Oxfam's analysis of its 'inclusive language crises'

They are apparently surprised that donors don't necessarily want their money funding initiatives to get impoverished people to use gender neutral pronouns rather than, you know, feeding them or helping them with economic development, so...

Nothing will change until they get rid of whichever senior manager used to work with Stonewall and is driving all this. They also need to get the 20 something staffers out of Oxfam House in Cowley to spend a week sorting bags, talking to customers and volunteers in York, Inverness, Newcastle or Plymouth.

Sadly not just Oxfam is captured by this nonsense; there seems to be a merry-go-round of charity HQ staff who move from charity to charity leaving destruction in their wake.

Also, the shop volunteers are important and the 20 somethings need to spend time with them, but the shops are not the ‘business’ of oxfam. The business of oxfam takes place in the likes of Haiti and we saw how dreadful their culture is there.

As for the idea that you can get robust research from analysing the demographically skewed sample available on Twitter .... do these people have any relevant education or skills at all?

Gosh, terfdom (or protecting women’s hard won rights) has been built on the revolutionary progress for women in recent history. Women having spaces where we could more easily navigate in society. Voting, representation in public life, legislature and decision making bodies; prisons where we wouldn’t so easily be raped or attacked by males; public facilities likewise; married women owning property and being able to have bank accounts in our own right; female civil servants not having to resign on marriage; being permitted to access education and profession. One could go on about what changes for women have occurred over the last 50/80/200 years. If society —pretends to— believes women don’t exist as a sex class, then discrimination which had to be overcome wasn’t targeted at women. Yet, it was, and had to be fought for.

Gender ideology tries to blow up the idea of women as a sex class by trying to promote men (or biological males) are just as much women as actual women. What does that mean for the progress for women? Women still exists as a real biological sex irrespective of any parvenu, proposal that it doesn’t. Gender ideology will bring the real ‘conservative’ of 200yrs ago back for women. It will smash the revolution which brought a better life for women, and torpedo future progress for women.

You might want to look up what the R in TERF stands for.

And consider the C in GC. Criticising the conservative and regressive sterotypes of gender.

I am a former Oxfam shop volunteer, was there about 9 years before leaving in the summer. Not just over the inclusive language nonsense, but also because the shop manager was an incompetent twat with a hoarding problem. Not ideal when you're managing a charity shop.

Anyway, there is such a massive GULF in ethos between head office and the shops it's not true. Go into any Oxfam shop around the country and ask a volunteer why they're there and they will tell you something about raising money for developing countries, working with people in the aftermath of a natural disaster, contributing to their local community etc etc. Lots of middle-aged women, retired people on weekdays, sprinkle of students and schoolkids at weekends. Not politically engaged by and large.

Head office staffers aren't there for the sorting bags of clothes and dealing with arsey customers. They are all about equality, and pronouns, and political posturing and campaigning, They see working in Oxfam as a stepping stone to a political lobbying job or the ultimate goal as a job as a Labour MP - worked for Jo Cox, didn't it? And Welsh MP Stephen Doughty.

These Head Office staff are 20-somethings, straight out of uni, idealistic, many independently well-off enough to be able to accept a lower charity salary and the high living costs in Oxford/London. These are the people who produce the Pride posters and order in the huge amount of Pride merch which is sent to stores, takes up loads of space, and doesn't sell. In my 9 years at Oxfam we never saw ANYONE from head office in our shop, which was a large, high-performing branch.

They ran a survey this time last year about the disconnect between Head office and the shop volunteers and this is pretty much what the survey told them. That volunteers don't feel listened to, that the core values of head office and stores are miles apart, that what head office thinks the direction of the organisation is does not match what volunteers think.

Nothing will change until they get rid of whichever senior manager used to work with Stonewall and is driving all this. They also need to get the 20 something staffers out of Oxfam House in Cowley to spend a week sorting bags, talking to customers and volunteers in York, Inverness, Newcastle or Plymouth.

Those brilliant, intelligent, highly-skilled elite people who are up to the task were not exactly up to this task:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48593401

Whenever people express unhappiness with how much the top people at huge charities are paid, we're always told it's because they need brilliant, intelligent, highly-skilled elite people who are up to the task.

But I'm guessing the people who have been in charge of this fiasco are not the shop-floor employees on NMW (or even volunteering).

I'm just waiting for somebody to run a study as to whether people feel more inclined to like you if you either (A) punch them in the face or (B) offer them a comfy chair with a cup of tea and a biscuit. I'm on tenterhooks as to which way the results could possibly go...

@NoCloudsAllowed

"It's fighting to maintain the social structures around gender that we have now. Because of a perception that proposed changes would set a cat among the pigeons and unleash both foreseen and unforeseen consequences."

