Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Biomedical Research and deafness

by In Wales Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 06:02:06 AM EST

I attended a meeting yesterday where a presentation was given on the latest research to cure deafness. This is a topic that is obviously very hard for me to be objective about but I immediately have two problems with the way this is framed;
first, it is misleading - all types of deafness can't be 'cured' and secondly, it presents deafness as something that is undesirable, 'diseased' and needing rid of.


Being realistic, I've benefited from biomedical research into deafness.  Genetic research identified the cause of my inherited deafness, which isn't just of vague interest or useful at gatherings to waffle about chromosome 8 and how it controls the development of the ears and the kidneys, but it gave me some sort of prognosis.  It meant that from 14 years old I was able to grow used to the fact that my hearing was likely to deteriorate significantly (it has) and that I may end up needing a kidney transplant (so far no problems).

Also being realistic, the more we know about how to prevent hearing loss and tinnitus, the more we can do to prevent deafness caused by noise damage and age.  I have less of an issue with that, because people who acquire hearing loss with age often find it very hard to adapt to, and become extremely isolated and depressed.  It damages quality of life.

Stats tell us one in seven people have hearing loss and this can be as high as 1 in 2 over the age of 60.  Given the prevalence, it is true that biomedical research in this area is seriously underfunded.

Unfortunately to seek funding, the 'market value' and moneyspinning ability needs to be sold to the big pharmaceutical companies who have the cash to fund the research.  In one sense, this needs to be done in order to gain a position in the scrum for research funding, but it also leads ultimately to the exploitation of vulnerable people who are struggling with hearing loss and willing to pay stupid sums of money for what is being sold as a 'cure'.  Many NHS audiology clinics are semi-privatised but frequently people go to wholly private hearing aid providers.  Until recently they've been regulated by the Hearing Aid Council but:

The Hearing Aid Council

The Hearing Aid Council is no longer the regulator of the private hearing aid market. The Hearing Aid Council was abolished on 31 July 2010. The register of hearing aid dispensers is now held by the Health Professions Council.

The Health Professions Council is not dedicated to regulating hearing aid providers and given the great raft of cuts coming through there will be much higher priority issues on their agenda.  Leading to further exploitation of vulnerable people who are isolated, depressed, not receiving the level of rehabilitation they need through the NHS and living with a condition that is heavily stigmatised...

House of Commons - Health - Written Evidence

The announcement by the Government of its intention to abolish the Hearing Aid Council and the acceptance by Ministers of the need for statutory regulation of clinical physiologists are an opportunity to ensure that all hearing aid audiologists are regulated on a statutory and single basis. Without such change, any re-structuring or re-balancing of the education and training of hearing aid audiologists practicing in the private sector, or any move to increase the provision of audiology services through the private sector (either as private healthcare or NHS care delivered by private providers) will create significant regulatory risk to hearing aid users.

The HAC report on their website outlines how they believe the merger of their functions with other public bodies represents a successful move towards efficiency savings that will also bring about higher quality of service.  We'll see.

When we talk about curing deafness, we are working from the medical model of disability -  the individual has an impairment and we must seek to fix this problem and make them normal again.  Make them fit in with the rest of society.

Deafness continues to be framed as abnormal, diseased, unwanted - a horrible tragic condition afflicting people's lives.  People who become deafened can only see themselves within this framing, because everything they come into contact with will be talking about cures and promising a world of happiness and hearing.

The social model of disability seeks solutions that create a more accessible society.  But for obvious reasons, the money from big pharma goes into medical research that ultimately aims to fix the 'problem' of the damaged individual.  

There are some interesting developments that have identified ways that the hair cells in the cochlear, or neural cells in the auditory nerves become damaged and can potentially be regenerated.

But this whole raft of research and commentary ignores a whole section of society who have been born deaf, and are happy with that as part of their cultural and personal identity.  The fact that deaf children are 30% more likely to underachieve in school isn't because they are deaf but because they aren't being taught accessibly.  The fact that underemployment is a huge issue for deaf people is again due to poor attitudes, discrimination and lack of accessibility.

But nobody wants to pour millions into creating a more inclusive, fairer society - which ultimately would do far more good for far more people. More money into supporting people to develop the life skills they need to adapt to hearing loss is desperately needed.  Deafness instead is stigmatised and framed as problem and money is poured into eradicating it. Like cancer. For me to agree with that kind of framing would be to invalidate my entire existence and all the contributions I've made to society during my life.

