“Let’s get one thing out of the way: Mexican immigration is an oxymoron. Mexicans are indigenous. So, in a strange way, I’m pleased that the racist folks of Arizona have officially declared, in banning me alongside Urrea, Baca, and Castillo, that their anti-immigration laws are also anti-Indian. I’m also strangely pleased that the folks of Arizona have officially announced their fear of an educated underclass. You give those brown kids some books about brown folks and what happens? Those brown kids change the world. In the effort to vanish our books, Arizona has actually given them enormous power. Arizona has made our books sacred documents now.”—Sherman Alexie, a poet, short story writer, novelist, and filmmaker. His book “The Lone Ranger and Tonto’s Fist Fight in Heaven,” was on the banned curriculum of the Mexican American Studies Program. (via informate)
We would like to invite you to The Other Men Project: Portraits of
Transmen art exhibition Opening Reception on March 10th, 6-9pm, at The
Brew-House in Southside, Pittsburgh. This will be the second featured
solo-show for the Project, while exhibiting our largest collection to date
“What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. The johns, that’s right. We would be the johns — no! We’re not the johns. Well — yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word.”—
Rush Limbaugh, on law student Sandra Fluke, who was denied the ability to testify before the all-male panel considering contraceptive coverage.
As ThinkProgress states: “While it’s probably not even worth engaging with Limbaugh on the facts, Fluke’s testimony was about a friend who is a lesbian and needed birth control for non-sexual medical reasons, so he’s only wrong about three times over, and offensive many more times over than that.”
But then, the truth was never really the point. Thin women don’t tell their fat friends ‘You’re not fat’ because they’re confused about the dictionary definition of the word, or their eyes are broken, or they were raised on planets where size 24 is the average for women. They don’t say it because it’s the truth. They say it because fat does not mean just fat in this culture. It can also mean any or all of the following:
Just plain icky
So when they say ‘You’re not fat,’ what they really mean is ‘You’re not a dozen nasty things I associate with the word fat.’ The size of your body is not what’s in question; a tape measure or a mirror could solve that dispute. What’s in question is your goodness, your lovability, your intelligence, your kindness, your attractiveness. And your friends, not surprisingly, are inclined to believe you get high marks in all those categories. Ergo, you couldn’t possibly be fat.
Why don’t black people surf? That can be answered with another race-based generalization: Black people don’t swim. Consider the numbers: A 2010 study by US Swimming, America’s governing body of competitive swimming, found that nearly half of White children (42 percent) had low or no swimming ability. That number was topped by Hispanic American children; 58 percent of whom reported no or low swimming ability. Black children had the highest non-swimming rates at just under than 70 percent.
I suspect that the white numbers are slightly inflated based on the fact many that my Caucasian, land-lubbing friends define “swimming” as walking into a pool up to their waist, getting out, then applying more coconut oil. But that doesn’t change the fact that swimming rates among Black children are abysmal. Infinitely more worrisome is that Black children are around three times more likely to drown than White children, based on another study by US swimming, which is apparently the only organization who studies these sorts of things.
There is one problem with these studies: although the numbers are correct, the conclusion that we causally draw from them is utterly corrupt. The numbers tell us that many black people don’t swim; Our interpretation, however, is that black people are not swimmers, which is wrong. The truth is that American blacks have a long and well-documented history of loving to swim. In order to understand why African American culture does not currently enjoy a well established culture of recreational swimming, we need to delve under the stereotypes and generalizations and look at the history of exclusion that has accompanied their efforts to access the water.
Seriously. Many American Blacks are from the Caribbean. You think them nuccas don’t swim? Of course they do. But it’s EASY to get on a beach there. Here, beaches are a commodity, pools are a commodity, sold to the highest bidder…white people.
This is actually somewhat amusing to me on a personal level. My white Mother can not swim but my Black father can. As a matter of fact, most Black folks I know can swim….but I’m sure that is somehow abnormal, right?
when she was in the California State Prison - 1972
Interviewer:A year ago the black panthers were much more active. We heard much more about that type of struggle. Is the time of the black panthers past?
Angela Davis:The black panthers still exist, and the black panthers are still extremely active in the Oakland community and communities all over the country. I’m not sure whether or not you are aware of what is now happening in the black panther party and the kinds of things that the members of that party are doing now.
Interviewer:No but tell me.
Angela Davis:First of all, if you’re gonna talk about a revolutionary situation, you have to have people who are physically able to wage revolution, who are physically able to organize and physically able to do all that is done.
Interviewer:But the question is more, how do you get there? Do you get there by confrontation, violence?
Angela Davis:Oh, is that the question you were asking? Yeah see, that’s another thing. When you talk about a revolution, most people think violence, without realizing that the real content of any revolutionary thrust lies in the principles and the goals that you’re striving for, not in the way you reach them. On the other hand, because of the way this society’s organized, because of the violence that exists on the surface everywhere, you have to expect that there are going to be such explosions. You have to expect things like that as reactions. If you are a black person and live in the black community all your life and walk out on the street everyday seeing white policemen surrounding you… When I was living in Los Angeles, for instance, long before the situation in L.A ever occurred, I was constantly stopped. No, the police didn’t know who I was. But I was a black women and I had a natural and they, I suppose thought I might be “militant.” And when you live under a situation like that constantly, and then you ask me, you know, whether I approve of violence. I mean, that just doesn’t make any sense at all. Whether I approve of guns. I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. Some very, very good friends of mine were killed by bombs, bombs that were planted by racists. I remember, from the time I was very small, I remember the sounds of bombs exploding across the street. Our house shaking. I remember my father having to have guns at his disposal at all times, because of the fact that, at any moment, we might expect to be attacked. The man who was, at that time, in complete control of the city government, his name was Bull Connor, would often get on the radio and make statements like, “niggers have moved into a white neighborhood. We better expect some bloodshed tonight.” And sure enough, there would be bloodshed. After the four young girls who lived, one of them lived next door to me…I was very good friends with the sister of another one. My sister was very good friends with all three of them. My mother taught one of them in her class. My mother—in fact, when the bombing occurred, one of the mothers of one of the young girls called my mother and said, “Can you take me down to the church to pick up Carol? We heard about the bombing and I don’t have my car.” And they went down and what did they find? They found limbs and heads strewn all over the place. And then, after that, in my neighborhood, all the men organized themselves into an armed patrol. They had to take their guns and patrol our community every night because they did not want that to happen again. That’s why, when someone asks me about violence, I just, I just find it incredible. Because what it means is that the person who’s asking that question has absolutely no idea what black people have gone through, what black people have experienced in this country since the time the first black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa.
