Audism - The Definition and the Audist View

[jillio]

Of course we should try to end unfair treatment of the deaf. But I say a vague negative label is counterproductive to that goal. *shrug* People belive what they see more than what they hear (or at least should) Therefore IMO it's better to show people they are wrong than to tell people they are wrong

It has to be labeled in order to be defined. Audism is not a vague, negative label. The definition used by the man who coined the term is very specific. The ways in which that definition can become manifest in behaviors and words is varied, but the concept itself has been specifically defined.

Showing people they are wrong is not possible if they hold onto audist beliefs, as they will filter anything they see through a veil of audism. They must first be educated regarding the definition of audism, and then have it explained how their behavior or their comments connect to that definition. Much more readily accomplished than making sure that they have daily contact with a deaf person over an extended period of time.

 

[TXgolfer]

It has to be labeled in order to be defined. Audism is not a vague, negative label. The definition used by the man who coined the term is very specific. The ways in which that definition can become manifest in behaviors and words is varied, but the concept itself has been specifically defined.

I disagree

Showing people they are wrong is not possible if they hold onto audist beliefs, as they will filter anything they see through a veil of audism.

Really really disagree

They must first be educated regarding the definition of audism, and then have it explained how their behavior or their comments connect to that definition. Much more readily accomplished than making sure that they have daily contact with a deaf person over an extended period of time.

Good luck with that.....

 

[jillio]

I disagree





Really really disagree



Good luck with that.....

You are entitled to disagree. However, I might suggest that you learn a bit more about perception and the ways in which people filter all information through their own specific filters. Just as you do in your disagreement.

How, pray tell, can you define something that has no label?

I am having excellent luck, thank you. Including the institutions that are changing policies thanks to learning about audism.

 

[Beowulf]

A parent who brags at how a hearing aid helped a child hear music is not being audist. One who brags at how it made the child speak better is. It's understandable but still...

 

[TXgolfer]

You are entitled to disagree. However, I might suggest that you learn a bit more about perception and the ways in which people filter all information through their own specific filters. Just as you do in your disagreement.

How, pray tell, can you define something that has no label?

I am having excellent luck, thank you. Including the institutions that are changing policies thanks to learning about audism.

Sure you are....

 

[jillio]

Sure you are....

Yes, I am. Why the need to be so sarcastic? I believe the OP specifically requests that behavior not be seen in this thread.

I would still be interested in knowing how to define something that has no label.

 

[deafskeptic]

Absolutely. It is assumming that hearing is superior to deafness. Very audist.

I remember someone saying to me on a different forum that deaf shouldn't get terps or note takers if they can talk but refuse to speak and refuse to get a CI. :roll:

 

[jillio]

I remember someone saying to me on a different forum that deaf shouldn't get terps or note takers if they can talk but refuse to speak and refuse to get a CI. :roll:

Yep, that is extremely audist. Shamefully so.

 

[jillio]

A parent who brags at how a hearing aid helped a child hear music is not being audist. One who brags at how it made the child speak better is. It's understandable but still...

Very true. However, if that parent also states that "hearing music is superior to not hearing music, and those who don't hear music are missing a big part of life' it is audist. And generally that will come out between the lines.

 

[TXgolfer]

Yes, I am. Why the need to be so sarcastic? I believe the OP specifically requests that behavior not be seen in this thread.

My apologies to they OP. Just my way of expressing doubt.

I would still be interested in knowing how to define something that has no label.

You don't. The ADA already outlines what is unfair treatment.

 

[TXgolfer]

Very true. However, if that parent also states that "hearing music is superior to not hearing music, and those who don't hear music are missing a big part of life' it is audist. And generally that will come out between the lines.

Are people who can't hear music missing out on anything....even a little?

 

[jillio]

My apologies to they OP. Just my way of expressing doubt.




You don't. The ADA already outlines what is unfair treatment.

Discrimination is the label for what the ADA defines, and it is limited to actual concrete actions. Audism is an attitude and a belief system that underlies behaviors.

The ADA could not define "unfair treatment" without labeling it unfair treatment. And one cannot define audism without labeling it "audism". Anything that is defined has a label.

 

[deafbajagal]

Army Shows Lack of Concern for Soldiers' Ear Protection

I see your point, I do. But this article actually is a reinforcement for me as why deaf people should be considered.

 

[TXgolfer]

Discrimination is the label for what the ADA defines, and it is limited to actual concrete actions. Audism is an attitude and a belief system that underlies behaviors.

The ADA could not define "unfair treatment" without labeling it unfair treatment. And one cannot define audism without labeling it "audism". Anything that is defined has a label.

Actual concrete actions are what we should focus on.... IMO

 

[deafbajagal]

Are people who can't hear music missing out on anything....even a little?

Lady Gaga. Enough said. (joke)

 

[TXgolfer]

Lady Gaga. Enough said. (joke)

I wonder if Beethoven wished he could hear his own music?

 

[deafbajagal]

Ah see....that is what I am talking about. Complaining about mere verbage rather than focusing on specific issues that are unfair or harmful. If the focus was on truly harmful and unfair treatment, things might get done.....but....when people nitpick at every little thing the problem becomes too large to solve.

In reference to the interpreter for the deaf...this notion is why many hospitals, courts, schools, etc. will not pay for the interpreter...they think, well if the interpreter is FOR the deaf person, then the deaf person has to pay for it. ADA is in place, but it's a joke to enforce it if the other party doesn't understand why it's in place.

 

[Beowulf]

Lady Gaga. Enough said. (joke)

When I was a boy in the late fifties my father set up equipment to the black and white tv so I could hear it through headphones. I watched a lot of Elvis Presley movies. Yup, I blame those for driving me around the bend.

 

[jillio]

Actual concrete actions are what we should focus on.... IMO

Those actions are the result of a belief system. The actions will not change unless the belief system of the individual changes.

 

[deafskeptic]

In reference to the interpreter for the deaf...this notion is why many hospitals, courts, schools, etc. will not pay for the interpreter...they think, well if the interpreter is FOR the deaf person, then the deaf person has to pay for it. ADA is in place, but it's a joke to enforce it if the other party doesn't understand why it's in place.

Yeah. ADA has become toothless cuz there's poor enforecment of the law. A lot of conservatives don't like it. They're not the ones who have to deal with with the flak that those who need it have to deal with day in and day out.