Display:
It has been a long time since I added to the Being Deaf series, so for anyone who has missed those - I'm fine with being Deaf, I don't need fixing or curing and my different perspective on the world that results from being Deaf is one of my strengths.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 06:09:41 AM EST
Well.

You're talking about very basic assumptions being different, as I'm quite sure you know.

It seems to me obvious that we should fix what broken subsystems we can and fully accommodate people who have damage we can't fix. I suspect this may be less than obvious to you.

I'm terribly suspicious of the whole idea of "Deaf culture", in the same way I've very suspicious of "Irish culture" or "Gay culture" or "Black culture" or "Short and Fat culture". It worries me.

But we've had this discussion before. I don't know if you want to revisit it.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 06:16:49 AM EST
I don't have an issue with seeking a variety of solutions and giving people choices. I have an issue with the framing that all deaf people need fixing and in doing so, not addressing the fact that wider society needs to be much more accessible and inclusive, for anyone who is different from the constructed norm.

Deaf culture/community is a real thing, especially so because it is united by it's own language.  When any group is persecuted historically in the way that Deaf people have been, it is of no surprise that they seek to stick with their own in the face of continued marginalisation.

I may not be a part of the Deaf Community per se, but I am Deaf, it isn't just some physical impairment in my eyes.  My deafness is part of the construction of 'me'. It influences my self-identity in a positive way.

Was this phrasing deliberate?
Colman:

fully accommodate people who have damage we can't fix

Exactly how am I 'damaged'?  It is exactly the construction of me that I am fighting against.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 06:37:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your hearing system doesn't work right.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 07:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No - it works differently.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 07:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As in "not at all well"?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Only from your point of view - which is what InWales is arguing against -AIUI

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So I have adapted to that.  It has given me another perspective and other strengths that many other people probably don't have. I don't consider it to be a problem. I can't hear properly but I live with it. I'm a functioning, productive, well-adjusted member of society. I'm not in chronic pain, I'm not physically/bodily restricted by lack of hearing, I'm not dying from it.

I consider other people's shitty attitudes towards me to be a problem, along with poor deaf awareness, low level of provision and lack of accessibility for deaf people.  The restrictions on me and the way I live my life are largely due to outside influences, setting limits on what I can do.  

This is in constrast to a number of other disabilities where people are severely restricted by their own body, and/or live in chronic pain. The solutions are perhaps more complex.  The social model falls down in these cases because for all the barriers there are in society, there are still some barriers from the body itself that perhaps sometimes can't be overcome.  

That said, my argument is not to dismiss other disabled people as being beyond help, or as not being equally well functioning, productive members of society (when given access), but to try to point out that there are differences with deafness compared to many other disabilities.  For example, although I'd accept some level of disability 'community' exists I'd not really accept that there is a disability 'culture'.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 07:45:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm. I'm not happy with the way I've phrased disability generally.  I subscribe to the social model ie wider society needs to change to become accessible to disabled people, both on a physical level and on an attitudinal level.

My point about the physical nature of some disabilities is really to draw comparison to deafness, as a sensory loss.  I can understand some disabled people rejecting disability as part of their identity because it is hard to be positive about living in pain for example.  If there was a cure for the pain I would imagine most people would want that, and that is understandable.

But it is wrong to assume the same would be true for all d/Deaf people.  Probably most people with acquired hearing loss would want a 'cure' because they grew up as hearing people and learned to live in the world with hearing. But for people like me who were born deaf and are adapted to living in the world as deaf people, why should we be forced to change just because wider society constructs us and our deafness as a problem?

The point remains across all disabilities, we are all people.  We are all valid as we are. Where we can't or choose not to change, we shouldn't be marginalised. We should be able to be proud of our identities and view our disabilities in a positive way, and encourage good self-esteem, without being told we are wrong for doing so or that we should aspire to 'normality'.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:05:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But for people like me who were born deaf and are adapted to living in the world as deaf people, why should we be forced to change just because wider society constructs us and our deafness as a problem?

But it is a problem: it requires resources to accommodate disabilities. It's not free.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:28:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It costs more to not provide access because then people don't gain a decent level of education and can't access employment. So they are trapped without access to the same opportunities as everyone else.  We can't tell disabled people to be productive when they aren't given access.

Let's say ok fine.  Go back to the days where all disabled people are institutionalised from childhood. Forget human rights, just get them out of sight at minimal cost.