Apparently a clutch of privileged, delusional bigots have hijacked the term “transethnic,” ensuring that us Class Bastard adoptees and foster kids encounter even MORE dismissal and confusion in public discourse.
“Transethnic,” for those who don’t know, occurs in the context of adoption. For example, a white Jewish child is adopted by non Jews. Or a Saami kid by some other non-indigenous Scandinavians.
These are not transracial adoptions -because if you don’t know that PoC are effectively barred from adopting white children, then STFU already- they are transETHNIC. (Yes, I’m well aware that being Jewish for one does not always entail ethnicity.)
Transethnic can NOT be equated to transracial because of the profound protection that ever holy white privilege affords in the former, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s a prejudice-free walk in the park. No adoption is outside of fairy tales.
Before World War II officially broke out, different humanitarian organizations tried to place Jewish refugee children from Central Europe into Nordic homes. Today we can read about the rank bullshit they encountered through nationally archived correspondences: “We don’t want Jewish children. Aren’t there any Aryan children?”
Of course nowadays, transethnic adoption runs at full throttle in Scandinavia and other rich, Western regions. Sweden in particular also takes the lead in transracial adoption, importing the largest number of adoptees among all Western countries in relation to their own population.
After a pro-Nazi war history and a long tradition of race thinking, self-righteous Sweden after 1945 wanted to be the paradise for human rights, democracy and anti-racism. Another less idealistic motive worth mentioning was the sudden disappearance of adoptable Swedish children during the decade as a result of rapid economic growth and a high participation of women in the labor force, as well as the development of an advanced social welfare system. Even more important is Sweden’s self image as the world’s most democratic country, a self-image recently challenged by the sudden appearance of a vigorous National Socialist movement and racism towards non-Western immigrants including adoptees. Intercountry adoption is in Sweden nothing else but a national project to uphold the country’s self-image.
In the case of the Saami, transethnic adoption neatly accomplishes the Nordic status quo’s agenda of cultural genocide in a quiet, cheap and (more importantly) self-aggrandizing manner.
So maybe you can comprehend by now just how much it grinds my gears that some blisteringly ignorant douchebags have now co-opted “transethnic” in their selfish fucking attempt to disavow their complicity in the white supremacist global hegemony and claim that their “souls” aren’t white privileged.
It makes me sick to think about it because I’ve met a person in real life who claimed to be transethnic (though they didn’t use that label). When that person was told by multiple people that the idea was incredibly problematic and that they should re-think it— this person’s reaction was really scary. They screamed bloody murder about it until everyone had heard them because they felt like they had been SO wronged. They called us all racist… all of us POCs were being “racist” against a white person because we said that we had a problem with how they claimed to be both Black and Indigenous despite being white “in this life”. No, fuck that. FUCK THESE PEOPLE. THIS SHIT IS DANGEROUS AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. NO TIME AND SPACE FOR ANYONE WHO CLAIMS THIS SHIT.
Co-signed. Thanks a lot, you racist fucks. You just made it 10 times harder for adoptees to be heard in the critical contexts where we are already ignored, because adoption is still outrageously marketed as a progressive, enlightened endeavor, not the paternalistic for-profit BILLION dollar industry that it actually is.
If any of y’all know of any these shitheads, message me so I can block them, record their aliases, and make a list for all the world to see. X
when folks don’t get checked on their bullshit because they’re “cute” etc.
you know how a lot of us have talked about popular white feminists that just repeat errything that woc have already said - and don’t bother to cite their sources - but then get lots of props for it? well that shit happens on tumblr and in pretty much every other space imaginable. and i’m looking right at you dudes of color. i’m looking right at you. see #1.
when folks act like there aren’t fucked up dynamics in internet communities. like forreal though, some folks have never forgotten a single fucked up thing that Cecily has posted on the NA tag but seem to have a short memory when it comes to other folks that they’re cool with. Can you even imagine what Cecily would have to go through in order to redeem herself? While other folks that have said some blatantly hateful shit to other folks in their “community” are allowed to do so with essentially no consequences. see #1
But anyway, we have seen a few discussions going around lately about how non-autistic professionals tend to say autism is about impaired socialization, “theory of mind,” stereotyped repetitive behaviors, etc. While autistic people say that it’s about profound differences in cognition, perception, and communication. (And often the autistic people disagreeing with the professionals about this, are the ones who’ve been labeled as severely affected or low-functioning or thought by other people at some point in their life to be incapable of understanding what was going on around them. And no, these things are not mutually exclusive with having been labeled high-functioning, mildly affected, etc at some other point in a person’s life.)
And… one other thing we’ve noticed is this:
Autistic people who believe that autism is primarily a deficiency in social skills, “theory of mind,” etc, often tend to be more unhappy than autistic people who believe (as we do) that the most important aspects of it are profound differences in perception, cognition, and communication. To actually have a lower “quality of life,” when it comes to what they want versus what they have.
And this probably has a lot to do with the fact that they have been taught to believe that their entire life is going to consist of trying to strive after Almost Normal even though they will never quite get all the way there.
° Watson is no longer the accomplished and decorated war hero and army doctor, two aspects of the character which have always, in some way or another, coloured the way the character behaves and the decisions they make. Not only does it change the character, but it sends a message that women aren’t capable of fighting for their country.
° Related to the above, Watson has no longer been invalided home from anywhere. Again, this is not only important to the character, but sends a message that war wounds are only sexy on men and that women are too weak to go through that.
° She’s a disgraced surgeon who’s lost her license. Oh. Not only has she had the military career erased, but she’s incompetent as well? Fabulous. There are so many other reasons for her to be able to be Jonny Lee Miller’s Boswell without also taking away the one thing that does make her successful. This is completely unnecessary, and once again sends the message that women can’t cope in fields that are predominately male-dominated.
°Joan Three Continents Watson will never fly. As much as I’d love to see this aspect remain intact, I strongly doubt it will. And I think this will be the biggest disappointment of the lot.
