Audism - The Definition and the Audist View

Miss-Delectable said:
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?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It is assumming that hearing is superior to deafness. Very audist.
 
jazzy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a difference between audism and an audist. Personally, I believe that all hearing people will, from time to time say something or do something that would be considered audism, simply because it is natural to think from one's own perspective. However, the person that is then educated regarding the practice of audism, and continues to behave and think in that vein is an audist. They have had the opportunity to learn and to change what it offensive, but refuse to do so because they refuse to validate any perspective other than their own. Audism labels the mind set that leads to the behavior of seeing things as a hearing person would. Audist labels the person who refuses to consider that they may have unintentionally offended and chooses to continue offending.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
OK, TXGolfer... So are you suggest us to ignore those audist behaviors, attitudes, and audism because you don't see that way?
Click to expand...

No,

IMO it would be better to focus on what is harmful or unfair, and stop being offended by questions and phrases. For example when someone asks "Why don't you get a CI?" One has a choice......they can explain why realizing this person is actually asking with good intentions.....or they can choose to be offended by the question. To me answering the question seems more productive. I believe the deaf need to realize that we have something that is different, for better or worse, and people are going to be naturally curious about that. I tend to believe polite conversation is much more productive than choosing to be offended. Which is more beneficial.....that person leaving the conversation thinking "wow I never thought of it like that" or thinking "wow, what a jerk, I guess they are bitter" Then again, maybe they leave the conversation without an understanding.....at least you tried.
 
deafbajagal said:
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.
Click to expand...

**nodding** Not only does it have to be defined, it has to be pointed out when it is seen. Only then will people become aware. The vast majority that I have corrected on something they have done or said that was relective of audism have been very willing to listen to and consider what is being said. Most will respond, "I never thought of that. Thank you." However, there are the audists out there that will never change, just as there are racists who never change. It is usually an issue of fear with them. Until they deal with their own issues, they will continually look for ways to make themselves feel superior to someone else. Those we can let go their own miserable way. The ones that want to learn and are receptive to the idea of acceptance of differences are just waiting for us to speak up.
 
TXgolfer said:
No,

IMO it would be better to focus on what is harmful or unfair, and stop being offended by questions and phrases. For example when someone asks "Why don't you get a CI?" One has a choice......they can explain why realizing this person is actually asking with good intentions.....or they can choose to be offended by the question. To me answering the question seems more productive. I believe the deaf need to realize that we have something that is different, for better or worse, and people are going to be naturally curious about that. I tend to believe polite conversation is much more productive than choosing to be offended. Which is more beneficial.....that person leaving the conversation thinking "wow I never thought of it like that" or thinking "wow, what a jerk, I guess they are bitter" Then again, maybe they leave the conversation without an understanding.....at least you tried.
Click to expand...

But I did answer to that familiar question, yet it was ended up my answer was offended them because I told them I don't need it and I am happily fine without it. They were just shocked because they asked me how I could miss out without the sound. I know I'm not only one have that experience...
 
Last edited:
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being offended is a choice. I chose not to be offended. Obviously she had no harmful intent. I chose to let my actions speak for me. After all, her comments were an indication that she had learned more by observing my work than she could ever learn through a conversation. :)
 
deafbajagal said:
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?
Click to expand...

Exactly. If we want to erradicate, we must educate.
 
deafbajagal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have always said that the interpreters are there for the hearing person...the deaf person already knows English and ASL.:P
 
KarissaMann05 said:
But I did answer to that familiar question, yet it was ended up my answer was offended them because I told them I don't need it and I am happily fine with with it. They were just shocked because they asked me how I could miss out without the sound. I know I'm not only one have that experience...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's when it becomes harmful to an extent. If the person persists then you have a choice to make.....Probably not going to change their mind. so are they worth tolerating?
 
TXgolfer said:
Being offended is a choice. I chose not to be offended. Obviously she had no harmful intent. I chose to let my actions speak for me. After all, her comments were an indication that she had learned more by observing my work than she could ever learn through a conversation. :)
Click to expand...

Then why not educate her if you were so fond of her? Questions and statements can indeed do great harm. Why support such behavior when all it takes is a minute of your time to educate? Just because you weren't offended doesn't mean that the next person won't be. And the next person could be a vulnerable child who grows up thinking he is inferior just because he has been exposed to audist remarks all of his life.
 
jillio said:
Then why not educate her if you were so fond of her? Questions and statements can indeed do great harm. Why support such behavior when all it takes is a minute of your time to educate? Just because you weren't offended doesn't mean that the next person won't be. And the next person could be a vulnerable child who grows up thinking he is inferior just because he has been exposed to audist remarks all of his life.
Click to expand...