What happens then when people who acquire a disability but could still carry on working, being productive and contributing to society with adjustments, then find themselves with all the options removed from them because society isn't accessible and doesn't accept that there is a place for disabled people?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do our best for people we can't fix.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can choose how you construct people.  If you choose to construct people as a problem, you marginalise and devalue them, regardless of whether or not it is their fault or choice that they can't be 'fixed'.

So we can't fix everyone... why not accept people as they are from the very beginning and give them all the range of choices and independence to live their life how they wish?

Patronising and dismissing people who are disabled isn't a good way forward for anyone.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's a difference between constructing people as a problem and constructing them as people who have problems.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:16:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Except largely, people are constructed as being the problem.  The framing needs to change.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another angle that occurs to me: you accuse the medical establishment of exploiting people looking for a cure. It worries me that you can symmetrically say that the Deaf Advocacy Community - what would you call that? - has a vested interest in not curing deafness and in increased funding for their activities.

Not to mention that if you have built your identity about Deafness then curing deafness is a direct threat to that and will be strongly resisted.

Are people who lose their hearing late in life deaf or Deaf?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:43:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The medical establishment is exploitative because they construct deaf people as a market (ditto any other condition that 'requires' medical intervention).  They aim to make as much money out of them as possible regardless of whether it is in the best interests on those individuals. There is a whole hearing aid industry which poses a problem if not properly regulated.  People spend a lot of money on crap hearing aids and have no follow up support.  That is a problem.

Now I don't agree with all aspects of the Deaf Community or all that they argue for.  Of course it is in their interests to protect their culture and language, but they can become very exclusive and unconstructive in doing so.  That is an issue, because it doesn't provide people in the Deaf community or outside of it the option to choose how they wish to place themselves. Deaf people who choose implants can be ostracised by other Deaf people, even though they are not to all intents and purposes 'hearing' people now.  Ditto those who lose hearing later in life may not be welcomed into the Deaf community and see not choice other than to accept medical intervention.

But the Deaf Community is so exclusive because of the level of marginalisation they experience.  This arises because of the negative construction of deafness and the medical emphasis on curing people who are deaf who deafened.  Why does deafness need to be constructed so negatively?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why does deafness need to be constructed so negatively?

Because d/Deaf people are different.  The so-called "pink baboon" syndrome.

They might spread d/Deaf cooties to the rest of the pack.  Not unjustified for genetically based condition.

In the wider context, not being able to hear was mal-adaptive during most of human existence thus there were physical and societal pressures against those who exhibited the behavior.  This can be seen in all human societies suggesting there might be a genetic or Neuro-Psychological component to the negative construction.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:49:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But the Deaf Community is so exclusive because of the level of marginalisation they experience.

Isn't that exactly the same as is said about gypsy integration?

All deviants form communities and, being human, they have as much of a tendency to play the us-vs-them game as the wider society. In fact, as a small group it may be adaptive for them to close up.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 02:12:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is the same with any community.  If you are trying to play devil's advocate by using words like deviant please make it clearer, otherwise you are being offensive.

Deaf people just do not have enough access to society full stop.  It isn't because people perceive them as a group badly in the way that gypsies and some other groups are perceived, but because they don't care enough about how marginalised they are because they think it would cost too much and it would be too complex to implement measures that do provide full access.  

So the alternative and the dominant approach is to 'fix' deaf people. Which isn't effective because even making the best of technology that is available, it won't turn them into hearing people, they will largely still have access requirements.

Those deaf people who can't be 'fixed' or grow up in an environment where BSL is the main language see nothing but a constant attack and lack of regard for BSL. In these cases where people are not literate in the English language, it isn't even a question of whether they choose to play us vs them, they have no fucking access to society! What kind of a message about integration is that?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 03:45:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Wales:
If you are trying to play devil's advocate by using words like deviant please make it clearer, otherwise you are being offensive.
I'm a deviant. Sue me.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 03:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It saves keystrokes to say 'deviant' as opposed 'those who deviate from the norm'. Though maybe I should have cleared my comments with you off-board so we could have a scripted devil's advocate debate?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 03:59:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You could have made it clearer by putting in 'deviant' rather than deviant.  
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 04:26:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think the vocabulary is the issue here.

If I lose my hearing tomorrow but the Deaf community is going to tell me that I'm Not Really Deaf Enough to count because it happened late in life, that may not be a good way to be persuasive.