Poor reasons to be annoyed with CBS right now:
° Watson is a woman, so all the gay will be erased. What gay, exactly? The only Holmes I can ever recall as being canonically stated as gay was from the Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, and Watson was horrified to learn this. All other adaptations where homosexuality is mentioned have been rife with ‘lol they said “gay”’ jokes.
° Watson being a woman will kill the ship. Yes, because heterosexuals are so disgusting. Oh wait…
° I prefer to look at manmeat in my porn. … I don’t want to live on this planet anymore. I can’t even begin to articulate how ridiculous this is.
TL;DR: Yes. it is fine and dandy to be upset for CBS, but a lot of people are being upset for the WAY wrong reasons.
They erased the being a war hero and being injured and everything? That is so disgusting. :/ WTF CBS.
So I’ve thought a lot about race lately and the more I do so, the more I realize that POCs almost always seem to be recognized as group members whereas whites tend to be seen as individual people.
Example: If someone sees a homeless person of color, they feel sorry for HOMELESS PEOPLE, not that homeless person. If they see a white person in the same spot, they tend to feel sorry for that particular person. If someone sees a poor person of color, they feel sorry for poor people- or poor people of color. Nobody ever seems to group and categorize white people quite the way they do people of color.
I’m not saying ‘FEEL SORRY FOR THE WHITEZ OMG THEY ARE OPPRESSED TOO’ because this extends to general perception, not just sympathy. But I find it interesting that people of color seem to get their identities from groups they belong to, as opposed to having value as individuals. It’s distressing at best and catastrophic at worst that people of color have to be grouped in order to matter.
I like what’s being said here, although I do have one minor problem, and it’s with language.
[…] people of color seem to get their identities […]
That just reads as something incredibly passive, when, to me at least, the assignment (and probably reception) of identities RE: these -isms of oppression is pretty much anything but passive.
I am very guilty of using passive language when referring to things like this as well, and it is something I am trying to be much more actively aware of.
This includes, but is not limited to discussing violence of any kind (nobody “gets” raped, we don’t “have” somebody say/do racist/sexist/ableist/etc/bigoted things at us).
“On Saturday, February 18, 2012, the Frederick Douglass Foundation of New York presented the first Spirit of Freedom award to Jada Williams, a 13-year old city of Rochester student. Miss Williams wrote an essay on her impressions of Frederick Douglass’ first autobiography the Narrative of the Life. This was part of an essay contest, but her essay was never entered. It offended her teachers so much that, after harassment from teachers and school administrators at School #3, Miss Williams was forced to leave the school.
We at the Frederick Douglass Foundation honored her because her essay actually demonstrates that she understood the autobiography, even though it might seem a bit esoteric to most 13-year olds. In her essay, she quotes part of the scene where Douglass’ slave master catches his wife teaching then slave Frederick to read. During a speech about how he would be useless as a slave if he were able to read, Mr. Auld, the slave master, castigated his wife.
Miss Williams quoted Douglass quoting Mr. Auld: “If you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there will be no keeping him. It will forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master.”
Miss Williams personalized this to her own situation. She reflected on how the “white teachers” do not have enough control of the classroom to successfully teach the minority students in Rochester. While she herself is more literate than most, due to her own perseverance and diligence, she sees the fact that so many of the other “so-called ‘unteachable’” students aren’t learning to read as a form of modern-day slavery. Their illiteracy holds them back in society.
Her call to action was then in her summary: “A grand price was paid in order for us to be where we are today; but in my mind we should be a lot further, so again I encourage the white teachers to instruct and I encourage my people to not just be a student, but become a learner.”
This offended her English teacher so much…”
Not sure what to do with this extra day?
Take advantage of it and do something good. It will only take a minute and you could make all the difference in the world.
It’s a shame that you could ever brand this kind of critical and poignant thinking in someone so young as just “ANGER”. Narrative of a Life is no easy read and the fact she could not only understand but find the relevancy of his words in her own life is AMAZING. JUST shameful to not nurture a gift like that. Institutionalized racism is alive and well. If it doesn’t make you angry on some level, you really need to ask yourself why.
I’ll wait for a moment while your ideas about what that means flood through you.
Done? Good. Now flush all of that, because I can pretty much guarantee you that you don’t know a heck of a lot more about my relationship than you did before.
I’m not going to bother to list all the truly hilarious things people have asked me about being in an open relationship. I always imagine asking the same questions of people in monogamous relationships. You’d be surprised how many of the questions aren’t about sex at all, but instead are about our relationship dynamic. All this makes me realise is that people make a heck of a lot of assumptions about the relationship dynamics of people in monogamous relationships.
And contrary to what you might be thinking, I want to talk about assumptions, not just open relationships. My situation merely provides a convenient backdrop.
Mars? Venus? Naw, we’re on Earth, thanks.
So. Assumptions. Beliefs that are not backed up by facts. Sometimes labelled “common sense”. In particular, assumptions about what men and women want in relationships.
In my last year of law school, when my beloved was here in Montreal and I was still in Edmonton, we exercised our openness a fair amount. The rules were simple:
full disclosure to potential partners that we had a significant other and that there would be no secondary relationships.
we would inform our significant partner of any liaison as soon after as possible.
Just a note here… some of “the rules” can and should be flexible. Not in exercising them, but in defining what they are along the way. For a while I decided “I don’t want to know” would be the rule for me, and then I decided otherwise. Oh, and jealousy? It’s not an if, it’s a “how you deal with it”. Anyway.
Now, going into this, my beloved and I had some assumptions about how it would go. He figured he would have a harder time finding female partners willing to accept the situation, because it removed the chance of developing a deeper relationship.
I’m queer, so I also had similar beliefs about any potential female partners, while we both believed that male partners would be thrilled with the arrangement. These were general assumptions as most assumptions are, always open to the ‘exception’ with the assumed ‘rule’ staying intact.
Are you expecting me to say that things were reversed? That women were more accepting of the arrangement than men? Ha ha wouldn’t that be funny, turning conventional wisdom on its head?
But no. Both men and women struggled with the idea.
Just because you know what you want doesn’t mean people believe you.
We encountered two approaches to the situation:
No strings attached? Awesome!
No strings attached? That makes me sad.
Despite this, the outcome was almost always “that makes me sad”.
I was really surprised, because I was the one encountering the men, who I assumed would be more into not being ‘burdened with expectations of a relationship.’ And in fact, most men took the #1 approach.
