Category: Let's talk
In various topics I've seen people complain about other blind folks who associate mostly or exclusively with other blind people. This is apparently a horrible thing. I've also seen it suggested that two blind people in a love relationship is sick and/or pathetic. Why do people think this way? I always thought whoever one decides to associate with was a matter of preference, not of life skills or overall moral character of a person, but of course, I tend not to see things in the most conventional way. Maybe one of you can explain this.
I agree however you must admit that blind couples, well, it's so clechay don't you think? Generally, a person can associate with who they want.
OK, GOT, perhaps I can answer this question.
I am not, contrary to what some might think, against blind people hanging out together, or two blind people in a relationship. I guess my quibble with it is if, say for example, someone who is blind has never dated someone sighted and only dates blind people. Is it a preference? Possibly. But is it born out of fear that someone who is sighted won't love them?
I hve known people who have hung out almost exclusively with other visually impaired folks, dated solely visually impaired folks, and to be honest it smacks of laziness. We live in a sighted world, and like it or now sighted folks outnumber visually impaired ones exponentially.
I am not saying this very well, but the coffee hasn't kicked in yet. LOL
Kate
Hmm lazy?
Well, I am always one to work the math problem backwards to ensure disassembling the whole, using the converse of the assembly methods, does in fact result in the parts we had to begin with:
We live in a 'sighted world': Okay, if that means the majority of the population = can acquire / interpret photons in a meaningful way, sure.
Now this majority in our case is profound. I doubt we make up a percent of the population: Gays make up, as a small minority, anywhere between 2 and 10%, and they are in many instances seen as a very small minority.
Now, in order to be both lazy (path of least resistance) and as a result associate as an elite with only others of 'their own kind', they would either have to be geographically located next to one another, (New York Italians marrying only New York Italians, etc.), or this would have become a brand-new phenomenon spawned at least in large part by the Internet.
I find the former highly unlikely and the latter a possibility I guess.
According to the former, bblind people would be more numerous in certain areas due to physical conditions - a possibility in the third world, or more numerous because of the availability of transport and other infrastructures they use. Portland probably has quite a number if only because the public transit system is so good.
It also has an enormous number of cyclists, a group some call elitists and demanding of rights on account of their need for bike lanes, etc. They are here because the streets are conducive to cycling, and the weather, while not always comfortable, is reasonably fit for cycling to work more months out of the yeear. Even the trains and buses have accomodations for cyclists.
So geography is certainly possible.
However the latter: a brand-new phenomenon? Possible. After all, because of Facebook for the population in general, and specialized forums like this site in particular, people can meet where they might not have in regular life.
I went to a guy's wedding reception I hadn't seen in at least fifteen years, and all because of Facebook. Typical of most American men, we didn't keep in touch. We'd done college at the same University, even roomed together, were both into industrial shows, alternative (what we called 'underground' then), are reasonably intellectual and witty, and in other ways got along. However, people are so mobile now, even families don't see each other for years.
So if these blind people all went to a common school, what would have been the likelihood they meet up again afterwards? A majority of people never go to their high school reunions: I skipped my twentieth a couple years ago. Somehow, the idea of Ms. Cheerleader and Mr. Jock now turned normal forty-something all gathering in a room to ruminate over an awkward time of life at best, Frumpmobiles and BMWs alike all in the parking lot, Most Likely To Succeed viewing the show via satellite feed in prison ... isn't really my idea of good times.
However, I have because of Facebook, got in touch with people from that time of life.
It's likely many of the blind would feel similarly: after all many sighted people do. One could argue the meeting up as a possibility in light of online availability. But that, too, would be in line with the population and would say more about the segregation in the school: that's who you knew then.
If laziness, or path of least resistance, is the issue, I am lazy because I make no effort to deliberately associate with other blind people. If there was a blind elite group, I most definitely wouldn't associate, if only because I don't like elitist mentality.
However I tend to agree with Post 1: the fact two of a societally-defined 'kind' get together seems to me to be of no consequence.
Ah leo, you forgot to factor in the conventions, blind camps, etc. Such places allow for a certain clustering of blind folks. Now I will say that I know blind people who only will date other blind people. So what?
