Audism

sallylou said:
It doesn't matter what motivates someone to be audist, or any other -ist behavior.

It seems like you're trying to defend hearing people. I don't understand why.
Click to expand...
I think it's about the right to choose away deaf culture and ASL. She is defending oralism, saying it's not audist.
 
Flip, I read your previous post and now I understand.

The issue is:
Is demanding the right to chose between ASL/Deaf school and oral audist?

Notice that this is all about the parent's right, not the child's. I have a problem with the fact that children have no rights in general.
 
sallylou said:
It doesn't matter what motivates someone to be audist, or any other -ist behavior.

It seems like you're trying to defend hearing people. I don't understand why.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not defending hearing people at all. I'm saying it's audism when hearing people discriminate against the deaf based on their misperceptions that hearing level makes someone inferior or superior. It often has nothing to do with discriminating against people because they choose Deaf culture and might be perceived as rejecting hearing culture. Most hearing people are unaware of that facet.
 
GrendelQ said:
So, let's say your child is deaf. Maybe no aids, maybe with HAs or CIs.

Because your child is deaf, a neighbor won't allow your child on his baseball team or in his club, won't permit his child to date your child, and later, he won't hire your qualified child.

But by your definition, that's not audism, because he fully approves of your child attending a Deaf school, using sign-only, interacting within Deaf society and not adapting to Hearing conventions.
Click to expand...

The neighbor would be an audist.
 
Grendel, you can tell me that I'm wrong all day long but this is my experience. No one can label someone's experience "wrong."
 
sallylou said:
Grendel, you can tell me that I'm wrong all day long but this is my experience. No one can label someone's experience "wrong."
Click to expand...

SallyLou, I'm not sure why you are saying this to me.

I have not and would not tell you you are wrong in your experiences.

I am not making any points about parental choice, not defending oralism or hearing people, not pretending to take a Deaf viewpoint, but have stated in several different ways (to reach out to those who are low context, high context, concrete thinkers, etc.) how I see audism as being more far-reaching than has been defined by others, extending beyond those who reject the validity of Deaf Culture, and to the discrimination and oppression of all deaf individuals, regardless of their affiliation with Deaf Culture or their language.

I've given a couple of personal experiences of audism in practice to support this in answer to the OP. You might not agree that these are valid examples, although I haven't seen any comments on these. I appreciate that many of you are trying to change my view -- perhaps you don't believe that HOH or oral deaf or non-ASL-using deaf or CI or HA wearing ASL-using deaf can be harmed by audism, and you think that I'm audist to consider them, but I disagree. And that's not an insult to you or your beliefs. It's just a statement of my own.
 
shel90 said:
However, I dont understand the connection with a deaf person doing all the right things to be culturally Deaf. That's where I was confused by that post.
Click to expand...

Right, it goes back to the original definition that I disagreed with. I don't believe there has to be such a connection -- as was stated in Beclak's definition -- to be audism. I believe audism often occurs even if oppressor is unaware of or agrees with the deaf person's cultural affiliation and language choice, audism can be based only on the misconception that being unable to hear makes someone inferior.
 
Of course, Deaf/HOH/deaf people face discrimination. I don't know where you got the idea that I disagree with that.

We differ on three points:

(1) Hearing people don't understand what it's like to be Deaf/HOH;

(2) Hearing people expect Deaf/HOH people to conform to their expectations; and

(3) When Deaf/HOH people do not conform to the expectations of hearing people, hearing people consider this rejection of the hearing world.

To quote JK Rowling:

"Nothing is more unnerving to the truly conventional than the unashamed misfit!"
Click to expand...
 
sallylou said:
Grendel, you can tell me that I'm wrong all day long but this is my experience. No one can label someone's experience "wrong."
Click to expand...

And that is where we run into problems. With the hearing attempting to correct the deaf individual's experience.

Validate it, damn it, don't correct it!!! Then you can claim the status of being non-audist.
 
shel90 said:
However, I dont understand the connection with a deaf person doing all the right things to be culturally Deaf. That's where I was confused by that post.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It isn't about doing all of the right things. It is about internalizing values and identity.
 
GrendelQ said:
Right, it goes back to the original definition that I disagreed with. I don't believe there has to be such a connection -- as was stated in Beclak's definition -- to be audism. I believe audism often occurs even if oppressor is unaware of or agrees with the deaf person's cultural affiliation and language choice, audism can be based only on the misconception that being unable to hear makes someone inferior.
Click to expand...

Deaf people can be audist. I was one growing up. :dunno:
 
Audism is not an action. It is a deeply held, internal belief system. And yes, even the deaf can be audist. Thanks to the audist environment they are raised in.
 
sallylou said:
Of course, Deaf/HOH/deaf people face discrimination. I don't know where you got the idea that I disagree with that.

We differ on three points:

(1) Hearing people don't understand what it's like to be Deaf/HOH;

(2) Hearing people expect Deaf/HOH people to conform to their expectations; and

(3) When Deaf/HOH people do not conform to the expectations of hearing people, hearing people consider this rejection of the hearing world.

To quote JK Rowling:
Click to expand...

:gpost: :gpost:

Bingo! That is exactly right on the three points why we think they are being audist, even in the family or the neighbors. :ty:
 
GrendelQ said:
:laugh2: There's an aura of audism following me?

You keep using those high/low context terms, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean. I've worked in many countries, I've seen endless a string of questionable presentations over the years analyzing the different cultures (Japan, Iraq as high context, US, UK, Norway as low context) and different industries (human resources and marketing as high context, while finance, engineering, sciences are low and so on). But never came across Hall's concept used in quite the special way you do, wielding it as a weapon or an insult.
Click to expand...
Then would you settle for needlessly pedantic? BecLak's definition was accurate enough for the purposes of this thread, and your pointless hair splitting has added nothing to the discussion.
 
flip said:
Ok. You think oralism is a bad idea. Confusion cleared up. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I don't think Oralism was under discussion or debate in this thread. I dont care to place a judgment on how you grew up or how you choose to educate your kids: if you are an oralist or choose that, I take no issue with it. I just choose a different path for my family and my child is at an ASL - based school.
 
Back
Top