An early ‘exception’ was a friend of mine who told me that it made him sad to be with someone who was not interested in even the possibility of taking it further. I was honestly shocked. After all, everything in the media tells us that men are sick of women being so clingy and needy and focused on relationships. Isn’t that why so many girls and women put themselves forth with promises of “NSA” and just wanting “fun, nothing ‘heavy’” (relationships apparently way a lot, perhaps it is all the material possessions couples accrue together?).
I thought my friend was just a rare sensitive sort, and brushed it off as an ‘exception’. The rule still stood!
However, when other partners began calling a lot, and finding excuses to ‘bump into’ me, and in some cases started playing strange games in an attempt to make me jealous I realised…these people were not being honest with themselves. More importantly…they thought I wasn’t being honest with myself either.
I brought this up with a friend who I had grown fairly close to, but who was engaging in some strange headgames. He would reassure me that he did not want a relationship and then he would get drunk and maudlin and take it all back. Over some fine alcoholic courage, we tackled the issue head-on.
It turns out that he did not necessarily want a relationship with me, but he wanted the possibility to be there. Having that denied completely bothered him a lot and made him feel rejected. He was also convinced that I did actually want a relationship with him (not just the possibility, but the reality). He was convinced of these despite the fact that I had never given any indication of wanting this. He believed this in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary…because women want relationships. In his mind, women saying “no-strings-attached” were engaging in the relationship equivalent of pretending to like American football.
The fact that his feelings were running contrary to what men supposedly want did not seem to occur to him, or cause him to think these gendered assumptions are not very useful in the real world.
Long story short, I would have had a lot more ‘success’ lying to my partners about the situation and pretending that the possibility of a relationship existed. And because people seem to be used to being lied to about these things, they often do not believe what you actually say, using their assumptions about what you want to guide them instead.
I’m not taking relationship advice from Cosmo.
And isn’t all of that terribly convoluted? I lie to you, you lie to me, and we fumble along lying to each other (and ourselves) because we think that’s what the other person wants? Is it really more difficult to just tell someone what you want?
Well yeah it is, especially if it’s automatically assumed you’re lying just like everyone else…and if you were never taught another way.
My point here is not that all men actually want relationships. Nor that women don’t want them. My point is that people hold on to assumptions about one another based on a variety of things, and spend a lot of time ‘mind reading’ and assuming instead of just asking and telling the truth.
My parents didn’t teach me about relationships beyond, “if he hits you, leave him.”
They didn’t teach me not to lie to myself and to others to fit into expectations.
They didn’t teach me not to allow myself to feel so sad and scared instead of just admitting that I want or need certain things that don’t ‘fit’ into those expectations.
They didn’t tell me that I would feel guilty for not feeling what I believed I should feel.
What do you really want? Not sure? No wonder.
Giving yourself permission to accept that your feelings are valid is a shockingly difficult thing to do sometimes. I think people are really out of practice. We are so shaped by social expectations. That’s not to say that all our feelings are good and shouldn’t be addressed. If you’re feeling jealous of your partner because he wears a certain flattering shirt, then you need to think about what is really setting you off. Getting to that underlying…well, fear…is worth the work.
I think we spend a lot of time being afraid, actually. And I think that is why so many people are good at lying to themselves and others.
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
Being in an open relationship has had a profound impact on how I interact with people. I have always been ‘blunt’ and because of the way I deliver certain points of view, I have always been able to ‘get away’ with saying some supposedly scandalous things. Mostly because I deliver it with humour (more-so in person, I promise).
However, being in an open relationship has meant understanding my own beliefs and feelings better, and sometimes my beliefs and feelings don’t match. I may want to feel a certain way about an issue, but I cannot merely think my feelings away. Sometimes my feelings contradict my beliefs. Sometimes that is acceptable, and sometimes it is not.
But at least now, when I feel a way I don’t think I should, I know what’s going on. I don’t just jump into expectations and then beat myself up for feeling awful about it. Sometimes I’m a big feely hypocrite, and that’s okay.
Some of the advice I want to give to my children.
It takes a lot less time to tell people what you really want, and have them either accept or deny that. It is much more convoluted to convince yourself that you want something you don’t, just to fit into expectations others have of you.
And with practice, you get really, really good at just telling people the truth. After a while, they learn that you mean it.
If more people did that, ‘relationship gurus’ and self-help books would gather dust and we could all enjoy our lives more honestly.
A new Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) increased the number of people employed by between 300,000 and 2 million jobs in December. In other words, between 300,000 and 2 million people employed in December owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. This estimate, by Congress’ non-partisan economic and budget analysts, is more comprehensive than the 200,000 jobs that ARRA recipients reported in January, CBO explains.
ARRA succeeded in its primary goal of protecting the economy during the worst of the recession. The CBO report finds that ARRA’s impact on jobs peaked in the third quarter of 2010, when up to 3.6 million people owed their jobs to the Recovery Act. Since then, the Act’s job impact has gradually declined as the economy recovers and certain provisions expire. More than 90 percent of ARRA funds were spent by December, according to CBO.
While the report focuses primarily on the fourth quarter of 2011, CBO also includes new projections of the Recovery Act’s jobs impact through 2012. It projects that in the current quarter (the first quarter of 2012), there are 200,000 to 1.5 million more people employed because of ARRA.
The ARRA is a perfect example of the Keynesian multiplier in effect- when you temporarily support people who would otherwise be out of a job, it gives them time to prepare (through retraining or further education) while allowing them to continue their standard of living. This is much preferable to the mass disenfranchisement and evictions that would have followed without aid, and ensures that drugs and crime aren’t the motivators that they would otherwise be.
To those of you who have commented on this post by Kenzie:
I am Gavin’s mother. Let me preface the rest of my comment with that one statement, which trumps any of your disrespectful opinions, because he’s MY child. Having said that, Kenzie IS one of the girlfriends my son considers his, and being 6 years old, it is indeed a fun thing for him to call her his ‘girlfriend.’ It’s a fun game they play, so before you judge her for that comment…well, DON’T.