It becomes very difficult to argue that marginalisation and exclusion are bad things if your community does them to others that it decides don't fit in.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 05:34:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
It becomes very difficult to argue that marginalisation and exclusion are bad things if your community does them to others that it decides don't fit in.

Yes, I know. But to understand why communities exclude helps to understand how to navigate that and seek a solution towards integrating them. You know full well that I personally have been on the receiving end of that shit that has excluded me from the Deaf community in the past.  It is a minority of people within those communities that are exclusive, plenty of people want to be constructive, but it is hard to do that without access that can take them outside of their community.

In case I haven't made myself clear in the diary, I don't disagree with biomedical research itself, I disagree with how deafness is framed and with how the research is presented as a 'cure' for some horrible affliction.  I have every right to object to messages that tell me that I am not good enough as I am and that I need fixing.

I have every right to criticise a society that has devalued and denied access to one of it's indigenous languages, resulting in the exclusion of a significant minority of people. Wales didn't tolerate it, why should Deaf people?  Promotion of Welsh language has opened up Wales and the language to more people, not made it more exclusive.  Embracing BSL more widely could do the same and support access for d/Deaf people at the same time.  I wasn't given that choice as a child, I'm not the one suppressing diversity.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 12:15:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Give me a single word different from 'deviant' which encompasses:

gay people
transexuals
ethnic minorities
the deaf
the disabled
nerds/geeks
cynics
college professors
religious nuts
metalheads
urban tribes/subcultures
dirty fucking hippies


By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 04:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You know, it's sort of interesting you latched onto the negative meaning of 'deviant', because it's not the first thing that leapt into my head.

'Deviant' is only an insult because deviance is considered a threat to mainstream society. ET is a haven for deviants.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 07:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and Defiants.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 07:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Self-styled.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 09:11:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 09:54:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And dewy ants!
by njh on Mon Oct 11th, 2010 at 07:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
'Deviant' is often used in a negative way to describe people who don't fit in, and it wasn't entirely clear to me how the word was being used.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 12:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's pretend you could be "fixed" (and let's ignore the connotations for the moment) at a low cost and choose not to be.

Why does society have to change to support your chosen disability? Why does everyone else have to spend resources supporting that choice?  

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:26:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why can't society see the benefits of diversity?  Is it beyond comprehension that I have other skills to offer that I have developed because I am deaf?

Let's say the doctors could give me hearing tomorrow but would I be able to use it?  I don't know how to process audio in the way that you do, so I'd have all this noise and no instruction manual to understand it with.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why can't society see the benefits of diversity?  Is it beyond comprehension that I have other skills to offer that I have developed because I am deaf?

Such as? Or more generally than that and to depersonalise it, what are the skills and benefits that deaf people bring to society and are they sufficient to justify the costs?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My human rights don't matter here?

Anyway, my argument is that there will always be deaf people.  There is no absolute cure for deafness, nor will there ever people without willfully eradicating deaf people.

People who are deaf or become deaf cannot make a full contribution to society without having decent level of access, therefore it is costly to society to not provide support.  

Are you less of a man because your wife goes out to work and you play a bigger role in childcare than many other men do?  Shouldn't you both accept your place in the constructed norm of male breadwinner and mother/housewife in the home?

Do you not have skills you've built, that you can pass onto others and to C as a result of living in a slightly different set up to some other families?

I have a different set of skills that others can learn from. How I have developed as a person has been influenced by my deafness.

In finding a place for people who are different to us and connecting with them, we grow as people, as communities.  It strengthens how we work together when we stop trying to force people to conform.  We build stronger, diverse and more tolerant societies (in theory) we create benefits for all in those societies.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:45:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My human rights don't matter here?

Which rights in particular are we balancing here?

Are you less of a man because your wife goes out to work and you play a bigger role in childcare than many other men do?

Oh yes, definitely. Luckily, I practice several martial arts to compensate and increase my testosterone level to something near normal.  I honestly have no idea to what extent I am joking here.

For a start I'd have to work out what being "less of a man" meant. That's another rabbit hole.

Do you not have skills you've built, that you can pass onto others and to C as a result of living in a slightly different set up to some other families?

I have different skills, maybe. That doesn't make them better.

In finding a place for people who are different to us and connecting with them, we grow as people, as communities.  It strengthens how we work together when we stop trying to force people to conform.  We build stronger, diverse and more tolerant societies (in theory) we create benefits for all in those societies.

