Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
posts from hell said:
I just did not want to write out a long winded post. *shrugs*

Same thing applies to discrimination, prejudice.
Click to expand...

That's where it's gone wrong... Contrary to popular belief you can discriminate without being racist. You can also be a racist without discriminating (but it's usually both).

Look at reverse discrimination suits, where whites filed suit against a minority. I think I even recall a few threads going on about that here before.
 
naisho said:
See, you only tackled out a part of the term issue. Racism is one where the majority overtakes the minority.
What about Discrimination? Prejudice? They have and had in the past. Look at discrimination suits, they are pretty popular with major employers..
Click to expand...

Prejudice is a belief system about a group. Discrimination is the act that stems from prejudice. Racism is using the dominant power to keep the non-dominant without power.
 
naisho said:
That's where it's gone wrong... Contrary to popular belief you can discriminate without being racist. You can also be a racist without discriminating (but it's usually both).

Look at reverse discrimination suits, where whites filed suit against a minority. I think I even recall a few threads going on about that here before.
Click to expand...

I edited.
 
Let's be careful here. There is truth to your post (the Deaf cannot oppress the hearing), but you're stretching the semantics of the term audism, and Naisho has touched on that.

Audism is just as much a perception as it is actual oppression. Is it not? The view that there is something inherently flawed about being deaf, or that deaf people are inherently inferior because they are deaf. One does not have to actually take any sort of action against a deaf person (denying them a job, excluding them from a conversation, etc) to be an audist. Correct?

If that is the case, then the reverse would hold true. Just because Deaf people cannot oppress hearing people (using your logic), they can still hold negative perceptions of the hearing. Is that reverse audism? No? Well, it's got to be a reverse of something.
 
Sometimes, people in the minority community enforce the majority's power. So, deaf people who have internalized the hearing word's standards and values will push deaf people to be just like hearing people. So, deaf people cannot avoid being judged by hearing world standards even in the Deaf community. That's the most frustrating part.
 
naisho said:
That's where it's gone wrong... Contrary to popular belief you can discriminate without being racist. You can also be a racist without discriminating (but it's usually both).

Look at reverse discrimination suits, where whites filed suit against a minority. I think I even recall a few threads going on about that here before.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as reverse discrimination, either. You are assuming that a person belonging to the dominant culture cannot be discriminated against. Of course they can. But that is not racism. Nor would it be audism if you apply it to hearing and deaf. It s simply discrimination, which is, in effect, putting a prejudice into action. That can occur from dominant to non-dominant, or from non-dominant to dominant. However, racism and audism are acts of exerting power. Whether one does it intentionally or unintentionally, it is the act of exerting power as a form of social control.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
Let's be careful here. There is truth to your post (the Deaf cannot oppress the hearing), but you're stretching the semantics of the term audism, and Naisho has touched on that.

Audism is just as much a perception as it is actual oppression. Is it not? The view that there is something inherently flawed about being deaf, or that deaf people are inherently inferior because they are deaf. One does not have to actually take any sort of action against a deaf person (denying them a job, excluding them from a conversation, etc) to be an audist. Correct?

If that is the case, then the reverse would hold true. Just because Deaf people cannot oppress hearing people (using your logic), they can still hold negative perceptions of the hearing. Is that reverse audism? No? Well, it's got to be a reverse of something.
Click to expand...

Discriminatory. I also touched on that in my OP - It's not cool.

Edit: my bad, post #6. mind's on the run :)
 
sallylou said:
Sometimes, people in the minority community enforce the majority's power. So, deaf people who have internalized the hearing word's standards and values will push deaf people to be just like hearing people. So, deaf people cannot avoid being judged by hearing world standards even in the Deaf community. That's the most frustrating part.
Click to expand...

I can think of a certain deaf poster (or as he prefers to be called HOH) who would do just that when he would come in here on AD.

It wasn't limited to the deaf culture but it also applied to his political views as well. Several posters felt they were being pressured into taking on his political views.
 
Hit the books..........because I did.

racism: animosity shown to people of different race

So, yes black can be guilty of racism and racist just like others can be
 
Ladies and gentlemen, hell freezes over. I am in agreement with Rolling7. :cold:
 
I thought I felt a chill just a while ago.
 
Adding my cent's worth! Or "penny" I should say as a Brit ;-)

I have seen the word "audism" being used to describe:
  1. socioeconomic oppression
  2. acts of discrimination against a deaf person
  3. an internalized negative belief on deafness held by an individual

While deaf people cannot oppress the hearing population as a whole, they are capable of (2.)acting cruelly against an individual hearing person and (3.)can have negative internalized beliefs about hearing people. I see that in the OP an attempt to clarify the difference by reserving the word "oppression" for the socioeconomic arena, and using the word "rejection" when individuals are involved.

IMO I think it is important to differentiate between social-political-economic oppression and individual rejection. But the words we have to hand don't easily make the distinction. And the pain is just as real for a person whether it comes from socioeconomic injustice or an individual's prejudice. Having hearing doesn't protect a person from pain, even if it protects them from audism.
 
posts from hell said:
In a socioeconomic point of view it is impossible for the Deaf to oppress the hearing people.

Sure, rejections. But oppress? Laughable.

Even if a person say that hearing parents are ill equipped to be a parent of the deaf.
The reason for the previous sentence: It's a fact. 90%++ of the deaf are born to the hearing and 90%++ are failing in schools. That is not reverse audism or so.

I, for one, now refuse to accept or tolerate the use of audism in reference of the hearing population being oppressed.
Click to expand...

Is rejection not a form of oppression? If a person goes for a job and they are denied it based on a characteristic is that not oppression? If a person tries to adopt a child and is refused based on characteristics is that not oppression? If a person is denied food based on characteristics, is that not oppression? To categorize that one group of people who posses a characteristic can or cannot be or do something, is that not oppression?

Your argument that deaf children are failing in school because of hearing parents is a misdirection of responsibility of the school system itself. The statement shows no basis for the arguments subject.

The assertion that reverse audism does not exist is to say that you have constructed(or magically found) a one sided wall. I would argue that attempting to absolve a particular group of having to take responsibility for their own actions to be the greatest form of oppression.
 
rolling7 said:
Hit the books..........because I did.

racism: animosity shown to people of different race

So, yes black can be guilty of racism and racist just like others can be
Click to expand...

Who made the book? A WHITE MAN.

A book of majority by the majority.
 
a white man is still much more likely to receive more appropriate/faster/easier treatment at a bank for the loan for a major project such as a BOOK, then a man perceived to be black or African-American.

Same goes for hearing/deaf.

reference to power of historical oppression which still exists, vs. individual acts
 
No need for insults :)

... I'm not saying I'm not using the book. Quite the contrary in fact (being a teacher and all). All I'm saying is: we can allow ourselves to question and criticize the book.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
I

Your argument that deaf children are failing in school because of hearing parents is a misdirection of responsibility of the school system itself. The statement shows no basis for the arguments subject.
Click to expand...

He didn't say they're failing because they have hearing parents - he said 90% of deaf kids have hearing parents. There's a difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top