Crack the myth: Reverse Audism does NOT exist.

[FireTiger]

I disagree with you on that one. Oppression is oppression. Prejudice is prejudice. Discrimination is discrimination. They are 3 separate concepts with 3 different criteria.

Well yes and no- they are interrelated.

To get anywhere we need your definitions of these words...

As in my opinion and others' opinions, audism has all three traits.

Prejudice- an uninformed opinion about a group based on one's personal but incomplete experiences either taught (directly or indirectly), media (foolish or exaggerated portrait), or social (oh we must treat everyone the same even if it means singling out a group and treating them different so they can be the same. Same is good, different is bad)

Discrimination - The act of using a prejudice against a group

Oppression - To use one's (or groups') natural or unnatural power over another (one) or group. To feel one is entitles to the right over another group because of real or imagined difference in strength or ability (might is right).

 

[jillio]

The three are not mutually exclusive, and I think you are using your own definitions and semantic interpretations in this case.

No, they aren't mutually exclusive. One can be prejudiced without discriminating. One can be prejudiced and discriminate. One can be personally opposed to racist or audist belief systems, and yet, participate in the social structure that allows it to continue.

Most actions that are racist or audist are without racist or audist intent from the individual. The individual of the majority culture simply does not have the level of awareness needed to recognize how their behavior contributes to the institutional practices of racism and audism. It is not enough to simply say, "I did not intend that in an audist manner." One has to step back and take an honest look at the privilege they accept every single day of their life contributes. Generally, the majority never questions it because they don't have to. That is why it is about power.

No, these are not my definitions, nor my semantic interpretations. These are sociological constructs on which years and years of research have been done. And I personally believe that the reason we have made no progress in the area of eradicating racism or audism is because the majority is unwilling to separate the 3 concepts and look at them in isolation. One sees the word "audism" and they immediately start defending the ways in which they are not "audist". One sees the word "racist" and they immediately start defending the ways in which they are not "racist." When in fact, they may not be personally prejudiced and they may not willingly engage in discriminatory practices. That doesn't mean that they don't unconsciously participate in racism or audism, simply by refusing to look at the historical and cultural context and the relevent ways in which it impacts others. The very act of denial is a part of the power.

 

[jillio]

Because you know me, right? You know my background and experiences? Right

And you didn't read everything. If you had my comment was in direct response to a statement PFH made about "asking people not to attack" me. I had anticipated it would directly follow my previous post, but people are so excited about this topic it was bumped to another page. Either way, had you "read everything" you would have known that.

I know what you post here. And it is obvious that you are defensive and unwilling to discuss these issues without a constant need to defend yourself.

 

[FireTiger]

One cannot discriminate w/o prejudice...

Yes one can have both or just prejudice, but discrimination is acting on prejudice-

 

[jillio]

Well yes and no- they are interrelated.

To get anywhere we need your definitions of these words...

As in my opinion and others' opinions, audism has all three traits.

Prejudice- an uninformed opinion about a group based on one's personal but incomplete experiences either taught (directly or indirectly), media (foolish or exaggerated portrait), or social (oh we must treat everyone the same even if it means singling out a group and treating them different so they can be the same. Same is good, different is bad)

Discrimination - The act of using a prejudice against a group

Oppression - To use one's (or groups') natural or unnatural power over another (one) or group. To feel one is entitles to the right over another group because of real or imagined difference in strength or ability (might is right).

One does not have to consciously feel entitled to the right to hold dominance over another group. One only has to accept the power that is bestowed by being born into a member of a dominant group and be unwilling to look at the big picture and see how they function of a part of a society that indeed, practices group oppression...with or without conscious intent.

 

[jillio]

One cannot discriminate w/o prejudice...

Yes one can have both or just prejudice, but discrimination is acting on prejudice-

Actually, one can discriminate without prejudice. When the discrimination is against an individual based on perceptions of that individual without a group affiliation, they can discriminate without prejudice. Prejudice stems from perceptions about a group. Discrimination occurs on an individual basis in most cases, and can occur because of perceptions of the group, or because of perceptions about the individual totally removed from the group.

