become offended.

I'm not trying to be offended, I want to understand your post so I asked for clarification. Why is that unreasonable? I didn't understand what you meant, that's all.

 

[jillio]

If you look at your comments, you've become quite offensive.

I see no reason and rhyme for you to persist this pattern, please stop it. Thank you.

What exactly, is offensive by clarifying that I mean exactly what I stated? There is no hidden meaning. I responded to a statement made by the poster that I quoted. If you read the poster that I quoted my response is perfectly understandable.

That is not condescending. It is simply saying that the post is self explanatory. Nothing condescending about having the expectation that people are capable of understanding the obvious. In fact, having that expectation is empowering.

 

[jillio]

For those that are having difficulty understanding, this is the statement to which I was responding:

I only make minimal accommodations for them in public most of the time.

This is my response:

No more accommodation than what is necessary should be made

I fail to see what is so difficult to comprehend in that sequence.

But, if it needs to be made even clearer, WeeBeastie should not have to make accommodations demanded by another parent, such as in the request that the accommodation be made to "not sign" for the oralist parent.

 

[GrendelQ]

I would have said something like "are you this rude to all strangers you meet who happen to speak to their child in another language such as Spanish/French/German? - or are you only rude and discriminatory to those who use a language that your child would naturally be able to learn and may actually help them ?"

I have to remember this if I ever encounter same and not be shocked into silence

 

[WeeBeastie]

I understood Jillio's comment to mean that, unless unreasonable, we operate as 'normal' in public - that definition of 'normal' being very specific to our needs. Of course we use inclusive communication as a family and will also terp for Katie as needed. We also come prepared to deal with our older daughters needs, providing coping technique reminders as needed and, if necessary, prepared to leave if things get out of hand.

We don't avoid outings/situations because there may be sensory triggers there that may drive my older daughter under a table weeping. We don't insist that others cater to either girls needs - I can't make you sign just like you can't make me speak Spanish. We don't turn outings into therapy sessions. if we go to someone's home knowing they are going to serve a food that triggers a negative sensory response (gagging & vomiting), we bring a reasonable substitute, but still expect her to take a very small portion of the 'bad food'.

If they're going to live in this society there's no reason to coddle them now. I don't expect them to behave/perform beyond their abilities but they need to learn to take control of the things they can control.

*this really applies mostly to our older daughter who has dyspraxia and SPD. Katie doesn't really need anything more than someone who signs with her.

 

[jillio]

I understood Jillio's comment to mean that, unless unreasonable, we operate as 'normal' in public - that definition of 'normal' being very specific to our needs. Of course we use inclusive communication as a family and will also terp for Katie as needed. We also come prepared to deal with our older daughters needs, providing coping technique reminders as needed and, if necessary, prepared to leave if things get out of hand.

We don't avoid outings/situations because there may be sensory triggers there that may drive my older daughter under a table weeping. We don't insist that others cater to either girls needs - I can't make you sign just like you can't make me speak Spanish. We don't turn outings into therapy sessions. if we go to someone's home knowing they are going to serve a food that triggers a negative sensory response (gagging & vomiting), we bring a reasonable substitute, but still expect her to take a very small portion of the 'bad food'.

If they're going to live in this society there's no reason to coddle them now. I don't expect them to behave/perform beyond their abilities but they need to learn to take control of the things they can control.

*this really applies mostly to our older daughter who has dyspraxia and SPD. Katie doesn't really need anything more than someone who signs with her.

Exactly what I meant, WeeBeastie. And, as my reply was directed to you, I was certain you would understand the intent behind my statement.

In other words, had you insisted that the parent in question on the playground, sign instead of speak in the presence of your child, you would have been asking for more than was necessary in that situation. However, it is clear that you are more reasonable that to take that approach. In that situation, what becomes necessary is that you terp for your child so they are involved in the communication.

 

[Mountain Man]

I had a bit of a strange encounter the other day with another mom of a deaf child.

We bumped into each other at the park and I noticed her child's implants. I shared that my daughter was also deaf and we chatted for a bit. The kids were playing like no big deal and came over in search of a snack. I signed with Katie while she munched a few crackers and downed some water before they skittered off to play again.

After they were gone, the mom said "I didn't want to say anything in front of the kids, but could you please not sign in front of my son? we don't do that."

I was a little shocked but said that Katie didn't use English and I would be happy to continue to voice while I signed, but I really couldn't not sign. She seemed a little offended and went on about how hard they worked at their son's speech, how much it has cost them and it isn't fair to 'have that derailed' every time someone signs around him. I mentioned (very gently) how I felt the same when people excluded my daughter entirely from conversations by not signing. She said "It's not the same. We have to work a lot harder than you do. You need to remember that."

At that point I suddenly "remembered an appointment", said my farewells and collected my kid. There was no way I was going to delve any further into that on a playground. I was secretly hoping for a potential playdate situation, but guess not.

Now, I understand the importance of sticking with the therapy, but are there no exceptions? When can a kid just be a kid regardless of communication? When, if ever, is it okay to impose restrictions on strangers? I don't tell people they *must* sign, but I will do my best to terp for Katie if she's near and I voice if we're around oral kids or hearing people.

I consider playground time to be time off. We don't "work" at the playground. I don't follow my kid around reminding her to sign, creating language lessons out of wood chips and dandelions. I don't care if she interacts with speaking kids and would never interfere with her making friends. Basically, we're there so she can run herself ragged and hopefully go to bed on time.

You were far more polite than I would have been.

Not to mention that the claim that kids who learn sign will have a harder time learning to voice English is a lie promoted by doctors who want to scare parents into training their children to be "normal", i.e. strictly oral.

