Monday, 6 March 2017

Deaf V Disability making things worse ?

Image result for deaf versus disability ?Social Media occasionally providing real debate on hearing loss.  Deafness defines ?

"You cannot hear properly that is stating fact. I agree totally, but look to the person, not the Hype. Acquired loss does not define you as cultural, it's entirely relative as to when acquired.  I'm no fan of joining a cult around deafness, nor do I need to.  I think there is great inequality of access campaigning, the whole thing looks like 'Us' versus 'Them'.

The issue is about managing your hearing loss, the fact many aren't is the negative part of it. Moot point regarding disabled people, but there again there are Deaf people pitched against them and the concept of disability, because they don't want a 'disability' label applied to them.    Medical V social 'modelling' is another rubbish and negative campaign, to the point of completely misleading awareness, sheer bias is driving that. The culture-inclined blame the disability itself as induced somehow deliberately, by  hearing people and medicos, saying they create the disabling element, by oppression, and refusing to accept their language.   

The Deaf refused to be drawn on 9m with hearing loss/deafness who are lobbying for neither, as 'HoH' or 'HI' who they oppose because those areas suggest an acceptance of hearing loss IS disabling, (aka the medical model).  Awareness suggests this is not the case with the ridiculous D this, and d still ongoing, and still frustrating access and equality.  Never was a campign more divisive than the D and d one.

Disabled feel the Deaf were divisive, often elitist in approach, and suggested they did not like disabled people, or working with them, they saw 'Deaf' themselves as negative about real equality, and took the approach of 'live and let live',  a deliberate cop-out, then went on without them. Culture versus disability has long been a battle going on, but it is all from the Deaf side, 740,000 links online to suggest Deaf are not happy with the tag.  The disabled moved forward without them and only working with them because the state, in a vain attempt to level playing field, applies funding only if deaf and disabled work together.  HoH appear to be growing increasingly angry with the Deaf stance and awareness, that ignores or dismisses their needs.

Deaf/Disabled is an uneasy alliance, you can lead a horse to water but.... HoH are hapless spectators to the main event, if they do not sign, they cannot utilise 'disability' funding, if they have partial hearing, a hearing aid, a CI, or even a voice, the welfare/support systems dismisses them of no account.  Deaf are disabled ? the state has defined that as a yes, but the relative Deaf areas do not let a simple thing like a principle prevent them applying for funds or welfare benefits to promote a culture instead with that money, and in that process often demands access HoH use is not included. Fair it is not.  Funding should be conditional via access is for all, without cultural exceptions that can exclude others.  It's unjustifiable to use culture as an excuse to deny someone else access.  The attitude looks suspect even when it isn't.

Given HoH have no leadership, community, campaigners or visual lifestyle, they are going to be completely sidelined by sign users, one suspects that already happens.  Disabled have managed to compete in own Olympics, Deaflympic contestants begging to attend theirs, this is the result of culture versus disability.  They would rather beg and suggest discrimination than join the rest of the disabled, or even demand mainstream parity.  The whole image looks like Deaf do not like disabled people or what they represent.  Disabled areas were actually the first areas to support deaf with sign language, now the state has to do it, but the cultural output is biased heavily against HoH."

No comments:

Post a Comment

No clowns, spoilers or extremes..