Proposal for Audism policy to be placed in the guidelines

Implement an Audism policy in the AD Guidelines

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 58.1%

  • No

    Votes: 9 29.0%

  • Unsure

    Votes: 4 12.9%
  • Total voters
    31
M

Mrs Bucket

New Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
10
I am proposing for this new Audism policy to be placed in the AD guidelines.

I feel if we are able to discuss our Deaf-World, preserve our Deaf communities as it is split into sub-groups such as Deaf-Gay, Deaf-Blind, Deaf-Black, Deaf-Lesbian, Deaf-Native and so on.

There are some Deaf people that identifies themselves as Black-Deaf, Native-Deaf and so on.

If we are to preserve our Deaf Culture as well as our Deaf World, we need to implement an Audism policy here at this AD community.

We recently experienced a hate crime against our Deaf Community in the AD forum. The member who originated the hate crime has been placed on ban; how long the ban is, I don't know. I know the originator of the thread as well as the hate crime party needs to take ownership for his actions.

This shows the severity of the issue at hand. The importance of the Audism policy and why we need to implement this Audism policy.

We cannot allow audism in our Deaf-World, our Deaf community as well as this AD community.

Dr. Carl Schroeder speaks about hate crime against the Deaf community. He is a professor for the University of Oregon; he has taught at Gallaudet and now travels to speak about Deaf Hate Crime and the Deaf Community.

[yt]ogQqakDVM9Y[/yt]

Facebook and Deaf Hate Crime (This relates to AD as AD is social networking as well)

[yt]moovBAIEcp0[/yt]

My reply to Carl

[yt]Fc2gTboWYcs[/yt]

Carl's rebuttal

[yt]a_NouBHB794[/yt]

My rebuttal

[yt]NBbxFfLCWDE[/yt]

Audism -

[yt]4J7zmyQeazo[/yt]

Transcript from Carl's YouTube =

A discusion vlog: Carl Schroeder explains that audism is derived from the Latin word audire, meaning hear. Audism is a belief that an ability to hear is better than being Deaf. It is important to bear in mind that, in the classical period, a hegemony was associated with religion and ethical ideas. Plato's philosophy of Good was based on the teaching of Socrates on higher transcendent and the world down below. Today, audism suggests that an ability to hear is higher and more praiseworthy than being Deaf which means an inability to hear and therefore a shame.
Click to expand...

kalalau52

I ask as a member of this AD community to please consider the Audism policy as part of the guidelines. This applies to everyone; hearing, Deaf, late-deafened and the CI community as well. We all belong as a community, we do not need division in the form of Audism.

Your vote is important and it will help deliver a message to the mods and especially to Alex.

Thank you.
 
Begorra, lassie, quite the spitfire, ain't ye? As for myself, if he said that to me in person, I would feel like strangling him with my bare hands. His eyes would pop out. His tongue would stick out like a banana. He would crap his pants. It would be a mess. But of course, I have changed. :lol:
It was simply a pitiful diatribe so I chose to just ignore it and move on. I am far more upset that the blind members cannot get captioning on so many videos, and lately there have been a lot of them. I would never post a video in here uncaptioned. That is just my feeling, you know? How about making all videos captioned being one of the guidelines?
I completely understand your viewpoint, but there are many others and we cannot point to one part and say it is right.

:hug:
 
Frisky Feline said:
I would like that there will be an audism policy here this AD very much.
Click to expand...

I am not sure I would advocate that there can be/is audism being used between deaf people. I mean deaf to deaf audism????
 
I would welcome an audist free zone. We can get plenty of audism in real life.
 
I haven't experienced reverse audism. Laughing at my ASL is fair game. It's funny when I mess up.
 
Tousi said:
I am not sure I would advocate that there can be/is audism being used between deaf people. I mean deaf to deaf audism????
Click to expand...

We have had far too many instances of Deaf to Deaf audism in AllDeaf and in our Deaf-World for it to be formalised. Deafhood workshops have been educating the citizens of the Deaf-World to be more aware of their actions.

posts from hell said:
There has been.
Click to expand...