 

[FireTiger]

One does not have to consciously feel entitled to the right to hold dominance over another group. One only has to accept the power that is bestowed by being born into a member of a dominant group and be unwilling to look at the big picture and see how they function of a part of a society that indeed, practices group oppression...with or without conscious intent.

Actually, one can discriminate without prejudice. When the discrimination is against an individual based on perceptions of that individual without a group affiliation, they can discriminate without prejudice. Prejudice stems from perceptions about a group. Discrimination occurs on an individual basis in most cases, and can occur because of perceptions of the group, or because of perceptions about the individual totally removed from the group.

Ok, true for Oppression - conceded, It doesn't have to be willing or known...just exist.

I disagree with discriminate- w/o an initial impression (wrong impression) of the group the individual is from there is not discrimination.

I can say NO to going out with a (something descriptor) guy...

It might be because I am prejudice, having a wrong opinion about the group.

It might look like discrimination if another thinks I'm acting on not wanting that date because of my opinion of the group.

OR it might be because I'm married...

I cannot come up where one discriminates against an individual when not based on the prejudice against the group that person is from.

If I choose not to go out with (some guy) its not discrimination even if he has four arms, is purple, monocular, can fly... it is because I am married.

In my opinion discrimination is always based on -some group- no one is of no group... there is sex, race, social class, culture, nationality- usually quickly apparent.

 

[DeafCaroline]

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.

Actually, every single time I researched CIs, there's always a comparative study of how CI kids perform better in mainstream and then they would show percentages of how each group of categorized deaf students performed in mainstreamed or oral settings. Deaf/HOH children who are not implanted and may or may not have some level of hearing with hearing aids generally perform much more poorly in mainstream/oral settings - both academically and socially. There are tons of studies generated by the CI industries illustrating this.

Deaf kids who performed the best (academically and socially) were generally deaf kids in quality deaf schools and CI kids in mainstream and all the rest in between performed the most poorly.

It's not hard to do the math if you were to sit down and calculate what percentage of deaf kids are implanted, which percentage are in deaf schools and which are mainstreamed (which is usually the preferred options selected by parents who cannot afford to move close to a deaf school nor send their child to one and/or they are willing to send their deaf child off to one and prefer to instead opt for the ideal special ed for deaf within mainstream schools or at least for assisted services).

And when you do the math - then it's not so debatable that majority of deaf children are not performing up to par considering CI kids and deaf kids in quality deaf schools are very much in the minority.

 

[FireTiger]

Actually, every single time I researched CIs, there's always a comparative study of how CI kids perform better in mainstream and then they would show percentages of how each group of categorized deaf students performed in mainstreamed or oral settings. Deaf/HOH children who are not implanted and may or may not have some level of hearing with hearing aids generally perform much more poorly in mainstream/oral settings - both academically and socially. There are tons of studies generated by the CI industries illustrating this.

Deaf kids who performed the best (academically and socially) were generally deaf kids in quality deaf schools and CI kids in mainstream and all the rest in between performed the most poorly.

It's not hard to do the math if you were to sit down and calculate what percentage of deaf kids are implanted, which percentage are in deaf schools and which are mainstreamed (which is usually the preferred options selected by parents who cannot afford to move close to a deaf school nor send their child to one and/or they are willing to send their deaf child off to one and prefer to instead opt for the ideal special ed for deaf within mainstream schools or at least for assisted services).

And when you do the math - then it's not so debatable that majority of deaf children are not performing up to par considering CI kids and deaf kids in quality deaf schools are very much in the minority.

Well many many hearing kids aren't at grade level either...

 

[DeafCaroline]

I told ya: posts from hell wrote: "So the "Hearing parents are ill equipped to have deaf children" is true."

It is true at first. Any parent who learns their baby is deaf is not automatically well-equipped to deal with it at first. Then choices they make will define them as well-equipped or not depending on the success outcomes.

