Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

Status
Not open for further replies.
lilybear said:
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.
Click to expand...

No need for insults!!!!???

Then why did you post....A WHITE MAN?
 
While I understand the concept.. I'm not exactly sure what you expect for the individual of the majority should do in terms of dealing with people of the minority with a chip on their shoulder?

"Hi, I'm really interested in learning about the black culture. I'm going to major in Black Culture Studies."

"GTFO, the white man has no place here. Don't you even dare to get that major, you have no right!"

"Okay! I understand because I am part of the majority that has oppressed you, so therefore I'll do whatever you want! I'll just switch my major to History then! It sure will be very useful!"

Seriously, what do you expect? They have the right to behave like this? Or should the majority to completely back off? Leave the minority alone? No interaction whatsoever to avoid this type of behavior?

I don't care what you call it, but there is an obvious pattern. Are we pretending that it doesn't exist? Or are we just calling it something that is inevitable but don't like that term to describe it? I'll call it "Dealing with people with a rightful chip on their shoulder." How about that?
 
I'm work on the virus that will cause everybody become deaf like us.
 
DeafCaroline said:
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.
Click to expand...


He wrote: It's a fact. 90%++ of the deaf are born to the hearing and 90%++ are failing in schools.

The correlation is implied is implied by the sentence. The above implies that 100% of deaf children born to hearing parents are failing in school, correct? It also implies that the other 10% of students born to deaf parents are not.

I'm not attacking him personally just the argument as presented. An argument is not verbatim unless it is complete.
 
VacationGuy234 said:
He wrote: It's a fact. 90%++ of the deaf are born to the hearing and 90%++ are failing in schools.

The correlation is implied is implied by the sentence. The above implies that 100% of deaf children born to hearing parents are failing in school, correct? It also implies that the other 10% of students born to deaf parents are not.

I'm not attacking him personally just the argument as presented. An argument is not verbatim unless it is complete.
Click to expand...

Do you really want me to expand on this? This is another thread.

The "in the between" line is actually - MAJORITY of the children born to hearing parents are failing. So the "Hearing parents are ill equipped to have deaf children" is true.

If it is not true, I don't see free ASL classes, free resources, etc for these who discover they have a deaf child.

Any more questions?
 
some people have a lot of anger and it's part of a larger historical context which I think needs to be examined and accepted. That does not make it "right" for someone to be spill that hurt or anger onto someone else, but it makes it....relevant

and then I can choose what to do with that person's anger
 
Give me a real life example of reverse audism. I am trying hard to think of one. I don't just mean an opinion, I mean an actual act of reverse audism.
 
posts from hell said:
Do you really want me to expand on this? This is another thread.

The "in the between" line is actually - MAJORITY of the children born to hearing parents are failing. So the "Hearing parents are ill equipped to have deaf children" is true.

If it is not true, I don't see free ASL classes, free resources, etc for these who discover they have a deaf child.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back up your statement that the majority of deaf children born to hearing parents are failing?

If I'm understanding your last statement correctly, you are absolutely correct that the resources available for parents are very limited. I had some sign language classes offered when my son was a baby/toddler, but it didn't go past the basics. I had to seek out (and pay for) additional classes on my own to make sure I was able to provide my son with complete language, rather than just a few signs here and there.


It would be nice to figure out a way to get a network of people to work together to offer support, experiences, ideas, and an opportunity for those "hearing parents" (I'm really starting to hate that term. It continues to create a divide between people) to practice conversational signing so that they can be a good language model for their children.
 
CSign said:
Do you have anything to back up your statement that the majority of deaf children born to hearing parents are failing?

If I'm understanding your last statement correctly, you are absolutely correct that the resources available for parents are very limited. I had some sign language classes offered when my son was a baby/toddler, but it didn't go past the basics. I had to seek out (and pay for) additional classes on my own to make sure I was able to provide my son with complete language, rather than just a few signs here and there.


It would be nice to figure out a way to get a network of people to work together to offer support, experiences, ideas, and an opportunity for those "hearing parents" (I'm really starting to hate that term. It continues to create a divide between people) to practice conversational signing so that they can be a good language model for their children.
Click to expand...

I'll play very nicely here, csign and say this only once - and I will ask all the posters here not to attack you on this...

Yes. I have wayyy plenty of things to back me up on that.

Debate it OUTSIDE of this thread though, please.
 
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...

Wrong. Once again, you didn't understand what you were reading.
 
The problem is there are two (at least) views of audism

1) The hearing having a negative opinion of the deaf, based on ignorance and social pressure.

1a) a person who has a negative opinion about a group they are not a part of and cannot understand

1b) a person who can not tell one person from one group from a different type of person from a different group and lumps them all together. (Fred is 'slow', Fred can't talk, that person can't talk so they must be just like Fred- 'slow')

2) The 'act or pressure' of society itself making it difficult to function as 'deaf' and not 'oral deaf', that is deaf is the only time I can think of where the person w/o a function is caused to pretend to be 'normal'... They wouldn't tell a blind person not to use a sighted guide, service animal or a cane...

If we are only looking at Definition #2 then of course there is no 'Reverse Audistim'
If we look at the specific examples That I came up with for Definition #1, any person can feel or think those ways about any 'other' group.

I see this has already been discussed by AJWSmith - sorry...
 
Last edited:
AJWSmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you have described is discrimination stemming from a prejudicial belief about a group. Sure that is possible. However, when referring to oppression, the majority oppresses; the minority does not. The very term "oppression" means having a position of power.
 
posts from hell said:
I'll play very nicely here, csign and say this only once - and I will ask all the posters here not to attack you on this...

Yes. I have wayyy plenty of things to back me up on that.

Debate it OUTSIDE of this thread though, please.
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to debate the issue in this thread. It also wasn't a contentious question. Inquiring minds would like to know... If that is in fact the case then something needs to be done about it. I'm asking for you to please show me even just one article/study that demonstrates majority of DHH kids of "hearing parents" are failing. It's a bit difficult to make a strong assertion like that without anything to support It. I realize you have many things to back that up, but some of us don't. Again, I am not asking this to debate the issue or be contentious- I'm always interested in expanding my knowledge base.

I'm not playing for the other team, PFH.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top