Is that a conclusion based on evidence or a set of assumptions? Or it is simply a justification for the costs of supporting the disabled?  If it's a conclusion, then we can point at the benefits to society - if only a net increase in productivity in extracting productive work from the disabled. If it's an assumption it needs testing against reality.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:07:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Does me having good access to society infringe on your rights in any way?

Colman:

I have different skills, maybe. That doesn't make them better.

Did I claim that my skills are better? No, just different and of potential use to me and to others.

Colman:

Is that a conclusion based on evidence or a set of assumptions?

Maybe it is my vision of Utopia.  But how can marginalising sections of society be good for society as a whole?

Colman:

the disabled

How offensive.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So "disabled people" is ok, "the disabled" isn't?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:20:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Under the social model people who have an impairment are disabled by barriers in society.  Therefore they are people who have been disabled, therefore disabled people.

A few years ago "people with disabilities" was the appropriate term before the movement subscribed to the social model, and then in came disabled people.

Such a nuance is only really understandable to people who have a good grasp of different models of disability.  Bewildering for everyone else probably.

I personally really dislike the term 'impairment' because it brings a negative association with it, even in the context of the social model. But I have to live with it.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But how can marginalising sections of society be good for society as a whole?

We've built a lot of very strong - if not very nice - societies on exactly that basis. It's the whole basis of nationalism, for a start.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:26:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What kind of society do we aspire to have though?

Isn't this why people form their ideologies and political allegiances?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:32:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is only natural for the nonconformant to aspire to have a society not based on conformity.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:38:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But given that we are all different, what does an emphasis on conformity do for most people?

The issue is who has risen to power and dominance and how do they keep hold of that power?  Allowing minorities to flourish isn't in their interests.  Does that mean they are right and shouldn't be challenged?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:52:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But given that we are all different, what does an emphasis on conformity do for most people?

Makes the criteria for accumulation of status easy to work out? Reduces uncertainty? It's an interesting question.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It provides a framework by which we construct ourselves and others.  Creating 'us' and 'them'. In groups and out groups based on characteristics that we do share.

I'm challenging the way that others have constructed me and other d/Deaf people.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:02:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Right, I think you and I just said roughly the same thing in different dialects.

Here's the question: is the cost of that framework to individuals higher than the benefit to the group? So people have to hide sexual, religious or other deviances from the norm or loose their place in the framework. Is that just the price we pay for the reduction in uncertainty? Is it too much to pay?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:10:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not all groups have equal power.  Those who fall outside of the defined norm are margialised as a result, sometimes very severely.  

Depending on your personal values and ideologies, this is acceptable or it isn't.  Groups can accept the status quo or challenge it.  Over time norms have shifted so things can change (although not easily), but those who dominate have more power and influence things in their favour.  Those who could challenge may not if they don't have the resources or perhaps their challenges aren't enough to rock the system.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:27:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You asked what it did for most people.

Most people don't care that out-groups pay the price. If there's status to be gained by doing so, they'll pretend they do in the same way they'll pretend to be straight or pretend not to want to blow off the whole thing and move to a yurt in the Italian mountains.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:32:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are those who currently dominate in society actually a majority?  You've said it yourself often enough, most men don't make it to the top.

So one powerful minority gets to marginalise lots of other minorities because however it all came about, their group was constructed as the desirable norm or the group to aspire to and the structure around them continues to support their top slot position.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Most people don't want to be at the top (same as dogs or horses, some horses will freak out if you try to get them to lead a group). They're happy so long as they're a member of a strong social group, happier if they're a member of the strongest social group. Not all pack animals have the same drive to get to the top.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are we to understand that humans = pack animals?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:44:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As in animals that live in a pack. I mean social animals, of course.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Zoon Politikon, said Aristotle: the animal that forms polities...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 02:05:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are we to understand that humans = pack animals?

Yes.

To make it even "better," we're bipedal, forward vision, intelligent, pack hunters which establishes a strong tendency to disparage, shun, ostracize, and even kill members of the pack who aren't up to the expectations and/or requirements of the pack.  Countering this is a tendency to protect pack members who aren't up to snuff.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<citation needed>

Really.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It will take me some time to find the cites so you'll have to be patient.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 12:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think you know my meaning is that the science you are claiming there is to a considerable extent speculative.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 12:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I figured I was being asked for cites.  (I'm very literal minded.)  If you're willing to let the cites go I'm willing to not spend a day rousting 'em up.  