 

[jillio]

Ok, true for Oppression - conceded, It doesn't have to be willing or known...just exist.

I disagree with discriminate- w/o an initial impression (wrong impression) of the group the individual is from there is not discrimination.

I can say NO to going out with a (something descriptor) guy...

It might be because I am prejudice, having a wrong opinion about the group.

It might look like discrimination if another thinks I'm acting on not wanting that date because of my opinion of the group.

OR it might be because I'm married...

I cannot come up where one discriminates against an individual when not based on the prejudice against the group that person is from.

If I choose not to go out with (some guy) its not discrimination even if he has four arms, is purple, monocular, can fly... it is because I am married.

In my opinion discrimination is always based on -some group- no one is of no group... there is sex, race, social class, culture, nationality- usually quickly apparent.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. And most often, I will agree, discrimination will occur because of a prejudicial belief about a group the individual is believed to be a member of. But not always.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Well many many hearing kids aren't at grade level either...

It isn't because they can't hear the teachers or their peers.

 

[posts from hell]

Well many many hearing kids aren't at grade level either...

The point of this statement is? To show the fact hearing parents of the deaf are well-equipped?

 

[jillio]

Well many many hearing kids aren't at grade level either...

That is really pretty irrelevent, except to show that the standards being used in education are not appropriate across the board. Has nothing to do really, with the decisions that are being made about the language and educational placement decisions being made for deaf kids. And those decisions are being made from a position of audism and power. Whether one is willing to take an honest look or not.

 

[naisho]

I am the one who brought up the three definitions, in lieu of audism vs racism, discrimination, prejudice, and finally stereotyping (in post #12) so I can see that I can be responsible for the direction of the discussion.

I have never denied that the deaf signing folks, hearing aid wearing oral individuals, CI individuals, or a combination of these and deaf culture pertaining to each is being ridiculued or attacked by the hearing population.
It's there, and present, and accounted for.

What I am trying to get people to understand is that the word audism is a catch-all, coined phrase for any kind of negative intention given to deaf people.

• Someone thinks that a deaf person can't be a police officer, military infantry, or the law doesn't allow for deaf people in certain positions. Does that mean that the law is racist (audist?) No, most certainly not all people saying that are being on the racist end of audism. Some are doing it by discrimination or prejudice, or even both.

In instance #1, it's situational depending on what the person, or law said. If they are all called audism, then it means audism covers everything.

• Some deaf people dislike Marlee Matlin. I remember uploading a video of what I caught on my phone/camera at DeafNation in 2010. I got a bunch of comments from youtube ranging from she was worthless, a 'f---ing joke', traitor, and on and on. I took it down shortly a few months after putting it up after seeing all the criticism. Does this mean that these deaf commentors are showing signs of reverse audism? No, most certainly not (to me).

The problem in that instance #2 is that Marlee isn't being an audist, the deaf people angry at her are not being reverse audists either. Audism was the catchphrase for any dislike or intolerance, but the definition certainly does not fit the mold in this case.

It's not reverse audism. In that case what is it called?
That's what I'm pointing out to y'all. :P
I just named it 'deafism' in my first post (#12) as a form of the act.

There is no official or agreed definition for certain situations... maybe we should start naming them or give them certain terms to reduce the confusion.

 

[VacationGuy234]

It is true at first. Any parent who learns their baby is deaf is not automatically well-equipped to deal with it at first. Then choices they make will define them as well-equipped or not depending on the success outcomes.

I can't say I've had the best childhood, but I also don't believe they are not well-equipped. You don't have to learn ASL to survive in school or life, it's not a requirement. What is a requirement is that you can communicate enough to survive. That is what parenting is all about, teaching your children to survive on their own, in the real world.

My point is: I don't think parents are at fault and the argument is just a smoke screen to deflect responsibility.

As far as the thread goes: A group of any kind which denies responsibility by saying they are incapable of being at fault is incorrect.