You're right about those. Those are pretty rare, though, at least expensive from what I've read on here.
I think Kate put it as well as it can be put. And no, conventions, camps, and other activities specifically for the blind are not rare. Yes, they can be expensive, but often funding is provided for people to attend them, so even that can be worked around.
I see what Kate is saying about laziness. I do understand, and look at it this way. When we are around other blind people, the blindness itself is not an issue. For once, we do not have to be a walking talking education. We do not have to field questions, some sensible, others ridiculous, about our blindness. It just takes down a certain layer of work one has to do to get to know another blind person.
However, because we live in a sighted world, I do think it's iportant that we associate with other sighted people, too. In my opinion, it all comes down to balance. I wouldn't want all my friends to be just like me. I am a Christian, but have no desire to be friends with only other christians. I have friends who have very different spiritual backgrounds and beliefs than me. I'm white, but enjoy having friends of differing races. The comparisons go on.
As far as dating, I have never dated a sighted person, but not out of choice. I have been very interested in quite a few sighted men over the years. Unfortunately, none of them ever reciprocated that interest. They were friends, and wanted to remain only that. If I loved a sighted guy, and he felt the same about me, I'd have no problem dating one. I have always believed that I will date whoever it is I fall in love with, an who feels the same about me, regardless of their visual acuity. It just so happens that up to this point in my life, all those who have returned my interest have been blind.
Sister Dawn hit on an important point. True, there are more sighted people in the world, but I would estimate that there is a very small percentage of sighted singles who are open minded enough to get into a relationship with a blind person. I've been interested in several sighted men, but while we get along, share interests and seem compatible the relationships never go beyond friendship. And the sighted men who have shown an interest are the types who are over protective and want to take care of me like I'm helpless. No thanks. Personally, I don't care whether someone is blind or sighted. I'm looking for someone who loves and respects me. Nothing else matters. But, I can definitely understand why so many blind people end up in relationships with other blind people. It's just easier. You don't have to overcome the fear and descrimination that comes with trying to build a relationship with a sighted person. The majority of sighted guys I've encountered just seem like they can't get over that hurdle for some reason.
The few relationships I've had with sighted people have never gone very far. Was it because they were sighted, or simply because we weren't compatible? It's hard to say. I'm with someone who is blind, now, and I'm perfectly happy with that, but I'm not with him because he's blind.
But what do we say about the sighted people who only date other sighted people? Is that laziness? I think not. So what we have now is a double standard.
well I've dated probably 90% sighted and a few blind. I agree that there is more of a bonding with other blind people. we don't have to explain as much and or test each other to see what we can or can not do.
I guess they both have there plusses and minuses. but it sure is nice to hop in a car and go where ever you want with out having to mess around with the bus. I use the bus and train everyday to and from work so being able to relax and not depend on that on the weekends sure is nice!
Margorp you're right: this site or community or whatever is full of double standards to the point it really grants practical credence to the parallel universe theory. But after you been around awhile, you basically figure out all the standards amount to practical nothingness. They're not real units of measure, there are no predictable outcomes, they are all about the working man carrying the load and gaining nothing at all.
I'm betting any one of these self-appointed standards-setters meets any of the rest of us, who bust our humps all week workin' for the man, they'll come up with an 'ism' in two minutes or less. Why? To keep themselves in their virtual office of appointment.
And probably all paid for on your tax dollars, by the way.
Perhaps there is, in fact, a scandal, only it has nothing to do with who dates whom.
Um, Leo, maybe i'm being dense, but your last message totally confused me.
I dunno if I quite get Leo's point, but here I think is what I can get from it. No matter who you are, what you do or how you do it, some clown's gonna not only bitch about it but decide you're a bad person for being involved with it and slap some sort of classification on you, mostly for their own self-satisfaction and to maintain a false sense of elite status. It doesn't do anybody else any amount of good. Least I think that's what he said. Do i grock it rightly?
Yup.