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That doesn't mean that if presented with alternatives they wouldn't choose a different structure or society to be a part of.  I'd rather be part of a society that values diversity and provides equality of opportunity for all.  I don't want to be part of David Cameron's Big Society for example.  I want to challenge conservative constructions of marginalised groups.  I want things to change so I don't have to justify my place in society all the time.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:44:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That doesn't mean that if presented with alternatives they wouldn't choose a different structure or society to be a part of.

The optimism of youth. </patronising>

I'm not sure they would. I very much fear they wouldn't.

I want things to change so I don't have to justify my place in society all the time.

Then why are you talking about costs and benefits as if this was an economic - in a very broad sense - argument?

If it's a moral argument, that's a different thing.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:59:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because the costs and benefits argument is the way we have to present any bids for funding to provide local services such as lipreading classes, BSL groups, to fund Deaf clubs or youth work for deaf children, befriending schemes for deafened older people...

We never win with the moral argument alone or there would be a BSL Act for the UK.  The moral argument for recognising Cornish as an official language of the UK is thin, let alone for ratifying it under the EU Charter for minority or regional languages. But it is protected.  It is easy to accept the moral argument if it isn't going to cost anything much in economic terms.  People who speak Cornish don't find themselves without access to wider society as a result.

People who use BSL as their first language and are not fluent in english have almost no fucking chance of access to a proper education and meaningful employment.  Pretty strong moral argument there yet there is nothing in UK statute to protect BSL and nor was it ratified under the EU Charter. It would be far more expensive to implement protection and promotion of BSL and to provide full access to people who use it as their first language.  Moral argument, whatever. Economic argument, forget it.

To me that says, who gives a fuck?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:10:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to use economic arguments for anything, because our society has lost its bearings.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 02:04:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I want things to change so I don't have to justify my place in society all the time.

But everyone has to justify their place in society all the time. And saying "look, I'm just like everyone else [so I have no less rights and no more obligations]" is the easiest way to do so.

And that's exactly what you're doing here, you're saying "look, I may be d/Deaf but I'm just like anybody else, I want the rights that flow from that". And sometimes you have to compound the argument with "we're all the same in that we're all different". That will make most heads explode.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 02:02:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We aren't homogenous, we are different but we all have (in theory) the same basic human rights.  For some groups those rights are not being upheld.  Deaf BSL users are one such group.  The Romas in France right now are another.

I know the argument that to treat people fairly you can't go treating them the same is on the surface an illogical one for most people to grasp but it isn't hard to explain.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 03:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Wales:
we all have (in theory) the same basic human rights
That's been, historically, a hard concept to establish in general, and it has evolved with time in the details.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 03:56:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes but we are now all covered by UN conventions, EU charters and domestic legislation which states what those human rights now are.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 04:28:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I remind you the Human Rights Act is a favourite pet peeve of the British tabloids. How much popular support is there, really, for human rights legislation?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 05:12:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Human rights legislation is very poorly understood and frequently, deliberately misrepresented in the media.  So, no there won't be much popular support for the HRA when people think it only exists to give paedophiles special rights in prison.  

The Equality and Human Righst Commission has done a lot of work recently to try to raise public awareness of what the Human Rights Act means for them.  When they may not be protected under anti-discrimination legislation, they do still have legal recourse under the HRA.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 12:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think in fact you're suppressing diversity by presenting your own construction as if it's the only valid one.

If you showed a hundred random d/Deaf people this thread, would all of them agree with you?

What percentage would need to disagree with you to make your construction inapplicable?

It's a political problem that in- and out-groups exist, but it seems a Left-wing problem to try to fix their definitions into brightly coloured blocks, and then use those blocks as a very sticky lever for progressive policy (as opposed to punching them for fun, which is what the Right does).

I suspect it's very inefficient to try to legislate relationships in a top-down way, especially when the critical issue isn't a set of specific group relationships, but the implicit values that direct them.

Tangentially, we have obvious definitions of physical disability but we seem to be lacking - and don't even have a word for - the kinds of disabilities in empathy and relationship that cause most, or even all of the problems we're seeing at the moment.

It's hopeful that personal identity has developed to the point where it's possible for at least some people to be aware of that. But disappointing that collective relationships haven't.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ThatBritGuy:
think in fact you're suppressing diversity by presenting your own construction as if it's the only valid one.

