Audism - The Definition and the Audist View - Page 4

dogmom · 01-21-2011, 10:46 PM

YES, Sally - that is very close to what I wrote recently somewhere....

Juli-terp-to-be · 01-21-2011, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogmom

I think this is a good idea, BecLak

my thoughts in addition:

-when hearing babies have access to ASL or "baby sign" but deaf babies don't

-language only means speech

Jillio,

your thoughts seem familiar to me - I mentioned about that too!

the bolded part actually angers me alot. I saw a Baby Sign table in a local mall to me. And I asked the ladies/instructors there is they accept HOH or deaf babies into their classes and they looked like I slapped them. I was told that none of the instructors were special ed teachers, so no.

Miss-Delectable · 01-22-2011, 12:01 AM

Am I right in thinking that if a hearie asks you why don't you get a CI because it will help you hear is audist?

Miss-Delectable · 01-22-2011, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlleyCat

The problem I have with that is when I've listened to degrading comments for 40 years, it gets old. Fast.

I've had the same -- people that are amazed I can even speak, even drive, even do anything. It seems like they think I should be a simpering idiot for being deaf. And, after 40 years of listening to that ... ugh.

Don't blame you for feeling that way, Alleycat.

TXGolfer, have you considered that we deafies don't want audism in our face everyday and they don't want their children to be subjected to it as well?

**TXgolfer** · 01-22-2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss-Delectable

Am I right in thinking that if a hearie asks you why don't you get a CI because it will help you hear is audist?

I don't think so......I mean do we really want to discourage people from asking questions?

For those who don't want a CI it seems like the question provides a nice opportunity to enlighten people to their belief

BecLak · 01-22-2011, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I don't think so......I mean do we really want to discourage people from asking questions?

For those who don't want a CI it seems like the question provides a nice opportunity to enlighten people to their belief

It depends on the spirit in which the question is asked. Some questions are questions that genuinely require an individualised informed answer, others stem from pure ignorance whereas, if the person is willing for a lecture, it gives opportunity for education. However, there are questions that derive from an deliberate attitude of audism that are intended to offend and therefore should be firmly rebuffed.

Miss-Delectable · 01-22-2011, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

I don't think so......I mean do we really want to discourage people from asking questions?

For those who don't want a CI it seems like the question provides a nice opportunity to enlighten people to their belief

I think it's really depends on how a hearing phrases the question.

I had a friend, deaf, and her hubby, hearie, they moved to a country town and locals there kept telling them that she should get a CI because it will help her hear and speak. She doesn't speak, by the way. So they had to be educated and learn to accept that CI is not for everyone.

If I were subjected to that numerous time, I would be very off put about it.

BecLak · 01-22-2011, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss-Delectable

I think it's really depends on how a hearing phrases the question.

I had a friend, deaf, and her hubby, hearie, they moved to a country town and locals there kept telling them that she should get a CI because it will help her hear and speak. She doesn't speak, by the way. So they had to be educated and learn to accept that CI is not for everyone.

If I were subjected to that numerous time, I would be very off put about it.

Hi Miss D!

So true, A hearing person in general, who is ignorant of d/Deaf people, will automatically assume a situation from their own hearing perspective, so they are naturally (with no ill-intent) audists. It is when a person is informed and educated and yet still chooses to have audist views is when it is considered offensive. To have that question put to you on numerous occasions even after patient, long-suffering explanation - it is no wonder we are put off by it. It's like "Hey! Haven't you been paying any attention to what I have told you?!"

**GrendelQ** · 01-22-2011, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Are you talking about that story of the beauty queen who was texting along the train tracks?

But of course, one incident doesn't mean it will happen to all of us.

That's true, we're not all beauty queen material

You could argue that deaf kids with CIs are more likely to be in danger ... you know, they've got a magnet or two that might attract that great big metal engine ...

BecLak · 01-22-2011, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrendelQ

That's true, we're not all beauty queen material

You could argue that deaf kids with CIs are more likely to be in danger ... you know, they've got a magnet or two that might attract that great big metal engine ...

I just pictured that in my mind......

**shel90** · 01-22-2011, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Audism? To me it's just another excuse for people to be butt hurt. If people would stop looking for ways to be offended we would all be better off.

I had an old lady that was a regular customer for years. She was always amazed that I could run a business and be deaf and often made "audist" comments. So what, she was nice and always made cookies when I was there.

It is different when audist views are imposed on deaf children making them grow up feeling negative towards themselves and their deafness. That was what happened to me.