Is that what being gender critical is?? It's about preserving women's rights, because in some circumstances sex matters and is universal, and should be prioritised over gender identity which is not universal.

This could make it easier to connect with people who certainly do not want anyone to starve to death

and

while you argue about words that no one has said, there are real people, men, women, children and whole families, dying of hunger

It interesting when juxtaposed with

”The union's general secretary, Sharon Graham, accused Oxfam of hypocrisy as "its own workers report having to use foodbanks", while the charity was "an extremely wealthy organisation".”

I don't understand the inclusion of the example of Oxfam's F-word campaign (the F-word being Famine). Although this quote from it:

“while you argue about words that no one has said, there are real people, men, women, children and whole families, dying of hunger”

illustrates how Oxfam is happy to indulge people in affluent, comfortable Western countries who have time to navel-gaze about gender identity and pronouns, but in their core and original remit of helping people in the rest of the world in desperate situations, it's back to basics with the use of "men", "women", "children" and "families".

I also take issue with Oxfam's attempt to link drought in Somalia with climate breakdown.

It's fighting to maintain the social structures around gender that we have now. Because of a perception that proposed changes would set a cat among the pigeons and unleash both foreseen and unforeseen consequences.

I'm not in either camp. But conservative means something other than 'bad' and progressive means something other than 'good'

And meanwhile, Oxfam staff are going on a strike which appears to be supported by such normal bedfellows as the Guardian and Daily Mail (!).
Effectively it's several different organisations; the actual people working to combat poverty and famine; the retail staff (although there are a lot of volunteers each shop will have a paid manager at least); the fundraising staff; and head office ... The last of whom should probably get out more.
Have never worked for them (thank God) but live locally so I know a lot of people who do, or have done.

Terfitude is fighting, for example, against putting rapists in women's prisons, and women being called 'womb-holders' or 'period-experiencing humans'. If those things are what you call progressive then you can keep your 'progress'. It's already happening, it's not some fear of future change.

Well, I believe sex is conserved however much you dick about with gender, so maybe I am a conservative? 🤷

Wow 83% vote in favour of striking on an 82% turnout! Staff relying on food banks - whatever happened to 'charity begins at home'?

Terfitude is definitely conservative. Conservatism (not the same as the Tory party) is about protecting existing structures because you think change is likely to throw up something worse and you should trust the accumulated wisdom of previous generations that developed those structures. Sounds bang-on for GC stuff, right?

Lols. Oxfam's head office employees are not the same people as their donors. You'd probably be hard pressed to afford a family if you were employed by Oxfam, unless you were in upper echelons of management.

When I worked for a charity, they were unashamed to pay £15k a year (in an expensive city). Workers are supposed to live on peanuts because beneficiaries are more impoverished. It's a weird martyrdom thing, you're supposed to do without financial stability as a badge of honour.

And yes, people might be more inclined to donate when things like family are invoked because we're humans with time-honoured social structures, not sexless postmodern androids.

conservative (small c) as opposed to regressive? Letting males into women's prisons is going back 200 years! And basing society on masculine and feminine stereotypes is going back about 60 or 70 years.

Yes that's how I read it too. Motherhood is the thing that literally keeps the human race going, it's not inherently small 'c' conservative to care about it.

Aye,let the pure of heart and mind keep them afloat.

I thought this was satire! (Added bold type to emphasise the madness.)
^^
'Future communications can consider issues such as family, motherhood, and fatherhood, to incorporate them into a point of view that is more appealing to more conservative sectors. This could make it easier to connect with people who certainly do not want anyone to starve to death, but who react more easily if the problem is explained to them from a point of view that incorporates concerns, they have: the family, for example.’

😂 How nice they acknowledge that these “conservative” types who value motherhood and fatherhood don’t actually want anyone to starve to death.

Let's keep the fruits of terf labour for terfs. That's a new year's resolution to live by.

They conducted a

"Social Listening analysis where we measured the volume of conversations, positive and negative sentiment, and the impact of certain influencer profiles on the conversation around the issue."

And they did this social listening analysis on Twitter:

"We carried out the analysis on the social network Twitter, as it is the network that allows to collect more data than other social media platforms. And more importantly, because it’s the network where users express themselves without the social containment that they impose on themselves in other networks."

"In contrast Facebook is the network usually used to interact with family, friends and even work colleagues. On this network it is rare to find harsh criticism or heated discussions. Instagram and TikTok are networks where a positive image predominates, so aren’t the natural platforms for an overly critical topic either."

So basically, they analysed Twitter activity about the topic.

😂😂😂