Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
CSign said:
What if there is no Audism present, yet someone yells from the roof-tops that the person is in fact Audist? What then?

Don't you think that does more harm than good? I'm not talking about when a person makes a statement that is in fact Audist, I'm talking about when they're not...
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of that?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
"I'd like to know the difference between a hearing person who covers their mouth when a deaf person is trying to understand the conversation and a deaf person who refuses to use his lips when a hearing person is trying to view the conversation?

Is this not audism on both sides?"

But, nobody has answered the question...
Click to expand...

That one while it is not a bad analogy, is tough to replicate in reality because generally for hearing etiquette they aren't supposed to be eavesdropping on someone's conversation. In both or some of either party may accommodate in situations when they occur.

A better example that actually happens is something like.

A hearing person who refuses who translate the spoken or verbal language for the deaf person = is guilty of being an audist.
A deaf person who refuses to write down or translate the sign language for the hearing person = is guilty being discriminatory of the hearing population.
A hearing aid-wearing deaf oralist who refuses to translate the spoken or verbal language for the deaf person = is guilty of being an audist.
A deaf signer who refuses to write or translate the sign language for the hearing oralist = is guilty of being discriminatory or prejudiced of that particular oralist (unless they are doing it to all oralists, then that is as a group)

I believe this is probably the example you are trying to achieve.

Note that I didn't say the deaf person is in a case of "reverse audism"; it isn't because technically just like the asians can't get a white people to write or speak in Chinese/Japanese while they requested it, because american english is the majority rule in the USA. It doesn't mean their attitude had nothing wrong, there was still prejudice or discriminatory acts involved. And cases like these continue to happen on a frequent, if daily basis.

Edit:
This is the issue that some of us have pointed out in this thread (TWA, DD7, me, etc)
While by definition it might not be reverse audism, it is something. There just isn't a name for it right now.
 
Caroline :ty: for that link, I was just reading that paper at the Society and thought it covered so many important things!
I liked how it brought up the metaphysical orientation about identity and speech, and also the Paper discussed how subtle audism can be too.
 
Cheetah said:
I think the person covering their mouth should finish their yawn or cough before attempting to speak. :giggle:

Seriously though, my father does this all the time. I give up correcting him, but my brother and sisters always jump right in and correct him. This is a form of audism. It's not malicious, it's simply my father not taking into consideration my need to speech read. The reason this is audism is because I have needed to speech read my entire life and he still does not get it despite having been informed many many times. This reflects our society's habits of doing things that reduces our ability to participate.

And, I think we can all agree that excluding someone from general society whether intentional or not is wrong.

As to your question, no, it's not reverse autism. The reason is because the hearing person is not being excluded from society at large. It is simply one deaf person being rude to a hearing person.

If you look at my example of my father covering his mouth, you might think that this is my father being rude. The reason he is not being rude is because this is a socially normal/acceptable behavior. What makes this audism is the fact that he is aware of my communication needs (and can easily accommodate it) yet still blocks his mouth with his hands (even though the blocking was unintentional).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't see your post earlier.

To clarify, my example should include the words intentionally and malice.

Does every single example not add up to society at large? How do you define society at large if it is not the summation of individual examples? If there are not individual examples, then it doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about people not thinking about what they are doing or doing something unconsciously.
 
the summation of individual experiences is just that - a bunch of individual experiences. Either separately or as a group of experiences, if consider them as a whole, that group represented by the experiences still <in case of "minority"> has less power-over on a societal level.

audism does not need malice or intent to be present; it is already manifest
 
CSign said:
What if there is no Audism present, yet someone yells from the roof-tops that the person is in fact Audist? What then?

Don't you think that does more harm than good? I'm not talking about when a person makes a statement that is in fact Audist, I'm talking about when they're not...
Click to expand...

That is because they are already known to be an audist. :) They perhaps made audist statements in the past or made statements agaisnt the deaf beliefs. Especially, when they are in constant denial that infact they are audist.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I'm sorry, I didn't see your post earlier.

To clarify, my example should include the words intentionally and malice.

Does every single example not add up to society at large? How do you define society at large if it is not the summation of individual examples? If there are not individual examples, then it doesn't exist.

I'm not talking about people not thinking about what they are doing or doing something unconsciously.
Click to expand...

audism is both unconscious and conscious.

Have you personally witnessed a deaf person intentionally refusing to their lips with the belief that the hearing person should use their weakest sense (i.e. not knowing ASL) to understand them? It hardly compares to the hearing world mainstreaming the deaf with the belief that it's better to know how to lipread and speak then to have full access to a language, a complete education and social development. It's audist not to hire a deaf person wth the belief they can't do the job as equally well as a hearing person or refuse to rent them a dwelling with the belief that deaf people are a menace to themselves and the dwelling if they live alone to the list goes on.

Now, reverse audism - a gang of deaf kids beating up a hearing kid, hearing kids being forced to attend deaf schools then having their eyes covered while the teacher signs, deaf companies refusing to hire hearing people with the belief they can't do the job as well as deaf people to hearing people being subjected to asl-only services such as hospitals, government agencies, etc.

So, comparatively speaking, reverse audism is practically non-existent.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Can you give an example of that?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to give a specific example. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

What about when there is no Audism present, but the person is accused of being an Audist? Again- this is hypothetical.

Person is not an Audist, but is accused of being one, and in turn causes others to believe said person is an Audist. But they are not... Do you view that as helpful to the Deaf Community, or is that in fact opressing the DHH community more?
 
