Audism - The Definition and the Audist View - Page 2

**Jiro** · 01-21-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Not letting deaf people join the military because of their hearing loss is a form of audism as well as discrimination.

Is it dangerous? Let us choose what we are capable of doing. Don't choose for me.

that's not how I see it.

in military - there is we, not I. They work together and it's the matter of life and death. Deaf people are free to join defense sectors for military. There are civilian support positions in military too. I was offered an IT spot in Defense Logistics Agency.

BecLak · 01-21-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Incorrect. Audist beliefs result in audist behaviors. The exhibition of audist behavior and audist choices are indeed, audist.

Jillio, It would be much easier to stick to the correct definitions of Audism in order to explain what Audist beliefs, behaviours and choices are. Just a thought

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BecLak

Jillio, It would be much easier to stick to the correct definitions of Audism in order to explain what Audist beliefs, behaviours and choices are. Just a thought

If you wish.

Believing that a child who hears more has added oppportunities for success is audist.

faire_jour · 01-21-2011, 07:09 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Refusing to consider what the deaf themselves say will fulfill their needs is audist.

and refusing to listen to what the deaf say, what is that? What is the name of discrimination against the deaf because they do not agree with the Deaf? Calling them names? Saying they are socially inept, putting them down? What is the label for that discrimination?

deafbajagal · 01-21-2011, 07:10 PM

Assessing a child in only English to determine language ability and level but NOT assessing the child in his/her primary language of ASL is audism.

Many children are fluent in ASL, acheiving on level or beyond...but are weak in English. - but it is told they are behind "in language." It's like assessming a hearing child who is fluent in spoken English but she's labeled as being "below language level" because they tested her in Spanish (which is not her native language) and she did not do well on it.

faire_jour · 01-21-2011, 07:11 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Using sign in one environment and not in all environments with a deaf child is audism.

why? How is that saying that hearing is better than not? Explain.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

and refusing to listen to what the deaf say, what is that? What is the name of discrimination against the deaf because they do not agree with the Deaf? Calling them names? Saying they are socially inept, putting them down? What is the label for that discrimination?

We are not discussing discrimination. We are discussing audism.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

why? How is that saying that hearing is better than not? Explain.

I believe that is quite obvious.

deafbajagal · 01-21-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's not how I see it.

in military - there is we, not I. They work together and it's the matter of life and death. Deaf people are free to join defense sectors for military. There are civilian support positions in military too. I was offered an IT spot in Defense Logistics Agency.

I see what you mean. But on what grounds are they using to determining that by being deaf, I am putting my comrades in danger? Many of them have to use ear plugs during battle and cannot hear above loud noises, etc. Hmm.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

I see what you mean. But on what grounds are they using to determining that by being deaf, I am putting my comrades in danger? Many of them have to use ear plugs during battle and cannot hear above loud noises, etc. Hmm.

That presumption is made by a hearing person who assumes that because you are deaf, you are not as capable as one who hears. Yep. Audism. Judging the deaf by hearing standards.

faire_jour · 01-21-2011, 07:14 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Insisting that a BI-Bi school should have to provide speech therapy is audist.

definately don't agree with this.

speech therapy provides access to another form of communication. The bi-bi school uses ASL but is perfectly capable of providing spoken language as well.

You are begining to make it sound like audism is anything except ASL and written English alone, that is flatly untrue.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:15 PM

Audism is refusing to understand that spoken language is not superior, in any environment, to signed language.

deafbajagal · 01-21-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

definately don't agree with this.

speech therapy provides access to another form of communication. The bi-bi school uses ASL but is perfectly capable of providing spoken language as well.

You are begining to make it sound like audism is anything except ASL and written English alone, that is flatly untrue.

That's not what she said. She said audism is the belief that a bi-bi program MUST HAVE speech therapy in order for it to be considered a true bi-bi. This belief alone suggests that ASL/ written English is unacceptable, which undermined a lot of the programs out there.

BecLak · 01-21-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Assessing a child in only English to determine language ability and level but NOT assessing the child in his/her primary language of ASL is audism.