To the masses, autism is an elusive thing. As a parent, I live with it every day. I know the hardships, the ups and downs, the misconceptions and the frustrations. I also know the beauty, joy, laughter and enlightenment autism can bring to a family. For you all to immediately judge not only the parent in this video, which Kenzie got from ME off of Pinterest, but to also judge the wording of Kenzie’s blog is frankly, incredibly hypocritical. You don’t KNOW Gavin. You don’t KNOW Kenzie. And from the sound of it, you have a very narrow perception of what living with autism is. Maybe you or someone you know has autism. That doesn’t mean you know the intricate relationships of people with autism everywhere, or the way people live with autism. My son is incredibly loved. He is bright and amazing. He is my BEST FRIEND.
The parent in this video has expressed what most parents who have children with autism feel. No, our children don’t need to be ‘healed.’ We love them the way they are. But we also accept that they’ll never be the norm, and will face bullying, difficulty in school and in society because of autism. Kenzie knows that, and she has a deep and profound love for children with autism. She probably posted this video because she felt as I did when watching it - parents are told by society that they have to “fix” their child…and it’s frustrating because there’s nothing to fix. They are our children. We love them as they are. But we also want the best possible life for them, where they have no obstacles in their way. And that can be hard when they are missing class every day to go to therapy, getting behind in schoolwork and getting made fun of on the playground. Kenzie is a very important person in Gavin’s life, because she’s a constant friend. For you to judge her is very, very ignorant.
Before you read something that someone wrote from the heart, regardless of how you perceived it, try some inner reflection…you preach about acceptance of these special people, but you yourself spout judgements because she used a turn of phrase you found offensive. Do I think autism is an epidemic? Not really…do I think it’s becoming more and more diagnosed? Absolutely. And I have no doubt that’s what Kenzie meant. She loves my son. And HE loves her. That’s all that matters. How about leaving your own assumptions, opinions and condemnation out of their relationship, and let her celebrate that love in her own way? Their friendship is very special to Gavin, and that’s very special to me. So you better believe I’m gonna stick up for it when strangers attack it because THEY feel slighted. To do that is to insult my son’s taste in friends and ‘girlfriends.’ And THAT’s when the claws come out. So if you want to take up her wording with anyone, you can take it up with ME.
If you dont know me, then you may be wondering why I posted this video. I posted this video because about two years ago I met a little boy named Gavin. He has autism. If you ask him, Im one of about three or four “girlfriends” he has. I have fallen in love with him and his family. I think people need to be aware of autism because it is a growing epidemic and you will probably be in contact with people that have autism at some point in your life. Get educated!
Whew, boy. Okay, this is going to be long. I apologize in advance for that. First, like I said when I reblogged this initially, I thought that it could be something along the lines of kids playing games that they do between 3-7 years old, where an older person is their girlfriend or boyfriend. And, lo and behold, your child does indeed fit into those parameters. Not all of us are wrong there. It’s perfectly acceptable for that to have been the case, even if your child was slightly older. However, if you were to frequent the autism tag, you would have likely seen someone referred to as a “kid” at age twenty four. Do you understand the implications of that and why we are initially cautious of anyone who uses “girlfriend” in quotation marks? It’s because it can give off an air of “you’re not really enough to be my girlfriend, but I’m going to pretend that you are”. Many of us likely reacted in the way that we did because of that. Please don’t take a personal offense to that, as Kenzie did not clarify the age of your child.
Secondly, I live with autism every day. Every single person who reblogged this lives with autism every day. When Kenzie tagged her post with “autism”, it automatically placed the post into the autism tag, which many of us track on a daily basis. The reason why is that Tumblr has become a fabulous resource for those of us who are actually autistic ourselves. I judge the parent in this video — you know why? Because I’ve interacted with him on youtube and he’s a royal douchebag who says extremely ableist things about his daughter. I’m a mom, too. I am not only autistic, but I have two children on varying parts of the autism spectrum. I don’t make assumptions about the kind of people they’re going to be by looking at how they behave as toddlers, preschoolers and elementary aged children. I believe in bigger possibilities for them, where the world accepts them for who they are, where their developmental disorder isn’t compared to diseases like cancer and AIDS. You want obstacles to be removed from your child’s life? That’s a pipe dream. It’s never going to happen, because believe it or not, everyone has obstacles. Everyone has something that has the possibility of preventing them from being exactly the person that their parent wants them to be. Sometimes struggling through those obstacles, through the pain is the best way to achieve greater goals than the ones that you as a parent may set for your child.
You are making a whole lot of assumptions about us, the autism community, without ever really having read a single one of our blogs, which is clear from the way that you’re addressing people here. If you thought that the majority of us were autistic (and we are), you likely wouldn’t be calling us “special people” like you did above.
It’s great that your son has someone like Kenzie who will spend time with him. That’s a good thing. Positive role models are a good thing. What is not a good thing is that this video spreads the lies and misinformation that autism is an epidemic. It’s not.
Autism is not something to fix. Autism is not this terrible thing that needs to be eradicated from the earth. If I had the choice to take away my autism, I absolutely would not, because it would require that I learn to think in a totally different way. It would take away some of the color in my life. I’m glad that you can see that you don’t need to fix your son, but that doesn’t mean that you’re exempt from believing everything the doctors and therapists tell you. I’ve fired several therapists for certain “corrective” techniques they employed on my daughter, ones that psychologically damaged me as a child. I won’t put her through that, because I’ve learned that stimming is not wrong. I’ve learned that autistic behaviors are not necessarily negative, whether society tells us that they are or not.
Finally, none of us went to Kenzie’s blog to attack her (that I know of). We simply reblogged a post that was in a tag that we, autistic people, track. We saw problematic elements of the video, and we explained why those were problematic. I know that some of us can be harsher than others. If you had to deal with people treating you as though you were less than human on a daily basis, you might get a little angry, too. Some of us are very blunt, and while I try and temper my arguments with a little bit of kindness when I have the spoons to do so, sometimes I just don’t. Sometimes I’m angry, and justifiably so. That doesn’t make me a hypocrite. That doesn’t make me a bad person. It makes me angry. It makes me angry for being treated like I’m nothing. It makes me angry that people out there think that I shouldn’t exist. It makes me angry that I will never truly be accepted into autism parenting culture because I’m autistic rather than a non-autistic parent of an autistic child, and I’m shamed constantly for bringing children into the world that aren’t perfect, but that are just like me. It makes me angry that as a military spouse, my ability to parent comes into question solely because of my diagnosis. It makes me angry that though there are good parents out there, bullshit organizations like Autism Speaks give out false information and scare tactics to make a profit, so they can work harder on eradicating people like me.