I'm presenting my construction as a challenge to the one that dominates around deafness. Of course not all d/Deaf people will agree with me. In other comments I've noted that different d/Deaf and deafened/hard of hearing people may have different views.

I've also stated clearly that people should have choices.  Those choices are constrained when the only view of deafness they see is a negative one based on ramming the medical model down their throats.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:16:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Look at it this way: assume that social status matters immensely to most people. It's a lot easier to accumulate status if you have a clear template to work to than it is if there's no clear guide as to what you need to do.

Got to school, go to college, get a job, get married, buy a house, get two cars, have kids, go on holiday every year, send the kids to school and college, retire, try not to cause trouble: status will follow.  Simple.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suspect that it mostly serves as a cheap but effective method of social control. It reinforces the idea that "whatever is is right".

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:09:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Serves who?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:10:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who ever happens to be in the leadership position, regardless of merit or situation.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:13:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sven needs to chime in here with a discussion of "self-organisation".

Systems like society don't work that way.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They don't? On a tellurian scale they always do.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:45:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What, dictated and controlled from the top?

Or self-organised?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:47:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't both arise spontaneously?

Unless you believe in god, satan or Rupert Murdoch, all societies create themselves, one way or another.

I doubt there's any big genetic difference between Europeans and ancient Romans. But Europeans have a democracy, of a sort, while Romans mostly picked their emperors by assassination and getting armies to slug it out when there was a disturbing lack of clarity.

The difference isn't in the people, it's in how the people have been socialised.

But somehow Europe still got from one to the other in less than a hundred generations, without anyone external doing the smitey god thing.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 11:09:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I recall that there was an effort in academic anthropology in the middle of the last century to survey all known cultures to attempt to find common themes and organizing principles. It resulted in a giant table of cultures vs. various traits. As I recall the conclusions were that most abstractions were not very defensible, that this was not a fruitful line of inquiry and attempts at broad conclusions were often more revelatory of the biases of the investigator than of any laws of societies. Montesquieu was able to broadly categorize various societies, but trying to determine what is and what is not possible as a culture has proved futile. Who ever would have predicted a dynasty of eunuchs such as the Mamelukes?

And we do have long running counter examples of democratic societies in antiquity. While the "golden age" of Athens was brief, local governance via direct democratic means continued well into the Roman period. One thing is certain: if we all assume that hierarchical, authoritarian government is "natural" that is what we will continue to have, however artfully we disguise it.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 12:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ARGeezer:
a dynasty of eunuchs such as the Mamelukes

Nitpicking: as far as I know, Mamelukes were slave soldiers, but not eunuchs (although someof them might have been). In fact many of them had children.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 07:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Neither the Egypt nor the Delphi mamluk dynasty seems to have been eunuchs as a rule. However, in the egyptian variety mamluk children did not become mamluk and could thus not gain power.

Though slave rulers is pretty unlikely in itself.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 09:47:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mamluk children didn't become Mamluks. However, several Mamluk sultans, like Barquq and Qaitbay were succeeded by their sons.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 10:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Alas, my information on this was second hand from someone who was taking a history of the middle east course. The professor was a specialist in Egyptian and Turkish history who, IIRCC, was fluent in Turkish, Coptic and Arabic. Then it is possible I mistook the story of isolated instances for a more general case.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 10:45:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Wales:
what does an emphasis on conformity do for most people?

excellent, important (general) question.

generally, i would say that the answer is because people aren't taught very well how to use their cognitive faculties early enough, and it seems more trouble than it's worth to develop one's own uniqueness, especially with the trend for groupthink fashion, easy superficial bonding around shallow identity symbols.

i suspect your different auditory situation has forced you to adapt in ways most don't have to work so hard to. this has taught you the pride of being an independent, 'out-the-box' originator of your own identity, and now you want the same pride for others who are different from the norm.

on a utilitarian scale, it's all about streamlining processes, 'curing' the deaf is facilely seen as the shortest route to homogeny, sand off anything that protrudes as anomalic.

of course the very catalyst that levered you out of the ordinary is going to have a very personal, even precious meaning to you, something very difficult to explain or justify, a bit like a cripple being so grateful for his crutch, that even after he learns to walk again, doesn't toss it away, but rather props it in a position of grateful respect on the mantelpiece.

without that, he feels, he would have had less freedom, he would have been overwhelmingly stuck in stagnation mode.