Well said!

Tousi said:
I know, audism-like behavior but to have that word formalized amongst us? :hmm:
Click to expand...

I would like to direct you to this- "The 7 principles of Deafhood"- I learned this while I was at college; Deaf Studies.


7 Principles of Deafhood


(1)Sign languages are special languages, because they are visual/gestural - and can say things spoken languages cannot,

(2) these languages can easily cross national borders

(3) which makes deaf people potential global citizens,

(4) deafness is not a 'fault' or 'mistake' from God or nature, but is 'meant to be'

(5) sign languages can be enriching for hearing people as well and

(6) hearing people that cannot sign are no complete citizens

(7) all deaf people have the right for deaf experiences, signed deaf education, sign language socialisation.
Click to expand...

This is presented by my former professor.

[yt]4nxrDC_BOd8[/yt]

This is where I must emphasize the importance of Deafhood, Audism, Deaf-World... vlogs in ASL given by citizens of the Deaf-World.

Evidence that the Audism policy must be set in the AD guidelines. It is time to stop skirting around this issue. Audism; institutional, social, medical, cultural and hegemonic- it needs to stop.

Gallaudet has a website about this issue.

Audism can be found in Wiki as well.

"Audism Unveiled"- such a powerful movie depicting real life experiences of Deaf people suffering audism.

[yt]pRu0t-f30VU[/yt]
 
Taken from above: (6) hearing people that cannot sign are no complete citizens

I will assume "no" in the above sentence is "not". That said: :shock:
 
Tousi said:
Taken from above: (6) hearing people that cannot sign are no complete citizens

I will assume "no" in the above sentence is "not". That said: :shock:
Click to expand...

I would think that sentence means citizens of the "Deaf world"...

BTW I voted NO -- I want to see audists come out and reveal their dirty selves.
 
Tousi said:
Taken from above: (6) hearing people that cannot sign are no complete citizens

I will assume "no" in the above sentence is "not". That said: :shock:
Click to expand...

PFH is correct. It means citizens of the "Deaf-world", they are not complete citizens because they cannot communicate with us using our natural language; sign language.

posts from hell said:
I would think that sentence means citizens of the "Deaf world"...

BTW I voted NO -- I want to see audists come out and reveal their dirty selves.
Click to expand...

I understand your rationale and logic.
 
posts from hell said:
I would think that sentence means citizens of the "Deaf world"...

BTW I voted NO -- I want to see audists come out and reveal their dirty selves.
Click to expand...

Before we get carried too far away here, first things first: That sentence referenced above, #6 is referring to hearing people. I was taken aback at that.

Separately, I, personally, don't see how there can be deaf to deaf audism, given the definition of audism.

Again, separately, this word was coined in about 1974 and has not yet been accepted as a "legal" word.

P.S. Posted at about the same time so let me go look........# 6 says "Hearing people.........."
 
I voted No.....

The reason why that is I am late deaf......I had no idea what audism was. And when I started hearing about audism my first thought was "oh geez give me a break"

BUT, Being in the forums and seeing audism I grew to hate it as much as everyone else. Had I not seen it here I might never have realized how bad it can be. Plus....being the sometimes disagreeable person I can be I now welcome the chance to confront audists....Never know....maybe a few of them will learn something too.

My answer of No is for a ban of audism on AD entirely. If you are talking about audism free threads....then my vote changes to yes.
 
I think the audist attitude need to stay out, but as far as Late deaf and people who don't know how to sign and such ought to stay in.
 
1977... From Gallaudet's website provided by Buckets:

The notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. (Humphries 1977:12)
Click to expand...

Given that deafness have a wide range from mild losses to being completely deaf... There can be deaf-on-deaf audism; a few posters here displayed that in the past that being blessed with moderate hearing loss is better than being completely deaf in an insidious way. Plus, reverse audism is also horrid as well (where being completely deaf is better than being severe losses or being hearing.) The definition didn't define deafness, but rather hearing ability.

It's a nice definition that allow it to be defined in both directions... hearing-on-deaf and deaf-on-hearing.
 
Back
Top