Probably because of being late-deafened.....TX has had little personal experiences regarding many of the topics we discuss here.....be gentle....
 
jillio said:
Then why not educate her if you were so fond of her? Questions and statements can indeed do great harm. Why support such behavior when all it takes is a minute of your time to educate? Just because you weren't offended doesn't mean that the next person won't be. And the next person could be a vulnerable child who grows up thinking he is inferior just because he has been exposed to audist remarks all of his life.
Click to expand...

Then again.....She might encourage the child with the story of the really nice deaf man she met who had a very successful business. :) Would she tell the same story if I told her that her way of thinking was wrong???? Dunno, but I doubt it. As you are well aware....most people don't like being corrected. .
 
Tousi said:
Probably because of being late-deafened.....TX has had little personal experiences regarding many of the topics we discuss here.....be gentle....
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info. I was simply curious as to why he would not correct the behavior.
 
TXgolfer said:
Then again.....She might encourage the child with the story of the really nice deaf man she met who had a very successful business. :) Would she tell the same story if I told her that her way of thinking was wrong???? Dunno, but I doubt it. As you are well aware....most people don't like being corrected. .
Click to expand...

Audism is not generally demonstrated in direct contact, as in your fantasy of her telling a story to a child. It is demonstrated in casual comments that reflect the attitudes and behaviors of the individual.

I find it to be the opposite. When it comes to something like audism, most people will admit that they did not know that they were being offensive, and once it is explained to them, they are very receptive to examining their beliefs.

So, just because some don't like being corrected, we are not allowed to point out their errors in perceptions of a whole community of people? Why should the hearing be treated with kid gloves and the deaf take on the burden of audism? That attitude in and of itself, is audist.
 
Tousi said:
Probably because of being late-deafened.....TX has had little personal experiences regarding many of the topics we discuss here.....be gentle....
Click to expand...

True, no doubt. But it doesn't change my opinion that by showing up, doing great work and maintaining a positive attitude I had a more positive effect on this person than if I had gently corrected her. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Another example (I have mentioned this before).....One of the insurance companies once pulled me off of a job because the homeowner was uncomfortable with the limited ways to contact me with questions. See now that IS harmful and I dealt with that in a different manner. :)
 
TXgolfer said:
True, no doubt. But it doesn't change my opinion that by showing up, doing great work and maintaining a positive attitude I had a more positive effect on this person than if I had gently corrected her. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

Another example (I have mentioned this before).....One of the insurance companies once pulled me off of a job because the homeowner was uncomfortable with the limited ways to contact me with questions. See now that IS harmful and I dealt with that in a different manner. :)
Click to expand...

Correcting one person is the beginning of the eradiction of audism. Not correcting it allows it to continue.

BTW: your second example is an example of discrimination, not audism.
 
TXgolfer said:
Yeah just like pointing out racism eradicated racism :roll:




True
Click to expand...

Check my post 124. There will always be racists, and there will always be audists. Simply because there are always people who need to point out what they believe is the inferiority of another in order to achieve a feeling of superiority for themselves. Those people have their own issues to deal with. The concern is to do as much as is possible to eradicate audism and/or racism, and/or sexism, and or any other destructive belief system that serves to harm another group of people.

There will always be murder. Does that mean that we, as a society, should not work to eradicate murder? Just because it will never entirely be gone, we are not supposed to do what we can as individuals to lessen it's existence?
 
jillio said:
Check my post in the other thread where you made that remark. There will always be racists, and there will always be audists. Simply because there are always people who need to point out what they believe is the inferiority of another in order to achieve a feeling of superiority for themselves. Those people have their own issues to deal with. The concern is to do as much as is possible to eradicate audism and/or racism, and/or sexism, and or any other destructive belief system that serves to harm another group of people.

There will always be murder. Does that mean that we, as a society, should not work to eradicate murder? Just because it will never entirely be gone, we are not supposed to do what we can as individuals to lessen it's existence?
Click to expand...

Of course we should try to end unfair treatment of the deaf. But I say a vague negative label is counterproductive to that goal. *shrug* People belive what they see more than what they hear (or at least should) Therefore IMO it's better to show people they are wrong than to tell people they are wrong
 
Back
Top