Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Audism is what makes the discrimination possible. They are not one and the same. Your scope is too narrow. And please don't use Wiki as your reference.
Click to expand...

What is too narrow about this? If we can't agree on what audism is, we can't have a conversation.
 
jillio said:
Audism is what makes the discrimination possible. They are not one and the same. Your scope is too narrow. And please don't use Wiki as your reference.
Click to expand...

Not one of the same? Really? If I call someone Fred and then I call him Jack, is he not still the same person?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I personally don't think this exist, but were does that leave us? Is it that these hearing people who are referred to as audist are really just nice people who did something unintentionally? I guess this would absolve the ill-equipped hearing parents, certainly. Brilliant, there is no responsibility needed on either side.

Although, now I'm kind of struggling with the audism definition of discrimination not being intentional. I guess I'll have to take a law course for that one(added to my to do list).

However, if I might point out, even if you do unintentionally commit a crime(which does not exist in the eyes of the law, mind you), you still must take responsibility for it, sadly.

Maybe I can apply this to my overdue library books...
Click to expand...

You just said in this thread earlier that you've encountered audism and now you say it doesn't exist?

I have a theory that you view audism as something malicious and demonizing and you just can't equate that with your loving parents who believed it was in their deaf child's best interests to go to a hearing school.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I personally don't think this exist, but were does that leave us? Is it that these hearing people who are referred to as audist are really just nice people who did something unintentionally? I guess this would absolve the ill-equipped hearing parents, certainly. Brilliant, there is no responsibility needed on either side.

Although, now I'm kind of struggling with the audism definition of discrimination not being intentional. I guess I'll have to take a law course for that one(added to my to do list).

However, if I might point out, even if you do unintentionally commit a crime(which does not exist in the eyes of the law, mind you), you still must take responsibility for it, sadly.

Maybe I can apply this to my overdue library books...
Click to expand...

You are looking in the wrong place. We are not discussing legal aspects of discrimination. We are discussing sociological and cultural constructs that influence behaviors and values. Get off the surface.

May I ask, what is your hearing status?
 
VacationGuy234 said:
What is too narrow about this? If we can't agree on what audism is, we can't have a conversation.
Click to expand...

You are the only one that doesn't seem to agree. That is, obviously, because your investigation of the topic is far too superficial and narrow.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Laugh if you wish. Not even jillio can understand what it's like to be deaf 24/7 or what it's like to grow up deaf but at least she acknowledges that and doesn't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, I can't. And I can also admit that, despite being the parent of a deaf child and consciously making attempts not to allow the hearing priviledge that I was granted by accident of birth influence the way I perceived things, I retained a great deal of ingrained sociological audism for many years. I was only able to get rid of it by looking at it honestly and without defensiveness. Some simply aren't capable of that, I suppose.
 
jillio said:
No, I can't. And I can also admit that, despite being the parent of a deaf child and consciously making attempts not to allow the hearing priviledge that I was granted by accident of birth influence the way I perceived things, I retained a great deal of ingrained sociological audism for many years. I was only able to get rid of it by looking at it honestly and without defensiveness. Some simply aren't capable of that, I suppose.
Click to expand...

"Without defensiveness" - that's the biggest obstacle hearing parents have - their egos. Most responses I've seen written by them came from a defensive stance and when we would try to dissuade them of some misguided beliefs, they get even more defensive instead of dropping their egos in order to say "ok, I'm willing to listen to why you tell me what I said or did was wrong or mistaken and what can I do to change this?" That rarely, if ever, happens.
 
DeafCaroline said:
"Without defensiveness" - that's the biggest obstacle hearing parents have - their egos. Most responses I've seen written by them came from a defensive stance and when we would try to dissuade them of some misguided beliefs, they get even more defensive instead of dropping their egos in order to say "ok, I'm willing to listen to why you tell me what I said or did was wrong or mistaken and what can I do to change this?" That rarely, if ever, happens.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They even get defensive when it is suggested that they are being defensive. Their only concern seems to be an out of proportion fear of being seen as a "bad parent". It isn't about that at all.

Oh, well, one cannot teach those who are frightened of learning.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. They even get defensive when it is suggested that they are being defensive. Their only concern seems to be an out of proportion fear of being seen as a "bad parent". It isn't about that at all.

Oh, well, one cannot teach those who are frightened of learning.
Click to expand...

It isn't that they are bad parents. It's just that many parents don't understand or are clueless about the impact of deafness when they have to deal with their own deaf child. Denial doesn't help matters any either.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. They even get defensive when it is suggested that they are being defensive. Their only concern seems to be an out of proportion fear of being seen as a "bad parent". It isn't about that at all.

Oh, well, one cannot teach those who are frightened of learning.
Click to expand...

What you said in bold - bingo.
 
deafskeptic said:
It isn't that they are bad parents. It's just that many parents don't understand or are clueless about the impact of deafness when they have to deal with their own deaf child. Denial doesn't help matters any either.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Denial is a defense mechanism.

However, the very fact that they are unwilling to do a little work on themselves for their children's sake does make a pretty bold statement.
 
jillio said:
Exactly. Denial is a defense mechanism.

However, the very fact that they are unwilling to do a little work on themselves for their children's sake does make a pretty bold statement.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately. :(
 
VacationGuy234 said:
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
Click to expand...

There are clearly aspects of audism that can go both ways (discrimination, denial of service, with holding information, refusing to accommodate...). Audism is a social issue where society itself has created a condition of ideas, repression and habits... If you take just one aspect and yell "Ah HA! Audism!!!" That doesn't fly. However if you take one aspect and attempt to educate the person and they still don't get it, then you can say "Ah HA! Audism!!!"

I admit, there are plenty of D/deaf people out there that have a bone to pick with heries and take every opportunity to do so. But this is not a form of audism (or reverse audism) because this does not apply to the general society.

If you go way back in time to the very first time someone practices audism on a deaf person... it would not be "audism" at that time because it was not the social norm. Once a pattern develops then it becomes audism. Where is that breaking point when something goes from discrimination to audism? I don't know.

Note - I know I am talking like I know something about this subject, but I am honestly open to new ideas and even reversing my stand on this. I am just sharing my view on the subject.
 
DeafCaroline said:
You just said in this thread earlier that you've encountered audism and now you say it doesn't exist?

I have a theory that you view audism as something malicious and demonizing and you just can't equate that with your loving parents who believed it was in their deaf child's best interests to go to a hearing school.
Click to expand...

I meant, I don't think audism exist without malice in reply to Jillio's post. I never said that it doesn't exist.

You know, you're beautiful when you debate. :cool2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top