Just a friendly word of advice? Know who you’re talking to before you make assumptions. Go to the pages of people who have reblogged this post, and find out who they are before you assume that you know anything about them. Also, refuting someone’s assumptions and arguments does not mean that we were attacking Kenzie. It means that she was wrong and made her own incorrect assumptions about what autism is, based on what I can only assume is limited experience or limited understanding.
ATTENTION ALL GIRLS AND LADIES: if you walk from home, school, office or anywhere and you are alone and you come across a little boy crying holding a piece of paper with an address on it, DO NOT TAKE HIM THERE! take him straight to the police station for this is the new 'gang' way of rape. The incident is getting worse. Warn your families. Reblog this so this mesage can get accross to everyone.
Whether you believe in mandatory deportation, regulated work permits, or earned citizenship, most agree that it is economically and civically hazardous to have approximately 12 million people living in the shadows because of their immigration status.
“So when the Irish, when Germans, when Italians were coming, and they didn’t speak the language and they didn’t know the culture, the idea was they will assimilate into Americanhood; they will become American, which in the American tradition has meant white American. But that melting pot never included people of color. Blacks, Chinese, Puerto Ricans, etcetera, could not melt into the pot. They could be used as wood to produce the fire for the pot, but they could not be used as material to be melted into the pot.”
I think it’s important to note that the first wave of Irish immigrants were treated like rodents.
I think it’s also important to note that the identity of being “American” didn’t pop out of thin air. It took a long time to develop, because they were British colonists first and then they were loyal to states which led to the Civil War.
One of the things the 18th century British empire had in common with the new American nation was that they both had principles of liberty. Britain had parliament, America had its whole thing going on… but both practiced slavery. The principles of freedom, democracy and liberty were hypocritical because they weren’t put into practice on their “subject” peoples, even as they lauded themselves for the rights they gave themselves.
This changed over time. And America had a hard time with its initially mostly-white population taking in first the huge swathes of Mexican territory after the Mexican War (with it millions of former Mexicans), then freeing the black slaves, and so on.
The problem with this quote is that it takes history out of context. America, just like most countries, figured things out as it went along and it reacted to situations as they happened, sometimes regressing and sometimes rolling with the times. There was no great initial plan to say “Let’s let everyone come here, but let’s let the coloured peoples do the crappy work.”
It just happened, with various tragedies along the way, but there was no great White Person Plan for America.
Whoa, is this real?
There was no great initial plan to say “Let’s let everyone come here, but let’s let the coloured peoples do the crappy work.” —Of course there was. People from Africa were brought (by White Europeans) across the Atlantic to the Americas specifically to labor without pay, specifically to do the “crappy work”, and their identity as enslaved workers outside of respectable society was marked specifically by their physical appearance, because they were “coloured” as you say. From the earliest years of the colonial period people were brought to the US and the rest of the Americas from Africa specifically to work. Black slavery and the life of Black communities across the continent played out in a variety of ways depending on a number of variables, but the condition of Blacks on this continent was always dependent on being the people who were initially brought here to do the “crappy work”. Indigenous peoples across the continent were also exploited for their labor, and treated quite differently from the White European colonists specifically because of their perceived racial and ethnic traits, both in Latin America and in the United States. Basically all non-Whites who have come to the continent have come here to do work, Chinese immigrants in the West Coast on the US, Irish and Italian immigrants before their communities were subsumed into the larger category of White American, South Asian indentured servants in the British colonies in the Caribbean, even now lots of non-Whites come to the US with work visas, to work, and their value to and integration with US society is predicated on what they can produce, on how educated they are and what their labor contributes to society. And poor Mexicans and Central Americans cross the border into the US to work, to “do the works Americans won’t do” as people say, to do the “crappy work”. Non-whites have always been associated with “crappy work” in the Americas since White Europeans took control over much of the continent in the colonial period. Even right now, what was the most popular cinematic representation of “coloured peoples” as you say in the US last year? The Help, a movie were a group of Black women are employed as maids, doing the “crappy work” that their white mistresses apparently can’t or won’t do despite the fact that they don’t seem to be busy doing anything else. The “coloured peoples” have always been associated with “crappy work”.
And what do you mean “let’s LET everyone come here”? Who’s saying that, who’s saying “let’s let everyone come HERE”? The indigenous people who were here the whole time? No, right? You’re creating an argument where White Americans are in power by default already, and you don’t explain how this happened, and you say they are deciding who they “let” in “their” country or not.
And America had a hard time with its initially mostly-white population taking in first the huge swathes of Mexican territory after the Mexican War (with it millions of former Mexicans), then freeing the black slaves, and so on.—You can only refer to the population of the US as “initially mostly-white” if you take an incredibly Euro-centric point of view that pretty much erases the existence and importance of indigenous people, you know, the original inhabitants of the entire American continent, including the US. White people were only the majority in very particular areas where they settled and which they took from the Native Americans that were already living there, they areas where they were the majority were created by force. This isn’t just minor growing pains as you seem to characterize it. And there weren’t “millions of former Mexicans” in the territory that was taken by the US after the Mexican-American War. And “freeing the black slaves, and so on” is just a minor blip, apparently.
It just happened, with various tragedies along the way, but there was no great White Person Plan for America. —I have to say that I don’t usually reblog and respond to people that much in this blog, where I just pretty much post random facts about Latin America or whatever, and I certainly don’t respond to people who do not address this blog directly, but this has to be one of the most incredibly crass, dismissive statements about the history of the Americas I have ever read in my entire life. And typed out so casually on tumblr! I honesly cannot believe this is real. So colonialism, Black slavery, the genocide of indigenous people, violence on the part of Whites against non-Whites in this continent and in the US in particular for hundreds of years can just be summed up casually as “various tragedies along the way”? Along the way to what? “There was no great White Person Plan for America”? Are you serious? Of course there was. I don’t even know what to say.
I have a private question for you. Is it wrong to get sick and tired of seeing everything being associated with racism and being racially motivated??
I feel like every disagreement on tumblr is blamed on race when PoC are involved, and because of this, I stay out of any conversations on racism. I’ve become even more discouraged to speak up about racism because of that post going around about white people having absolutely no say in what is or isn’t racist, and that our voice doesn’t matter.