My son is Deaf and I wouldn't change a thing about him. It really annoys me how ignorant and bigoted some people can be.

 

[Mountain Man]

Next time you run into someone like that, tell her that ASL is not contagious and it's her human rights to communicate with you.

It sounds to me that his mom may be frustrated that she have to work so hard for her child to get speech. Another word, CI is not helping her son get speech as freely as she like. Anyone who feel they have to work their butt off should really change their plans. CI is suppose to help speech easier for the deaf, not harder. It is like learning how to speak without CI/HA

Truth is, children with cochlear implants require extensive therapy in order to learn how to hear and voice. Learning sign probably is easier because it's natural while learning how to hear with cochlear implants is not.

 

[jillio]

You were far more polite than I would have been.

Not to mention that the claim that kids who learn sign will have a harder time learning to voice English is a lie promoted by doctors who want to scare parents into training their children to be "normal", i.e. strictly oral.

My son is Deaf and I wouldn't change a thing about him. It really annoys me how ignorant and bigoted some people can be.

+1, Mountain Man!

 

[scwids]

This is really depressing. Putting aside for a moment how simply rude this woman was, she has also clearly gotten some really bad information. It boggles my mind that with all the research on both hearing and deaf children and L1/L2 language acquisition (Daniels, Mayberry, Yoshinaga-Itano, Marschark, Shick, etc etc etc), there are STILL people out there who call themselves "professionals" and are still spouting the same old B.S. about sign language getting in the way of learning to speak. Her misinformation not only is going to affect her son, but clearly it is affecting the way she interacts with the rest of the world. It is too bad you had the misfortune to bump into her.

Congratulations on your choices WB, and focusing on letting your child simply be a child at the playground!

 

[deafdyke]

I have noticed that there are some parents who simply want their kid's level one language to be spoken English. It's no longer " ASL is teh EVIL!" But yes, there are still a lot of hardcore parents who are anti ASL and are deathly afraid that Sign will totally inhibit their kid's abilty to speak. That is not true. The only way ASL abilty inhibits a kid's verbal abilty is if you view it as a "crutch"

 

[deafdyke]

I just thought of something VERY funny......The very same parents who are all " Oh ASL is a crutch and gotta spend ALL our time in therapy making sure wittle Smashlie can go Boo be bah correctly."are the VERY same ones who bitch and moan that there's nothing out there (camps, special services) for their kids.

 

[faire_jour]

I just thought of something VERY funny......The very same parents who are all " Oh ASL is a crutch and gotta spend ALL our time in therapy making sure wittle Smashlie can go Boo be bah correctly."are the VERY same ones who bitch and moan that there's nothing out there (camps, special services) for their kids.

This is another highlyoffensive post :roll: but I'll respond. There are lots of activities, camps and special services for the oral deaf. Who do you know that complains? They might be far away and expensive, but they sure are there. Plus, isn't the point of having English as your child's first language that they can participate in the same activites as hearing kids with few modifications?

 

[jillio]

Kids who have ASL as a first language can participate in the same activities as their hearing peers with a few modifications.

 

[faire_jour]

Kids who have ASL as a first language can participate in the same activities as their hearing peers with a few modifications.

Didn't say they couldn't. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in wanting the child to use the language of the majority so they can interact in the hearing world and then not using it.

 

[jillio]

Didn't say they couldn't. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in wanting the child to use the language of the majority so they can interact in the hearing world and then not using it.

Actually, what you said was the primary reason for English as a first language was so the child could engage in the same activities as hearing peers with some modifications.

Plus, isn't the point of having English as your child's first language that they can participate in the same activites as hearing kids with few modifications?

Just pointing out that English isn't necessary for kids to participate in the same activities with few modifications, so that is obviously not a guiding motive.

 

[Rampratt]

Same old shit. Why do audies and doctors have to keep brainwashing parents with this misinformation? And why do parents have to keep living in denial that their child is deaf, trying to make them normal?

Like Julie said, this kid is just going to grow up feeling isolated and different, no matter how well he talks and how much he can hear with implants, and when he finally discovers his own kind, shit is going to hit the fan.

And just what is "his own kind" Does he walk on four legs? two legs? have purple hair? black,white,yellow,red? Lets face it, it's all about communication. All I read on here know English pretty well and write reasonably well. That is communication of one kind. Majority use some kind of sound. minority doesn't. Strength in numbers. Most opportunity is in the numbers. If one can get themselves in the numbers = more opportunity. I have been a licensenced ham for over 40 years, we used to use CW and it used to be required. Had/has lots of advantages but now not required. It's been put way back on the back burner due to technology. Newer and better ways to communicate. They are making use of research and advancements. Some day there may not be any CI's and maybe they will be able to construct or re-construct the normal? ear/hearing. Are we going to say then, No I don't want it? I pref err to be in my own little world. I don't think so.

 

[A]

And just what is "his own kind" Does he walk on four legs? two legs? have purple hair? black,white,yellow,red? Lets face it, it's all about communication. All I read on here know English pretty well and write reasonably well. That is communication of one kind. Majority use some kind of sound. minority doesn't. Strength in numbers. Most opportunity is in the numbers. If one can get themselves in the numbers = more opportunity. I have been a licensenced ham for over 40 years, we used to use CW and it used to be required. Had/has lots of advantages but now not required. It's been put way back on the back burner due to technology. Newer and better ways to communicate. They are making use of research and advancements. Some day there may not be any CI's and maybe they will be able to construct or re-construct the normal? ear/hearing. Are we going to say then, No I don't want it? I pref err to be in my own little world. I don't think so.

That sound sad. But I wouldn't compare evolution of technologies like Ham Radio (and even CI/Hearing aids) to cultural deaf who communicate with ASL.