For that reason, I hate audist views with a passion. However, if someone says something that is audist, I wont attack them but educate them but if they tell me I am wrong, then I want nothing to do with that person ever again.

**Jiro** · 01-22-2011, 09:20 AM

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.

if I recall correctly - they're not allowed to wear ear plugs. or just not used it.

**Jiro** · 01-22-2011, 09:23 AM

Army Shows Lack of Concern for Soldiers' Ear Protection

Quote:

The Army does not supply protection against the noises of artillery and military vehicles, leaving thousands of soldiers suffering from hearing loss. Precise figures are unavailable. This year, effort is being made to see just how severe this problem is. Hearing loss prevents around 250,000 men from entering the battle, reports one of the Army's top hearing specialist.

Hearing loss was the reason why so many men lost their jobs at Fort Jackson, said the army hospital's chief audiologist. This move would only be done if the hearing loss is at 113. The study showed 52.7 per cent of the soldiers permanently assigned to Fort Jackson had such a rating. About less than a quarter of these soldiers were given the 112 rating. The surgeon general's office advised the use of ear plugs for each Army recruit back in 1963. An implementation of this recommendation did not follow through.

Though earplugs were supplied to some, they were not individually fitted. At the Fort Dix rifle ranges, it was found out that the wearing of ear plugs wasn't enforced. In some cases, it was found out that range officials did not advise the use of ear plugs despite its provision of safety to the ears. The use of ear plugs is now being required by fort officials, thanks to the report issued by hearing specialists. The men at Fort Knox know that partial deafness is something they just have to deal with and accept. A soldier who wears ear plugs experiences pain in his eardrum when a cannon is fired.

Almost a hundred trainees and their instructors at Fort Knox exposed themselves to the noise of 832 rounds during a training session. 16 hours later, a reporter who was present could still hear the ringing in his ears. Tankers are advised to wear ear muffs for further ear damage protection. A commander reveals that helicopter flight and ground crews are at risk of acquiring hearing loss as well.

His laboratory concluded that the type of helicopter helmet used by the Army didn't do a good job screening noise. It recommends that the present be replaced with the one used by the Navy. Both the Army and the Navy have differing views with regard to the protection the helmet provides in case of a crash.

The air force of Canada whose pilots use the same helmets attest to this claim. He said that this helmet, costing around $118 should be the same headgear of the crews who ride tanks. Soldiers don't find the Army's ear plugs very comfortable. Using cigarette filters as ear plugs would be better, they say. These temporary ear plugs don't give much protection, experts claim.

faire_jour · 01-22-2011, 09:25 AM

Wirelessly posted

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss-Delectable

Am I right in thinking that if a hearie asks you why don't you get a CI because it will help you hear is audist?

no. That is an actual fact, a CI would help you hear. If they told you that you were stupid for not getting one or that all deaf people should, THAT would be audist. But asking if you wanted one and stating a fact isn't.

posts from hell · 01-22-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by faire_jour

Wirelessly posted

no. That is an actual fact, a CI would help you hear. If they told you that you were stupid for not getting one or that all deaf people should, THAT would be audist. But asking if you wanted one and stating a fact isn't.

There you go, you just proved you don't know crap about Audism.

jazzy · 01-22-2011, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BecLak

It appears a need to have some clarification on this issue that 'pushes buttons' for many of us. Some do not seem to have a clear understanding of this view and it's concept. In starting this thread it is my intention in an attempt to make it as clear-cut as possible. 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.

NB: Please do not directly quote anyone on this forum as personal attacks are not permitted and it is not the intention of this thread. Please also note that comments made on a certain post are NOT personally directed at the poster but at what the post is quoting as a example of view.

May I begin with the Definition of Audism by the person who coined the word:

Audism: The notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears. --Tom Humphries

Please post below what you understand to be an AUDIST view.

I still don't get it. After read all those posts I still don't get it. I do know many time I became defended against anyone who say stuffs to me that I felt offended by it, does it makes them audists? I don't know.

I am still having problem with this lawyer who is handling my mom's estates. He said I am not disabled because I work. Then it made me mad because what about others who are having hard time to find jobs because of their deaf and sit home and collect SS and they are more disabled than me. I don't know if that is his audist point of view or just follow the law. I wonder if this law is somewhat connect to an audist attidue made by those lawmakers who wrote them. What worst of this my own sister and brother agree with this lawyer. I do not know if they are audist or just because I grew up with them and they do not see me as a disabled nor deaf. Anyway, right now I am not talking to them. I am really p**&&d off at them.

**sallylou** · 01-22-2011, 11:10 AM

Dogmom, sorry that I missed your comment. Great minds think alike, huh?

**TXgolfer** · 01-22-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BecLak

Hi Miss D!

So true, A hearing person in general, who is ignorant of d/Deaf people, will automatically assume a situation from their own hearing perspective, so they are naturally (with no ill-intent) audists. It is when a person is informed and educated and yet still chooses to have audist views is when it is considered offensive. To have that question put to you on numerous occasions even after patient, long-suffering explanation - it is no wonder we are put off by it. It's like "Hey! Haven't you been paying any attention to what I have told you?!"

Why give a negative label to someone that is "ignorant" of the issues? IMO the negative labels should be saved for people who KNOWINGLY hold negative views. I don't see how anyone is served by labeling people .

**TXgolfer** · 01-22-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss-Delectable

I think it's really depends on how a hearing phrases the question.

I had a friend, deaf, and her hubby, hearie, they moved to a country town and locals there kept telling them that she should get a CI because it will help her hear and speak. She doesn't speak, by the way. So they had to be educated and learn to accept that CI is not for everyone.

If I were subjected to that numerous time, I would be very off put about it.

Well I agree here mainly due to the 2 bolded phrases.

**TXgolfer** · 01-22-2011, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzy

I still don't get it. After read all those posts I still don't get it. I do know many time I became defended against anyone who say stuffs to me that I felt offended by it, does it makes them audists? I don't know.

I am still having problem with this lawyer who is handling my mom's estates. He said I am not disabled because I work. Then it made me mad because what about others who are having hard time to find jobs because of their deaf and sit home and collect SS and they are more disabled than me. I don't know if that is his audist point of view or just follow the law. I wonder if this law is somewhat connect to an audist attidue made by those lawmakers who wrote them. What worst of this my own sister and brother agree with this lawyer. I do not know if they are audist or just because I grew up with them and they do not see me as a disabled nor deaf. Anyway, right now I am not talking to them. I am really p**&&d off at them.

Sounds like a legal issue rather than "audist" issue to me.

deafbajagal · 01-22-2011, 11:49 AM

At one time it was allowed that blacks did not have the right to vote even under the blanket of "separate but equal." Leaders had to step up and identify what racism is - because at the time, racism wasn't recognized. That's what we're doing with audism...unfair treatment or the notion that one group is superior to another can be harmful. Pointing out what is audism is one of the first steps in making positive changes.

deafbajagal · 01-22-2011, 11:51 AM

My grandmother used to say "that child was dumb as a ******." She actually had black friends, but it never dawned on her that her statement was racial. Just because she wasn't aware of it doesn't excuse her from being a racist.

Many people are audists, but aren't aware that their views, statements, or actions reflect audism. And if we don't point it out, how will they ever know?

deafbajagal · 01-22-2011, 11:54 AM

Another view of what is audism:

Interpreters for the deaf.

Why? Because interpreters are not FOR the deaf...they are for both parties, acting as a bridge between two modes of communication or languages. By saying the interpreter is there because the deaf person cannot speak is audism. The interpreter is there because the deaf person uses one form of language or communication mode and the hearing person uses another.

**TXgolfer** · 01-22-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

At one time it was allowed that blacks did not have the right to vote even under the blanket of "separate but equal." Leaders had to step up and identify what racism is - because at the time, racism wasn't recognized. That's what we're doing with audism...unfair treatment or the notion that one group is superior to another can be harmful. Pointing out what is audism is one of the first steps in making positive changes.

Yeah it's great to see that defining racism ended racism...... oh wait.

That's my whole point.....labels won't get you anywhere. Just look at the bitterness on this board alone. Better to identify specific problems and seek to correct them like your example of allowing blacks to vote.

One might instead ask "In what ways are the deaf treated unfairly?" rather than developing a term that polarizes. I hardly see a mere question as "unfair treatment" or "harmful" yet some are lumping that into their definition.

**TXgolfer** · 01-22-2011, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deafbajagal

Another view of what is audism:

Interpreters for the deaf.

Why? Because interpreters are not FOR the deaf...they are for both parties, acting as a bridge between two modes of communication or languages. By saying the interpreter is there because the deaf person cannot speak is audism. The interpreter is there because the deaf person uses one form of language or communication mode and the hearing person uses another.

Ah see....that is what I am talking about. Complaining about mere verbage rather than focusing on specific issues that are unfair or harmful. If the focus was on truly harmful and unfair treatment, things might get done.....but....when people nitpick at every little thing the problem becomes too large to solve.

**KarissaMann05** · 01-22-2011, 12:19 PM

OK, TXGolfer... So are you suggest us to ignore those audist behaviors, attitudes, and audism because you don't see that way?

Tousi · 01-22-2011, 12:20 PM

It hasn't been mentioned yet that I can see but from some quarters of the Deaf community, audism is and can be used by other members of said community.

**KarissaMann05** · 01-22-2011, 12:25 PM

OK...

How about this... one person is able to get a French interpreter for any place, yet a Deaf person can't get an ASL interpreter 'cause he/she have to pay it. Why I said it? I saw one comment on the dA (I think?)... A hearing daughter of Deaf parents made that comment to share her experience...

So what is that problem by then?

jillio · 01-22-2011, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Audism? To me it's just another excuse for people to be butt hurt. If people would stop looking for ways to be offended we would all be better off.

I had an old lady that was a regular customer for years. She was always amazed that I could run a business and be deaf and often made "audist" comments. So what, she was nice and always made cookies when I was there.

Some people can't be bought off with cookies. They are looking for equal opportunity for the whole community.

To accept obviously audist comments from another without speaking up in defense of the deaf is audism.

jillio · 01-22-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sallylou

Having privilege allows a person to ignore racism/sexism/audism. When a person of color says that a statement/action is racist, I tend to believe that person, understanding that I may not see it clearly. That applies here. If a Deaf person says that a statement is audist, hearing people should give the Deaf person credibility and look more closely from a different perspective. As a former hearing person, I listen and try to understand. Deaf people are sharing their experiences and those experiences are very different than mine.

Very well said, sallylou. I caution people all the time to look out of the other person's window, as what you see will be quite different from the view outside your own window. It is all about respect and acceptance and validation of the other's life experience.

01-22-2011, 12:01 AM	#93 (permalink)
Miss-Delectable V.I.P. Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 17,174 Blog Entries: 3	Am I right in thinking that if a hearie asks you why don't you get a CI because it will help you hear is audist? __________________ "Walking with a friend in the dark is better than walking alone in the light." - Helen Keller

01-22-2011, 11:10 AM	#107 (permalink)
sallylou Potterhead and Janeite Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: My own private Idaho Posts: 6,653	Dogmom, sorry that I missed your comment. Great minds think alike, huh? __________________

01-22-2011, 11:54 AM	#113 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	Another view of what is audism: Interpreters for the deaf. Why? Because interpreters are not FOR the deaf...they are for both parties, acting as a bridge between two modes of communication or languages. By saying the interpreter is there because the deaf person cannot speak is audism. The interpreter is there because the deaf person uses one form of language or communication mode and the hearing person uses another. CuriouslyMute likes this.

01-22-2011, 12:19 PM	#116 (permalink)
KarissaMann05 Premium Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 6,381	OK, TXGolfer... So are you suggest us to ignore those audist behaviors, attitudes, and audism because you don't see that way? __________________ "Pragmatic language is a vital social skill that enables the school-aged child to navigate their way through demanding social situations." -- R. Owens

01-22-2011, 12:25 PM	#118 (permalink)
KarissaMann05 Premium Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Salem, Oregon Posts: 6,381	OK... How about this... one person is able to get a French interpreter for any place, yet a Deaf person can't get an ASL interpreter 'cause he/she have to pay it. Why I said it? I saw one comment on the dA (I think?)... A hearing daughter of Deaf parents made that comment to share her experience... So what is that problem by then? __________________ "Pragmatic language is a vital social skill that enables the school-aged child to navigate their way through demanding social situations." -- R. Owens

01-21-2011, 10:46 PM	#91 (permalink)
dogmom Registered User Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 5,472	YES, Sally - that is very close to what I wrote recently somewhere....

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

01-22-2011, 11:49 AM	#111 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	At one time it was allowed that blacks did not have the right to vote even under the blanket of "separate but equal." Leaders had to step up and identify what racism is - because at the time, racism wasn't recognized. That's what we're doing with audism...unfair treatment or the notion that one group is superior to another can be harmful. Pointing out what is audism is one of the first steps in making positive changes.

01-22-2011, 11:51 AM	#112 (permalink)
deafbajagal Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,171	My grandmother used to say "that child was dumb as a ******." She actually had black friends, but it never dawned on her that her statement was racial. Just because she wasn't aware of it doesn't excuse her from being a racist. Many people are audists, but aren't aware that their views, statements, or actions reflect audism. And if we don't point it out, how will they ever know?

01-22-2011, 12:20 PM	#117 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,731	It hasn't been mentioned yet that I can see but from some quarters of the Deaf community, audism is and can be used by other members of said community.

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