Everybody online seems to be in a major snit about Rachel's blog being ejected from DeafRead. I'm personally glad that that piece of relentless propaganda is off DeafRead, but I don't think the argument for removing the blog is particularly sound. There's something that nobody seems to be blogging about in this whole brouhaha, though.
For the record, I think that the decision to remove Rachel was handled badly. If Cochlear Implant Online went down in flames, either real or electronic, nobody would be happier than me, but I don't really understand why it was removed. The explanation is nebulous, coming in bits and pieces through comments throughout the deaf blogosphere. She volunteers for a network that has ties to a major for-profit corporation. And that somehow conflicts with DeafRead's sponsor, which is a phone company. O-kay. It's clear to me that her blog is nothing but relentless, one-sided, condescending propaganda for cochlear implants that makes me choke and want to bitch-slap her, her mother, and Elizabeth. True, her blog is a mouthpiece for the glory of cochlear implantdom and it probably is a huge part of her volunteer efforts for the Cochlear Awareness Network. But I still don't see anything in DeafRead's current policy that explains this decision. I think Patti Durr had a great point here when she essentially said that if DeafRead had had a policy clearly explaining what audism is and that it would not be tolerated (in a comment she left later), that would be different. CI Online is one of the few blogs that I gleefully chose to HIDE. In fact, it was the first I chose to hide. But the explanation for showing her the door is not laid out in a convincing, concrete manner. So I'm with those who are questioning the decision.
But I'm surprised at all the people who are rushing to Rachel's defense. Have they forgotten how Tayler defended Rachel's, and everyone else's, right to be on DeafRead? A while back, I wrote, quite crudely in one part, about how DeafRead was just letting itself be overrun by endless CI propaganda. The truth is, I was reacting more to Rachel's blog than to anyone else's. The glut of activation videos at that time was also getting to me, but not nearly as much as Rachel's endless stream of so-called "success stories" and her horrible attitude towards sign language and a visually-centered way of life. She pays lip service to respect by SAYING that she does, but she doesn't. Not really. Her mom has brainwashed her by teaching her that she's better than us and that she doesn't need sign language or us. I saw comments from her mother before Rachel ever came into the deaf blogosphere, and I gotta say that Rachel sounds exactly like her mother. No one, except for Elizabeth, (who let loose some of the most infantile jabs, at Deaf Militants, I've ever seen in response to this brouhaha!) has been as partisan or as militant as Rachel and her mother. Yet Tayler and the DeafRead team all defended her right, and everyone else's right to be on DeafRead.
My, how quickly we forget.
This closing the ranks around Rachel and this exodus from DeafRead amuses me. It's so blinkin' obvious that there's more to this decision than simply "They don't like you so you're off." Tayler refused to listen to me and to many other people who approached him in person and online and boot Rachel off for months and months. Why would he suddenly start listening to us now?
Tayler and the DeafRead team need to do a lot of clarification fast, but honestly, I think a lot of you guys are being too reactionary. You've forgotten how hard Tayler has fought for inclusivity. Be pissed off at him for mishandling this, but don't accuse him of hating Rachel because she has a CI or of booting her off because many of us can't stand being hit in the head over and over with her crap. Demand a clear explanation, but don't assume he's either hatin' Rachel or pandering to Rachel-haters. Mmkay?
*Note: No comments allowed again. I don't feel like dealing with oral militants, their mothers, green couch laughers, candy-dispensers, kokonuts, babblers, heavily-made-up "little college girls," Casper wannabes, or their acolytes. Apologies to those of you who would engage in a real discussion.
