Zeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte Welt

S CHWERPUNKTTHEMADeaf womenThis matrix of relationships within which deafwomen find themselves, exists in a common environment.The characteristics of such environmentsare likely to be found in most developingcountries. Each of the connecting relationshipsalso has barriers distinct to itself. It is interestingto note parallels between genders, and acrosssectors (see Table 1).Interaction1a2a3a4a1b2b3b4bTable 1:Deaf women interactingwithWomenManDeafdeafPWDsHearingmajorityDeafdeafPWDsHearingmajority1a Deaf women2a deaf women3a Women with disability4a Majority of women(without disability)1b Deaf men2b deaf men3b Men with disability4b Majority of men(without disability)Figure 4: Relationship dimensions of Deaf women with varioussectorsType of BarrierGeographic Ethnic /MicroculturalGeographic Ethnic /Microcultural LanguageCommunicationCommunication ‘Disability’Gender Ethnic / MicroculturalGender Ethnic / MicroculturalGender CommunicationGender Communication‘Disability’BarriersThe archipelagic nature and mountainous terrainof the Philippines is a separating or evenisolating factor for communities of deaf Filipinos.Added difficulties are an unreliable postalsystem, poor telephone facilities and costly inter-islandtransportation. Strong ethnic and religiousdiversity (e.g., Roman Catholic, Muslim)in the major islands of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao,adds even more barriers.CommonenvironmentEconomicchallengesLiteracyPolitical instabilityInternal / localconflictsEnvironment and types of barriers affecting different relationship dimensions ofDeaf womenWithin the Filipino deaf community, regionalvariation of signs (PFD 2007, 2005) necessitateslanguage and cultural adjustments. Othersocio-linguistic factors such as generational differences,disparity in socio-economic status andeducational attainment, and local history, allaffect language attitudes and community interactions.For the non-signing Filipinos with hearingloss (deaf), the inability to sign presents a barrierwith the cultural population (deaf). Thissame barrier separates the deaf from other personswith disabilities, and the rest of the Filipinos,who usually would not know how to signeither.Superimposed across all the barriers describedabove, is the dimension of gender, doublingthe complexity of communication and interaction.Aside from the barriers imposed by face-tofaceinteraction, the serious problem of literacyamong deaf Filipinos places them at furtherdisadvantage in accessing materials in print, orthrough online communications. The nationwideemphasis in utilizing the Filipino languageas the medium of instruction in schools andother language domains is the complete oppositeof the entire formaleducation curriculum fordeaf children based almostexclusively on English.Thus, adult Filipinos(including deaf victims ofsexual abuse) cannoteven access informationor advocacy materials,which are predominantlywritten in Filipino.The absence of a nationalmandated signlanguage interpretingsystem has had a veryserious effect on advocaciesfor the deaf communityin general, anddeaf women in particular.Essential to any advocacyof any minority isbarrier-free information, communication andinteraction with the rest of the majority. Evenwhen the hearing majority is willing to reachout to the deaf minority and accommodate itsconcerns into the mainstream, the eventualcommunication hardships kill this potential relationship.The hearing majority which frequentlydoes not have the sign language fluencyto communicate fully and effectively withdeaf women has to rely then on volunteer sign8 Zeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte Welt 3/2009