But anyhow, after reading some of these points of view, and I'm not closing the discussion by any means, I dunno, people's concerns seem a bit on the trivial side. To me, most important thing, be it friendship or dating is this. Are all parties involved happy in the situation? How it looks, is it cliche, what message is it sending, what the motivation is, be it fear or laziness or the price of tea in China, nope, doesn't matter a bit to me. Whoever we are, we all have to find happiness and a group to belong to wherever we can and what the rest of the planet thinks can be damned.
I echo Chris's last post completely.
Indeed, and he's the far better writer.
To leo, and there goes the math, pell mell, scatter splatter on the sidewalk. And what are we left with? A bunch of theories whirling around like so much swine flue.
Alicia said it best in post 7. I'd just be reiterating.
Alicia covered what I would've said quite thoroughly. The only thing I'm not sure of is what post 2 meant blind couples being cliche?
I'm a good writer...just not with board posts. lol.
Oh, c'mon, y'all, I don't claim to be a good writer either. We all have stuff to bring to the table.
We sure do.
I disagree with Fighter's last comment, I think your posts are quite well-written.
I second the last post.
I third that.
I wanted to kick my own topic back to life to ask a question. Do you think fitting in should be something easy or should it be a struggle or a fight?
Well I don't necessarily say it should be easy but I don't think it should be a struggle or a fight. They say nothing worth fighting for is or should be easy but at the same time there comes a point where it becomes riddiculous.
I think fighting for things is necessary. nothing should ever come easy.
I agree. You'll probably appreciate the things you have more if you have to fight or work to get them.
That depends.
If the net effects of having fought versus what you get means a gain, you'll appreciate it. If it's a loss, you'll take it as a loss. No valor in fighting for the sake of fighting, but just like spending time, money and other resources, it's all in the cost-to-benefit ratios.
the two posters who disagreed with the majority covered what I've said. I'd not use the term lazy though. that's not what I'd say. very close minded maybe? and, besides as they already and you already know mentioned we live in a sighted world with mostly sited people most people are not blind, so it's time to get use to it. I know maybe two blind people I am friends with? therwise they are sighted folks that shares ideology. And, for some reasons, I think the right wing is ready and more willing to except blind people and competition and to see us as normal. most people who treat me as if I am mentally retarded is people carrying leftest ideas, people on the right knowI know what's up.
and, oh I forgot to mention fitting in should be easy but fitting in to the sighted world isnt hard at all, just be kind and accepting.
the last poster exudes the double standard Kevin was referring to. Thanks for proving his point.
I do not have an opinion on how hard things should be to obtain. What I believe is that you will acquire money, a job, friends, and so on depending on your personality, talents, skills, hobbies and interests, who you already know, and how you first present yourself to people. This list can be shortened or lengthened, but the point is that depending on who you are and who you communicate with, fitting in might be easy or difficult.
As for the people who think that everything should be fought for, I don't agree with that belief, particularly because it's extremely vague. Also, just because it is easy to obtain something does not mean it will be just as easy to keep it. Sometimes, people are just handed things, i.e. help, a job, scholarships, place to live. This does not necessarily mean that they will not have to fight to hold on to such things, but to say that people should have to fight for them, I think, is unreasonable.
Oh rachael, I'm sorry, but the right wing does not care about the blind or other minorities. I'd like to know where you get such a befuddled message
I don't think you can just divide it by political lines. Maybe Rachel knows a group of fairly nice right-wingers, but you've got right and left-wingers who are assholes, not because of their political alliances but because they're just assholes. Kind of surprising though that she'd make such a claim about right-wingers, as they tend to leave the impression they're all about getting what they can for themselves and screw anyone who gets in their way or has more than they do. LOL!
That was my point. I know that both sides are ass holes but for her to make such a generalization, wow.
what we need to decide when tackling an issue is what are the gains to our life. does the fighting and pushing and aggravation justify a positive end? Most thing that are worth doing require work and sacrifice. i don't like to say fighting as it is a negative term.
as for who people associate with. what business is it of yours who i associate with. as long as the individual isn't a criminal or abusive whether they are blind sighted or whatever shouldn't be important to you. worry about the contacts in your own life and i'll do the same with mine.