Many children are fluent in ASL, acheiving on level or beyond...but are weak in English. - but it is told they are behind "in language." It's like assessming a hearing child who is fluent in spoken English but she's labeled as being "below language level" because they tested her in Spanish (which is not her native language) and she did not do well on it.

faire_jour · 01-21-2011, 07:16 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Assessing a child in only English to determine language ability and level but NOT assessing the child in his/her primary language of ASL is audism.

Many children are fluent in ASL, acheiving on level or beyond...but are weak in English. - but it is told they are behind "in language." It's like assessming a hearing child who is fluent in spoken English but she's labeled as being "below language level" because they tested her in Spanish (which is not her native language) and she did not do well on it.

very true!!!!

language is language, english is just one.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

That's not what she said. She said audism is the belief that a bi-bi program MUST HAVE speech therapy in order for it to be considered a true bi-bi. This belief alone suggests that ASL/ written English is unacceptable, which undermined a lot of the programs out there.

Your explanation is audist, no.

faire_jour · 01-21-2011, 07:19 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

why? How is that saying that hearing is better than not? Explain.

I believe that is quite obvious.

code for "i have no reasoning, just spouting off again"

if you value both languages, there is no audism. When someone is bilingual they will use one language sometimes and the other other times.

faire_jour · 01-21-2011, 07:22 PM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

definately don't agree with this.

speech therapy provides access to another form of communication. The bi-bi school uses ASL but is perfectly capable of providing spoken language as well.

You are begining to make it sound like audism is anything except ASL and written English alone, that is flatly untrue.

That's not what she said. She said audism is the belief that a bi-bi program MUST HAVE speech therapy in order for it to be considered a true bi-bi. This belief alone suggests that ASL/ written English is unacceptable, which undermined a lot of the programs out there.

no, she said that a person wanting speech therapy at a bi-bi school is audism. It isn't. Yes, asl-written english is fine but so is asl-spoken and written english. One is not better than the other.

posts from hell · 01-21-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

no, she said that a person wanting speech therapy at a bi-bi school is audism. It isn't. Yes, asl-written english is fine but so is asl-spoken and written english. One is not better than the other.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread and the very definition of audism? If not, I ask you to leave.

Oceanbreeze · 01-21-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jillio

If people, and hearing parents in particular, were simply willing to examine, in depth, their own perspective and correct that which is audist, we would have a huge advantage in overcoming it. The problem is, the majority of hearing parents defensively deny their audsim at the same time they are demonstrating, without a doubt, that it exists within their very basic ideas of deafness. Their choices reflect it. Even when they appear to be making headway, it seems that sooner or later, they revert right back to their audist perspective because they simply refuse to examine their own perspective. Yet they claim to be fighting against that which they propogate, and fail to see that keeping it alive is a detriment for their own child and that child will suffer as a result.

As a hearing person, I freely admit that some of my attitudes are probably audist simply by the very nature of growing up and being in a mostly hearing environment. It's innate to every hearing person, I think. However, having known deafies throughout my life and being on this forum, I've come to recognize and change my audists viewpoints. My very nature is to treat everyone equally, anyway. People can change their viewpoint if they want to. The problem is the wanting to. Many people don't want to take the time to check themselves or change that which is offensive.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

code for "i have no reasoning, just spouting off again"

if you value both languages, there is no audism. When someone is bilingual they will use one language sometimes and the other other times.

you keep telling us what you believe audism is NOT. Can you tell us what audism is. That is the topic of this thread. And I believe the OP stated no attacks.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oceanbreeze

As a hearing person, I freely admit that some of my attitudes are probably audist simply by the very nature of growing up and being in a mostly hearing environment. It's innate to every hearing person, I think. However, having known deafies throughout my life and being on this forum, I've come to recognize and change my audists viewpoints. My very nature is to treat everyone equally, anyway. People can change their viewpoint if they want to. The problem is the wanting to. Many people don't want to take the time to check themselves or change that which is offensive.