I know and understand that I have privilege, but sometimes I feel like I’m being attacked when I’m not even involved in the discussion, because I see so much hate thrown out against white people. I also know that if I were to say anything about how it makes me feel, there would be a huge backlash of people telling me to get over it, and ‘what about the white people?’ comments.
I don’t know… .I feel bad for being overwhelmed and exhausted from seeing it all the time. Am I allowed to feel this way? Are my feelings directly associated with internalized racism? What am I suppose to do about these feelings?
I only come to you with this because I’m pretty sure you understand the intention of my question, and, I hope, you won’t judge me for asking. I really don’t like confrontation, and I know that if I publicly express these feelings, that is exactly what I will get.
A friend of mine submitted this to me this morning and asked that I not publish their name, but I’m going to answer publicly because I think this is a question that a lot of people have.
Basically, it’s a constant effort to remember that when people talk about things white people do, my immediate reaction to it has to be, instead of being defensive about it, first making sure that I’m not doing this negative thing that somebody is saying white people do. The process starts with monitoring your own behavior, no matter whether the conversation is about racism or misogyny or homophobia, etc. You have to start by paying attention to your own actions, and this goes for everybody.
As to whether it’s wrong to be tired of people who see racism everywhere? Yes. Because, for us as white people, it’s very easy to not see racism anywhere. I have no idea what it’s like to be anything other than white, but I do know that not everybody has this privilege. I think it’s a safe statement to make that racism is everywhere, or at least a facet in most aspects of everyday life for PoC. For a lot of PoC I know on Tumblr, this is a relatively safe space in which these issues can really be addressed.
The reason that it’s asserted that white people have no say as to what is/isn’t racism is that, simply put, we don’t experience it. And we love our dictionary definitions and our studies have shown, but no resource we can present are going to equal lived experience. As for speaking up on racism, as you put it, part of being an ally is being vocal about racism when you see it. You just have to understand that the terms of defending people start with understanding the ways in which people want to be defended.
In other words, if a straight LGBTQ ally was fighting homophobia by calling homophobic people fags… You can be vocal about racism, you just have to make sure you understand how to fight it based on what you can learn from people who’ve experienced it.
Yes, there’s a lot of anti-white sentiment, not just on Tumblr but in life. There are a couple of things you have to understand about this.
From most PoC’s (that I’ve encountered here) experience, the vast majority of white people they come in contact with are vehemently racist.
Whiteness is pervasive. Virtually everything we know has been arranged to be that way by white people. This conditions us to downplay racism, but defend ourselves to the bitter end if we’re accused of it.
From earlier, again, when somebody talks about all white people doing something, just check and make sure that it’s not something you do, first. Being a white person doesn’t automatically make you racist, but we both have to keep in mind that there are a lot of racist white people, and the way to start working against that is to make sure that our motivation is coming from the right place.
Being a white person does mean that you have and will have white privilege, but you can still reject whiteness. Meaning that you can make yourself think differently, from perspectives that haven’t been put into place by privilege.
Remember that people don’t say things like this to make white people feel guilty. Guilt doesn’t help anything. PoC say things like that to make white people realize that a lot of the things we do are (intentionally or not) racist, and to get us to stop doing them.
There’s sort of this odd thing that happens where white people are just terrified of being called ‘racist’, is if it’s the worst thing on Earth to admit that you may (not always consciously) do/say racist things from time to time. I do it. I just have to start by realizing that.
So yes, I’d have to say it would be racist to be sick and tired of people talking about racism, because it’s the privilege that we have that allows us to think that racism isn’t constantly affecting other people. You have to be able to understand that oppression needs, at least as a start, to be understood, and fought with understanding. And fought vocally, as a start.
Also, real talk, I’d rather be called a racist every day than experience racism every day. Hands down, easily.
The following day, I attended a workshop about preventing gender violence, facilitated by Katz. There, he posed a question to all of the men in the room: “Men, what things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?”
Not one man, including myself, could quickly answer the question. Finally, one man raised his hand and said, “Nothing.” Then Katz asked the women, “What things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?” Nearly all of the women in the room raised their hand. One by one, each woman testified:
“I don’t make eye contact with men when I walk down the street,” said one.
“I don’t put my drink down at parties,” said another.
“I use the buddy system when I go to parties.”
“I cross the street when I see a group of guys walking in my direction.”
“I use my keys as a potential weapon.”
The women went on for several minutes, until their side of the blackboard was completely filled with responses. The men’s side of the blackboard was blank. I was stunned. I had never heard a group of women say these things before. I thought about all of the women in my life — including my mother, sister and girlfriend — and realized that I had a lot to learn about gender.
There was this troll that used to come into my store, and he said to a customer as she was walking out that he thought she looked really fine in those jeans. I told him not to do that because it freaks us women out, and he was all, “What, it’s a compliment!” And I had to explain to him that, no, it isn’t, it’s objectifying and insulting, and it makes you seem like a rapist. “But I’m not a rapist.” “But we don’t know that. We have to assume you are because that is the world we live in. Any guy with any kind of boundary issue freaks us the fuck out. So don’t say shit like that.”
I’ve written before (brushed over might be a more accurate descriptor) about my interest in what I referred to as “a feminist ethics” and I have been kind of surprised about how little theory there is behind it. Sure, there are theories of feminist ethics, such as the works of philosophers like Carol Gilligan (whose work set some of the basis for the “Ethics of Care”) but in almost everything I read about feminist ethics, I am put off by two issues: 1) the staggering gender essentialism that surrounds most of the analysis and 2) how it is actually devoid of a more intersectional approach. To me, ethics are not removed from the overall social context where we exist. So, I would expect a feminist approach to ethics to take these into account.
So now, I am trying to formulate some coherent thoughts around “the moral imperative” (which is part of Kant’s categorical imperative). The reason I am doing this is because I’ve been invited to give a workshop about radical anger and political action at a festival in May here in Amsterdam (I won’t disclose details until the program of the festival comes out because I wouldn’t want to spoil it for the organizers). So, I’ve been thinking of the “moral imperative” and how, to me, it is inextricably connected to anger and how both can be the basis for political action. Of course, this is not the only topic I am scribbling about in relation to political/ feminist anger, but it’s one of my starting points. And here is what I am failing at: I can hardly find any reference materials to support my ideas. Sure these ideas cannot be original (hardly anything is original these days, after we’ve been developing politics and philosophy as areas of study for a couple thousand years). It’s just that I find it hard to believe that feminist scholars/ academics would not be interested in these topics (alas, I am not part of academia so my searches are limited to whatever is available for the general public). Yet, I would expect there would be *some* books and/ or papers published by feminists on these topics.