DeafCaroline said:
audism is both unconscious and conscious.

Have you personally witnessed a deaf person intentionally refusing to their lips with the belief that the hearing person should use their weakest sense (i.e. not knowing ASL) to understand them? It hardly compares to the hearing world mainstreaming the deaf with the belief that it's better to know how to lipread and speak then to have full access to a language, a complete education and social development. It's audist not to hire a deaf person wth the belief they can't do the job as equally well as a hearing person or refuse to rent them a dwelling with the belief that deaf people are a menace to themselves and the dwelling if they live alone to the list goes on.

Now, reverse audism - a gang of deaf kids beating up a hearing kid, hearing kids being forced to attend deaf schools then having their eyes covered while the teacher signs, deaf companies refusing to hire hearing people with the belief they can't do the job as well as deaf people to hearing people being subjected to asl-only services such as hospitals, government agencies, etc.

So, comparatively speaking, reverse audism is practically non-existent.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have. There have certainly been deaf people who have been intentionally rude to me. And, reverse audism does not have to be done by a gang of people. There was a post on AD were a hearing impaired guy was slapped in the back of the head for using a phone after he called himself deaf. If that is not reverse audism I don't know what is, he got slapped because he could use the phone and had partial hearing, because he was not, "one of them".

People want to hide behind this cloak of, "I don't have power so I can't be this or that", which would entirely negate the idea that anything is a hate crime. That's bullshit.
 
CSign said:
I'm not going to give a specific example. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

What about when there is no Audism present, but the person is accused of being an Audist? Again- this is hypothetical.

Person is not an Audist, but is accused of being one, and in turn causes others to believe said person is an Audist. But they are not... Do you view that as helpful to the Deaf Community, or is that in fact opressing the DHH community more?
Click to expand...

Then that would be based on past experience, or past posts (such as if on here at AD).

Same as if I'm conversing with a person about any said subject and no racism is present, but a previous conversation that was not privy could have been full of racism. Audism is by far not alone.
 
hate crime is something else

take all the people of a "minority" group who happen to have perpetuated a hate crime and compare their socio-economic status, job attainment, access to financial and other life services and you still have inequities based on group pattern.

not the same
 
VacationGuy234 said:
Yes, I have. There have certainly been deaf people who have been intentionally rude to me. And, reverse audism does not have to be done by a gang of people. There was a post on AD were a hearing impaired guy was slapped in the back of the head for using a phone after he called himself deaf. If that is not reverse audism I don't know what is, he got slapped because he could use the phone and had partial hearing, because he was not, "one of them".

People want to hide behind this cloak of, "I don't have power so I can't be this or that", which would entirely negate the idea that anything is a hate crime. That's bullshit.
Click to expand...

That case of the guy being slapped is called discrimination, if it was done solely on his ability to hear. For a modern day lingo there is no name for it. It's not reverse audism (which some are trying to tell you here)

What do you wanna call it?
deaf-seeing-a-traitor?
hearing-wannabe-hate-ism?
deaf anger?

:dunno2: :lol:
 
CSign said:
I'm not going to give a specific example. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

What about when there is no Audism present, but the person is accused of being an Audist? Again- this is hypothetical.

Person is not an Audist, but is accused of being one, and in turn causes others to believe said person is an Audist. But they are not... Do you view that as helpful to the Deaf Community, or is that in fact opressing the DHH community more?
Click to expand...

In response to your hypothetical situation: Most of the time the person accused of it does not even know they're being audist. So it gets pointed out to them.
 
CSign said:
I'm not going to give a specific example. I'm talking about a hypothetical situation.

What about when there is no Audism present, but the person is accused of being an Audist? Again- this is hypothetical.

Person is not an Audist, but is accused of being one, and in turn causes others to believe said person is an Audist. But they are not... Do you view that as helpful to the Deaf Community, or is that in fact opressing the DHH community more?
Click to expand...

we can come up with a thousand examples of audism and you can't come up with one instance of reverse audism?

In order to determine whether or not a person accused or audism or not is actually being audist, one would need to know what they said or did. I think you are talking about yourself though because of this:"...causes others to believe said person is audist". Do I think it's helpful to deaf community or not? Depends on the person and the situation. If a judge refuses to grant me interpreting services in the courtroom based on the belief that my ability to lipread is good enough, he may not think he was being audist but he actually is. In this case, it would be helpful to let the deaf community know about this particular judge should they ever go to court.

Or a teacher using PSE over ASL with the belief PSE is superior because it's most similar to English is audist in that that teacher believes English is superior to ASL and believes ASL is detrimental to learning English or other languages. They may not think they're audist and in fact, thinks they're actually helping the Deaf but they are being audist if they choose to ignore the deaf community's preference for ASL. Would it be helpful to the deaf community not to go to schools where teachers believe PSE is superior to ASL? Yes.
 
naisho said:
That case of the guy being slapped is called discrimination, if it was done solely on his ability to hear. For a modern day lingo there is no name for it. It's not reverse audism (which some are trying to tell you here)

What do you wanna call it?
deaf-seeing-a-traitor?
hearing-wannabe-hate-ism?
deaf anger?

:dunno2: :lol:
Click to expand...

In case you didn't know, Audism is a form of discrimination, from Wikipedia:

"Audism is a term typically used to describe discrimination against deaf or hard of hearing people, although it could also be expanded to include anyone with a difference in hearing ability."

Audism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
<in relation to aspect of Post #299> ok, who has the power here...think...think...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top