it's totally different i know, but i have something as strange in my life, and i don't think i could explain it well enough to bother, as even those closest to me probably would see it as ridiculously irrational, even possibly self-damaging, but it's how i'm built, and even though i see the logical advantages to not being this way, and see clearly how to others it seems possibly self-indulgent, or plain stupid!

eventually i may move to a better arrangement, indeed i hope to, yet there is a powerful ambivalence that disturbs my equilibrium even to contemplate, so i chalk it up to not being ready perhaps, or that some personality traits really are set in stone. only time will tell.

sorry if anything i said was offensive or just OT, but i thank you for the diary, and the sharing about what must be extremely challenging to english. it pushed my buttons, as did colman's replies, especially the bit about dusty corners...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Today "we are all different", but when we're talking about xenophobia "we are all the same".

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 01:52:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Besides, you've still ignored the point that even if I was given 'hearing' tomorrow I wouldn't be able to use it effectively because my brain isn't wired for it.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I did say "let's pretend". Stop being all practical.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:08:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the point of playing with a hypothetical argument that has no realistic base?
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Because you started off attacking the emphasis on fixing people. It's not beyond imagining that you could be taught to decode the signals.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps over a long period of time and only because I am very clever.  My brain is very good at processing, but this certainly doesn't apply to everyone.  Many people who have cochlear implants don't get huge benefit for this very reason, they are never able to decode it all.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:15:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Colman:
Or more generally than that and to depersonalize it, what are the skills and benefits that deaf people bring to society and are they sufficient to justify the costs?

Well, they bring diversity of experiences compared to the case of no-one being deaf. Diversity is good from a perspective of societal evolution, ie we do not need to know exactly when and what a person of a certain set of experiences will have the right skills to solve a particular problem, only that the likelihood that there will be a person with the right skills increases with diversity.

Also, having differences in society in general, teaches members of society to deal with those differences. Thus in general teaching a valuable skill to all members of society.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 05:21:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Wales:
Why can't society see the benefits of diversity?
It's society we're talking about here.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:47:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's pretend you didn't come out with that strawman...
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:45:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, in the interests of reducing tension for observers, In Wales and I are in communication out-of-band and are doing this on purpose.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:53:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, it was such a whopper I wasn't taking it very seriously anyway.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've given him permission to play devil's advocate.  He's saying what plenty of people think, and indeed do state, on many other blogs/forums.  Worth picking apart and destroying, I think.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 08:56:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In that case, worth pointing out that a strawman argument is just that.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm expressing some unexamined thoughts and prejudices that arise somewhere around the nexus of my own suspicions about identity, group identity and so on and the wisdom gifted to me by society. It's a dark, dusty corner of my mind that's never been properly cleaned out. My only justification for dumping it in public is that I wonder if there are lots of other people in the same situation.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 09:11:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
_ only justification for dumping it in public is that I wonder if there are lots of other people in the same situation._

well done. as to 'wisdom gifted me by society', do you mean common sense you learned from others' examples? or something else?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
like great writings, artworks, etc?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's pretend you could be "fixed" (and let's ignore the connotations for the moment) at a low cost and choose not to be.

Why does society have to change to support your chosen disability? Why does everyone else have to spend resources supporting that choice?

The short answer is that any person of sound mind has the right to refuse any medical treatment without this in any way prejudicing society against him or her. That is a very fundamental point of medical ethics. And has been so since the late 1940s, for a variety of excellent historical reasons that it should not be necessary to reiterate.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Oct 8th, 2010 at 07:58:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for featuring another forgotten minority, one which, at least in America, does not benefit from disability legislation, like the Americans With Disabilities Act. Still, I have seen some progress in the media which will use subtitles to communicate to the deaf.

by shergald on Wed Oct 6th, 2010 at 10:54:06 AM EST
one which, at least in America, does not benefit from disability legislation, like the Americans With Disabilities Act

What the hell are you talking about?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Oct 7th, 2010 at 11:05:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Today is October 8th. It is a fact.

by shergald on Fri Oct 8th, 2010 at 10:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
shergald:
Today is October 8th. It is a fact.

No it's Dhu al-Qi'dah the 1st, 1431, or Cheshvan the 1st, 5771, or...

So, is it a fact or a convention?

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

by Melanchthon on Sat Oct 9th, 2010 at 09:29:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually for me it was already October 9th...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Oct 10th, 2010 at 02:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries