FireTiger

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

Deafness

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

DeafCaroline

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

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

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

posts from hell

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

jillio

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.
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

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

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

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

posts from hell

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

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

posts from hell

Big difference.

naisho

I never said that it was invalid though, all I'm saying that it there needs to be different terms. I don't know what to call it cause I don't think I'm the one in charge.

What I'm saying is that there needs to be a distinction made (someone to do it) so we can all understand the situation and not become confused over what it's about, hence the concept of this topic.

posts from hell

The deaf going off on Marlee Matlin can be called a bunch of belligerent dumbasses. That said I also don't like what Marlee is doing.

posts from hell

This was the post that bothered me - and I had to think about it for a few days and presented my case here.

To Implant or Not to Implant??

jillio

I'm not looking for that to happen. People are still denying that prejudice, discrimination, and audism or racism are separate constructs reinforced by power differentials in society.

VacationGuy234

No, I think people should be taught and learn to communicate the best they can, but no matter how you look at it speech skills is a relative thing because, in fact, speech and language itself is not perfect.

Would you say someone who has no speech skills, but plays in the NFL and makes millions a year has learned to survive? I would say that person has and that his parents did a good job.

The statistics of failing is not a representation of audism so much as a failed school system which is not perfect for either hearing nor non-hearing students.

rolling7

What is there to understand???

You show animosity toward me and other AD members all the time.

jillio

The deaf suffer disproportionately from the rotten school system. That is the result of audism.

The individual you used as an example: HE is responsible for his achievements. One does not develop survival skills unless one is placed in a position of having to learn them. In an environment that addresses their needs, deaf children don't learn to survive. They learn to thrive.

jillio

If you have to ask what there is to understand, you need to go back to square one and start all over again.

rolling7

Simple, there are those in the deaf community (note: I did not say all) who take the position that the hearing world "owes" them. Their situation, in their opinion, is the fault of the hearing. Therefore, the stay on SSDI all their life.
I see this each week at CRR, our assistance program for the deaf community. Very few want to take the resource available to them and better their life, most are content to stay with SSDI. Although there are deaf such as I and others I know who pay for SSDI (and other entitlement programs) the greater number is the hearing population.
IMO that is the deaf sticking it to the hearing.

TWA

Nobody on this thread is denying that.

I'm very curious to know what your definition of racism is. You said minority groups cannot be racist, but then you did say they can be discriminatory. But isn't discrimination based on racial prejudice an act of racism??? I just don't understand what your definition of racism is. I think you are mixing ideological racism with institutional racism, which are two separate but related things.

Lastly, I would caution against equating audism with racism. That is a very, very tricky call to make. There are certainly similarities at play, but not enough to use them analogously.

rolling7

Hey Queen of Deflect, you are the one who posted that it is not possible for blacks to be racist. That is square one and to start over.....you are still wrong...they can!

posts from hell

Thankfully that is an opinion.

TWA

That is not reverse audism.

Entitlement? Laziness? Perhaps. But it is not reverse audism. You're not even near the ballpark on this one, dude.

DeafCaroline

I've never seen jillio say anything close to "it's not possible for any minority group to be racist or prejudiced."

DeafCaroline

And what are the chances that a non-speaking adult would make millions in NFL? If you are going to list such examples, then you are proving that it's practically a one in a million chance a child would survive and succeed enormously despite being left out in classrooms and social settings. Due to stats - yeah, the deaf demographic is not doing that great economically. As you say, they're "surviving" - if they're still alive and breathing, then they're "surviving". that's not a good indicator that their parents were well-equipped or made the right choices.

To me, like jillio illustrated - there's surviving (whatever that means - surviving failing school? surviving non-existent social lives? Subsisting on welfare or minimum wage jobs?) then there's thriving because their parents made the right choices and selected the appropriate services due to being well-equipped and well-informed that gives the child a better chance to succeed as adults.

jillio

Oh, puh-leeze! If the deaf had not been oppressed throughout history by the majority hearing, the situation you are describing would never have occurred. The hearing have set the deaf up for failure through oppressive and audist policies. Then want to turn around and blame the deaf for their plight. And obviously, you have bought into it.

Whether you realize it or not, there are far more hearing who receive SSDI than deaf.

jillio

Again, you are misreading because you are incapable of understanding in anything more than a superficial way what is being discussed.