Because, here’s what I find troubling in my search: how can a political and philosophical movement like feminism not have developed some considerable body of work related to ethics and how ethics relate to praxis? Sure I must be looking in the wrong places, right? Or could this be the very reason why feminism, as a philosophy, keeps failing on many levels (how after so many decades, we still need to explain basic concepts like intersectional analysis and so on). Or could it be that, as a philosophy, mainstream, contemporary feminism fails many of us because it has been inextricably tied to capitalism and its constant need to situate women in “careers”, instead of providing tools to lead ethically conscious lives and enact political change?
I have questions; I am failing to find the answers.
So, here’s a basic recap of what happened right before my business class yesterday (I’m copying and pasting the text from an email I just sent my Sociology professor; following links to the Anne Spurzem fiasco, because she was interested in that, too!):
My class after Sociology is Business Mgmt/Entrepreneurship, and before class, the professor butted into a conversation I was having with the woman who sits behind me. She & I were talking about Girl Scout cookies, because I’d brought some in to eat yesterday. The woman behind me was saying how her favourite GS cookies are Samoas, and we started talking about price difference from when she & I were GS and now. I brought up that prices also vary according to region because each region has a different bakery; which also meant that some regions had different cookies or the same cookies with different names. I used Samoas as an example, bringing up how in some areas, they had to change the name of Samoas to Caramel deLites or something because the name “Samoas” could be perceived as offensive or racist. Professor jumps in, saying PFFFFFFT People are too sensitive, they get upset over EVERYTHING when it’s not racist. I tried to politely, calmly explain to her in generalities that, y’know, some groups of people have been oppressed and Othered for their entire histories, and sometimes, when- No, no nonono, she cut me off.
I can’t remember everything she said in order, but her continuous argument against me included: “they should be honoured that they’re being recognised and have a cookie named after them” (to which I tried to explain again the whole history of oppression & being Othered and how people should be allowed to celebrate themselves rather than be forced to appreciate being tokenised and reduced to a selling point by one’s oppressor, and she kept talking over me); I tried to explain that the society in which we currently live is set up for white people, & all that white privilege “nonsense”; when she asked where is White History Month and White Entertainment Television, and I told her regular tv is for white people full of white people, and 12 months out of the year is White History Month, she got REALLY huffy and kept telling me that was the most prejudiced thing she’s heard in a LONG time and that I don’t know what I’m talking about because I’m sorely mistaken and I’ve just got “a chip on my shoulder” (a phrase she used multiple times to try to silence me); she told me that the history we are given in school is not white-centric, that I don’t know what I’m talking about because Chip on Shoulder!; she brought up the ‘fact’ that America pays more for it’s poor/PoC/minorities than any other country, payments the nation is wrongfully making out of the most misguided guilt of course!, and that is why we, as a nation, are suffering right now; she brought up how she, as a little white girl in East Texas, didn’t always get some things that certain other people got simply by virtue of their non-white skin colour so Reverse Racism is a Real Thing and I need to stop talking and get a real education & actually learn about this stuff since I’m only talking from the Chip on my Shoulder so I don’t keep sounding like a uninformed racist bigot. Then she told me there are MANY MANY other places on this planet besides here; I am welcome to move any darn time I want and leave this place I apparently hate so much (because, y’know, the rest of the world doesn’t have it’s own problems). I told her I’d done that before, I’d lived in Australia for a few years, so well Why Don’t I Leave Already?- Because I don’t have money? How’d I pay for school? Someone’s helping me & financial aid… *HA, she laughs! “Case in point” laugh!* But, surprise, it’s a white guy! At that point, she talked over me with a final, “No no no no no, We’re not going to talk about this anymore until you don’t have that chip on your shoulder …”
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. For me, I don’t feel the need for CIs and I do not support the idea of implanting children under 16 years old.
Here are the reasons why:
1) It is an invasive surgery which cannot be reversed (The implanted unit can be removed, but the “invasion” and any damage it caused cannot).
2) We do not know the long term side effects of these materials being implanted
in a child so young
in that area of the body
with those materials
3) Some significant limitations on activities (scuba diving, some contact sports, sky diving, etc) (These are acceptable risks and side effects for life saving surgeries but not for the implant surgery).
4) Too much time focused on TEACHING spoken English and none or not enough on language LEARNING (which cannot be taught)
5) Implants do not make a child hearing; they don’t even make them hard of hearing. Children with implants are still Deaf (still need closed captioning, still need TTYs, still need flashing smoke alarms, still don’t fluently communicate in spoken English, etc.)
6) Extreme emotional investment by the family (“pre-implant evaluation”, etc) - - the family’s evaluation of benefit of the implant (ie: is it working? should we continue using it?) is greatly biased by the great need for the implant performance to justify all the time and work and emotional roller coaster, particularly after being told the benefits “take time” and to “be patient”
7) Serious concerns about availability of the “unsuccessful” case studies - - I have difficulty trusting the data presented from professionals in audiology and the medical profession who will not talk to me, even in private, about recipients who do not use their implant. I believe there is a great deal of personal need/desire for the implant to be “the cure.” (look at Facilitated Communication for autistic children - similar phenomenon)
8) (This one relates to CI and oral approaches) You are asked to be full time teachers and tutors in addition to being parents. You are, by design, made to feel as if you have failed (as well as your child) if your child cannot hear spoken English.
9) (most importantly) Almost unanimously, adult Deaf people are opposed to implants for children. Medical professionals MUST listen to adult Deaf people; they can never learn by studying what Deaf people know from living. No excuse is acceptable for dismissing what they have to say.
If you can make it through these two books, it will be well worth your while.Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks and The Mask of Benevolence; Disabling the Deaf Community by Harlan Lane. There are lighter, easier to read books out there, but these two books really get to the bottom line.
In the U.S., the 22 channel Nucleus implant has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use with children age 2 and above. The “rehabilitation” consists of frequent long term visits for tune ups and “auditory training” Families and older children who have the implant I know describe this as tedious and difficult.
My hope for the parents of the Deaf child is that considering an implant will discuss their Deaf child’s future with respected members of the Deaf Community in their area.