 

[DeafCaroline]

I can't say I've had the best childhood, but I also don't believe they are not well-equipped. You don't have to learn ASL to survive in school or life, it's not a requirement. What is a requirement is that you can communicate enough to survive. That is what parenting is all about, teaching your children to survive on their own, in the real world.

My point is: I don't think parents are at fault and the argument is just a smoke screen to deflect responsibility.

As far as the thread goes: A group of any kind which denies responsibility by saying they are incapable of being a fault is incorrect.

If a deaf child is not performing well academically and/or socially in mainstream settings, then their parents were not well-equipped. This is not a blame game on parents - I don't blame my parents at all for how I fared in school and in my social life. They followed the advice of the medical community with the sole intention of doing what was believed to be best for their child.

As far as being able to communicate - how do you define that? You think it's enough to have speech skills and only comprehending a percentage of what was said to them either at the dinner table with family or in mainstream school settings? That's good enough for you?

 

[jillio]

I am the one who brought up the three definitions, in lieu of audism vs racism, discrimination, prejudice, and finally stereotyping (in post #12) so I can see that I can be responsible for the direction of the discussion.

I have never denied that the deaf signing folks, hearing aid wearing oral individuals, CI individuals, or a combination of these and deaf culture pertaining to each is being ridiculued or attacked by the hearing population.
It's there, and present, and accounted for.

What I am trying to get people to understand is that the word audism is a catch-all, coined phrase for any kind of negative intention given to deaf people.

• Someone thinks that a deaf person can't be a police officer, military infantry, or the law doesn't allow for deaf people in certain positions. Does that mean that the law is racist (audist?) No, most certainly not all people saying that are being on the racist end of audism. Some are doing it by discrimination or prejudice, or even both.

In instance #1, it's situational depending on what the person, or law said. If they are all called audism, then it means audism covers everything.

• Some deaf people dislike Marlee Matlin. I remember uploading a video of what I caught on my phone/camera at DeafNation in 2010. I got a bunch of comments from youtube ranging from she was worthless, a 'f---ing joke', traitor, and on and on. I took it down shortly a few months after putting it up after seeing all the criticism. Does this mean that these deaf commentors are showing signs of reverse audism? No, most certainly not (to me).

The problem in that instance #2 is that Marlee isn't being an audist, the deaf people angry at her are not being reverse audists either. Audism was the catchphrase for any dislike or intolerance, but the definition certainly does not fit the mold in this case.

It's not reverse audism. In that case what is it called?
That's what I'm pointing out to y'all. :P
I just named it 'deafism' in my first post (#12) as a form of the act.

There is no official or agreed definition for certain situations... maybe we should start naming them or give them certain terms to reduce the confusion.

Just because there are the few that misuse the word doesn't mean that the construct is not valid.

 

[posts from hell]

I can't say I've had the best childhood, but I also don't believe they are not well-equipped. You don't have to learn ASL to survive in school or life, it's not a requirement. What is a requirement is that you can communicate enough to survive. That is what parenting is all about, teaching your children to survive on their own, in the real world.

My point is: I don't think parents are at fault and the argument is just a smoke screen to deflect responsibility.

As far as the thread goes: A group of any kind which denies responsibility by saying they are incapable of being a fault is incorrect.

There is a specific reason I posted that example. It wasn't about discussing the stats behind the theory. It wasn't about discussing who was at fault either.

The very example had a person accusing the person who said the hearing parents were ill equipped to have a deaf child of being audist. I disagree, and plenty here disagree too.

 

[jillio]

I can't say I've had the best childhood, but I also don't believe they are not well-equipped. You don't have to learn ASL to survive in school or life, it's not a requirement. What is a requirement is that you can communicate enough to survive. That is what parenting is all about, teaching your children to survive on their own, in the real world.

My point is: I don't think parents are at fault and the argument is just a smoke screen to deflect responsibility.

As far as the thread goes: A group of any kind which denies responsibility by saying they are incapable of being a fault is incorrect.

No one said they were at fault. They said they were "ill equipped".