Direct from Quare's Website...

[eredien]

...is a picture of this terrifiying police poster in Britain.

The commentary below the poster talks about Orwell's 1984, but I was reminded of the excellent graphic novel V is for Vendetta - the art style, the strange surrealist atmosphere of parts of it, the colors, the message. Everything.

It's really sad to think that this poster is not a movie prop for either of those distopian visions.

Comments

Re: "Abomnation"

[homasse.livejournal.com]

OK, so maybe I'm a freak, but I didn't see what the big problem was, here. both of them were deaf. If one of them had been a man and they'd had a child biologically together, the child would have been deaf. Plus, they see it as a cultural identity and do not see it necessarily as a handicap. You say they are "inflicting" this on their child, and yet, like I said--the child would have been deaf if one of them was a man and they biologically had a child. Are you saying that deaf parents who willingly have deaf children are doing the same thing? Because you're really close to that, if you think about it.

And why should deaf people say that being deaf isn't a disability? Yeah, maybe it is, but deafness is profoundly different from other disabilities in that it creates a different kind of culture. It has it's own language. When you create a language, you create and culture, and you identify yourself within that culture. These two people live in a deaf world. They live in a deaf society. We consider it a disability, but then, 50 years ago, would you have wanted to be a Black man living in the South? Black skin was in a lot of ways just as disabling once upon a time, after all.

Re: "Abomnation"

[eredien]

I think this: black skin was a handicap, yes. But those people in the South did not choose it. The two deaf women have a perfect right (and indeed ought to) introduce their child to deaf culture. It's rich and beautiful and has its own language. I wish I knew more about it and plan on doing research. But they chose that lifestyle for their child without his consent.

If it had been a deaf man and deaf woman together the liklihood that their child would have been deaf would probably be very high, yes. But there is also a slight possiblity that the child would have been almost-hearing, or hearing. And therefore the lifestyle choice would not have been sure entirely.

Every disablity creates its own culture with its own subsets of language or language itself (Braile, for example), not just deafness. That's just one of the most visible cultures.

Honestly (and I hate to say this, because I think it may be misinterpreted, but it's really what I believe) anyone who has a disability such as deafness or blindness or even severe mental illness who believes that they don't really have a disabilty is deluding themselves.
Now, I'm not saying that in some ways their life might not be better for the disability. I've come to some of the best realizations about myself and others around me in some of my own most depressed moments and believe that disabilities might be there for a variety of reasons, the best of which can be to help people discover just how amazing they themselves are and can be.

But also, I can't help but think that at least once those women must have wondered what hearing, really hearing, might be like. And at some points wondered what they were missing out on. And at some points, for maybe just a flash of time, may have become deeply jealous of hearing people, despite all the benefits of a truly rich cultural life and the moments of realization and uplifted-ness that they may have had.

And wanted to hear.

And I don't understand and don't know why they at least wouldn't give their child the chance at that opportunity.