Absolutely. And as a result of your honesty and introspection, you have come to understand the deaf perspective better than many.

**shel90** · 01-21-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Assessing a child in only English to determine language ability and level but NOT assessing the child in his/her primary language of ASL is audism.

Many children are fluent in ASL, acheiving on level or beyond...but are weak in English. - but it is told they are behind "in language." It's like assessming a hearing child who is fluent in spoken English but she's labeled as being "below language level" because they tested her in Spanish (which is not her native language) and she did not do well on it.

That is something I constantly pull my hairs out over!

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

no, she said that a person wanting speech therapy at a bi-bi school is audism. It isn't. Yes, asl-written english is fine but so is asl-spoken and written english. One is not better than the other.

According to the principles of a bi-bi environment, insisting that the program has no value unless it provides speech therapy is audist. It directly states that the deaf perspective is incomplete and lacking without speech.

BecLak · 01-21-2011, 07:28 PM

Yes, please stick to definitions only and comment on those definitions only. Thank you. :-)

**shel90** · 01-21-2011, 07:28 PM

Hiring deaf people simply because they have speech skills over those who dont have speech skills is audism.

Saying ASL is broken English is audism.

deafbajagal · 01-21-2011, 07:29 PM

Allowing people to talk on the phone, but disallowing them to text on the phone because they might fall in a water foundation is audism.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:30 PM

I think that perhaps it would be beneficial to re-interate this section of BecLak's OP:

Some people claim they are not audists, but intentionally or unintentionally spout audist views. Perhaps if we state clearly what specifies that viewpoint, it could clear up some misunderstandings.

jillio · 01-21-2011, 07:31 PM

Believing that one cannot enjoy things such as music unless one has hearing is audist.

Believing that one cannot communicate with hearing people without speech is audist.

deafbajagal · 01-21-2011, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shel90

Hiring deaf people simply because they have speech skills over those who dont have speech skills is audism.

Saying ASL is broken English is audism.

Good ones! I should slap myself for not thinking of those sooner.

01-21-2011, 07:28 PM	#55 (permalink)
BecLak Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Australia Posts: 2,116	Yes, please stick to definitions only and comment on those definitions only. Thank you. :-) __________________ Severely deaf from birth. Deaf with a Purpose. God designed me this way so I do everything by God's Grace. Exodus 4:11 Ignorance is no longer bliss. Be Educated. KEEP IN STEP WITH ME: Sign Text Email Pen and Paper

01-21-2011, 07:28 PM	#56 (permalink)
shel90 Let It Snow!!!! Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: A place where crabs are popular Posts: 40,294 Blog Entries: 3	Hiring deaf people simply because they have speech skills over those who dont have speech skills is audism. Saying ASL is broken English is audism. __________________ "Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it." --- Anonymous

01-21-2011, 07:29 PM	#57 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	Allowing people to talk on the phone, but disallowing them to text on the phone because they might fall in a water foundation is audism. CuriouslyMute likes this.

01-21-2011, 07:31 PM	#59 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Believing that one cannot enjoy things such as music unless one has hearing is audist. Believing that one cannot communicate with hearing people without speech is audist. CuriouslyMute likes this.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

01-21-2011, 07:10 PM	#35 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	Assessing a child in only English to determine language ability and level but NOT assessing the child in his/her primary language of ASL is audism. Many children are fluent in ASL, acheiving on level or beyond...but are weak in English. - but it is told they are behind "in language." It's like assessming a hearing child who is fluent in spoken English but she's labeled as being "below language level" because they tested her in Spanish (which is not her native language) and she did not do well on it.

01-21-2011, 07:15 PM	#42 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	Audism is refusing to understand that spoken language is not superior, in any environment, to signed language.

01-21-2011, 07:30 PM	#58 (permalink)
jillio Banned Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 60,296	I think that perhaps it would be beneficial to re-interate this section of BecLak's OP: *Some people claim they are not audists, but intentionally or unintentionally spout audist views. Perhaps if we state clearly what specifies that viewpoint, it could clear up some misunderstandings.*