Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Please help me define 'wokeism'

79 replies

BlessingKalmly · 14/05/2025 21:05

This isn't a thread for making jokes, or at least that isn't my intention...

I just can't seem to totally pinpoint the definition, so that is comprehensive...

What is woke?

OP posts:
LeftieRightsHoarder · 10/12/2025 04:15

RedToothBrush · 14/05/2025 22:33

It's telling people they should do something because it's the 'right thing' because they've been told so, without engagement of a brain and critical thoughts as to what that actually means or how it relates to the real world and a total indifferent to class lines and political issues in the UK instead preferring to defer to an American Middle Class Agenda.

Good example - lecturing to a working class area and audience about how they should be considering how terrible slavery was and how all us white people benefitted from it and we should pay reparations and recognise our privilege.

When everyone in the room has lived in the same area forever, all their ancestors worked down the local pit in appalling and dangerous conditions, just about scrapping enough money for food. Having lived through being laid off when the market conditions weren't great. They've all grafted for the benefit of the pit owners but their family pretty much just survived on a subsistence basis.

So they really really weren't the ones exploiting so shouldn't feel shame. Indeed they were the ones exploited and still feel the effects decades after the pits have closed.

The narrative a) doesn't really reflect the history of those there b) slavery was bad but the structural ideas that still exist with slavery are an American not British social problem c) British social problems are much more about class issues which are now manifesting in this wokeism as it's being used as a tool for modern day social control and power politics.

We are asked to recognise the invisibility of slaves in our history whilst making efforts to firmly erase and silence history, deprivation and exploitation that exists in our current world.

We should be recognising historically bad things happen but then using that against another less powerful group in order to control them, is tone deaf and morally fairly reprehensible.

We should be recognising our current issues and the exploitation of the slavery narrative for really rather white middle class aims or really rather racist agendas which are completely counter to the very idea of equality of individuals and opportunities which talking about slavery is supposed to be about.

Because the lack of thinking kills the ability to see the hypocrisy that runs through it and thus there's a loss of sight of the ultimate overall goal of treating everyone fairly and with respect.

Those people in the mining towns don't care about slavery. Not because they hate black people. They don't care about slavery because it has no relevance to their lives and challenges they face. It has no relevance to the lives of their ancestors either. So they just can't connect to the subject so go "why the buggery bollocks have you come ere to talk about this nonsense. We just want to get off benefits, have a job and not live in a crime and drug ridden shit hole".

Cos their lived experience is a world apart from the academic theoretical nature of wokeism. Wokeism is ideological bunkem that hasn't got worthwhile practical value in the day to day lives of normal people. It's a nuisance and it's expensive and doesn't improve the lives of those struggling economically.

You’ve pinpointed an important issue here, Red. A lot of woke rhetoric I’ve heard in the UK is parroted from US sites and therefore makes little sense over here.

The ignorance of class issues, as you point out.
Also the claim that we should prioritise defending abortion rights (which are under attack in the USA but very much less so here) rather than defending our single-sex rights, which genuinely are in danger here.

And the belief that individualistic causes such as the gender identity movement are left wing (rather than ultra-liberal), and that therefore opposing them aligns us with the ‘Religious Right’, which barely exists in the UK.

TempestTost · 10/12/2025 02:43

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 17:59

I like that but not sure it covers everything. (Not saying I can do better).

What I don;t understand is why "working class" or "poor" or "ordinary" or "average or below income" aren't regarded as "identities", and why someone woke does not say "people suffering in an unequal society are the biggest identity group, and being poor is worse than being a woman or black or Jewish or gay, so as people obsessesed with identity politics why don't we focus on economically underprivileged people as the most important identity group?"

The answer has to be something to do with it being imposed by the rich, or perhaps the fact that the people pushing woke are simply relatively privileged middle class people, or utter grifters, and they all care about individual rights and freedoms much more than they do left wing politics.

One thing to consider is the internal make up of the groups that are looking for some kind of special consideration. Let's say the black community. Who are the leaders of that community and what interests do they actually represent?

The fact is that there is a lot of variation even in a country like the US, and that includes economic and other advantages. People like Obama and Harris came from financially stable families with educated parents and lived internationally. How much do they have in common with a poor black family in a crime ridden neighbourhood? Less than the white family who lives next door.

But if they become leaders, they can set the agenda for what their group supposedly wants. And chances are that will look like what's good for the middle classes.

They'd much rather push those racial identities than economic ones.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/12/2025 02:41

TooBigForMyBoots · 09/12/2025 23:52

Is the use of Left Wing in discussion also a rhetorical device to signal or should I say “dog whistle” that the content of someone’s speech is to be ignored and preferably not read or engaged with in good faith?

It can be, yes. As always depends on the context.

TempestTost · 10/12/2025 02:29

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 16:38

The idea that someone with a penis can be a lesbian is a woke idea. I am not sure that any time in 1960 to 2015 the idea that someone with a penis can be a lesbian would have been regarded as liberal. I think it would have been regarded as utterly insane (and maybe also regressive and bigoted if anyone could have been persuaded to take the idea seriously enough to actually deconstruct it properly).

The liberal idea might have been " we aren't defined by our biology" whereas in this case the woke version is "lesbians can have a penis."

halfpastten · 10/12/2025 00:07

Authoritarian virtue signalling

TooBigForMyBoots · 09/12/2025 23:52

AcademyFootball · 09/12/2025 21:25

'Hurt feelings' is simply a right wing political rhetorical device weaponised to delegitimise the real world harms from hate speech. It's a strawman designed to diminish consequences to one of 'offense'.

I disagree, you seem to be saying that as a deliberate mechanism of DARVO intended to police the language of those who just disagree with
you.
Same as “Right Wing” is a rhetorical device to signal or should I say “dog whistle” that the content of someone’s speech is to be ignored and preferably not read or engaged with in good faith.

Is the use of Left Wing in discussion also a rhetorical device to signal or should I say “dog whistle” that the content of someone’s speech is to be ignored and preferably not read or engaged with in good faith?

TempestTost · 09/12/2025 23:31

I think there it's not that systematic, but it includes a lot of beliefs that have a kind of broad relation.

The term itself did, as previously said, have a differernt meaning. But it's now being used in what is essentially an ironic way, for people who think they see the truth more than others, but are in fact blinkered and blind.

So things I would put together:
They have a kind of neo-marxist hierarchy of oppression. The most oppressed are always correct about their perceptions. Or at least they are always to be given priority.
They are usually race essentialists to some degree.
They have a very unsophisticated approach to advantage and disadvantage, and human psychology more generally.
The struggle with correlation vs causation in social sciences.
They believe people's identity is constructed, but also what makes them real, and can only be defined internally.

5128gap · 09/12/2025 23:08

AcademyFootball · 09/12/2025 21:28

None of the woke people I know ever seek to redress social injustice. They just go on marches as a hobby- they don’t ever want to actually engage with the political system and certainly have no desire stand for election or do the hard work. Much prefer to stand on the sidelines and whinge about how awful “they”’are.

They may well believe the marches are doing something. Just as people throughout history have marched in protest against something or in the hopes of gaining something. Including women, for the vote and for our employment rights and today, to protect sex based rights.
You are dismissing as doing it for a hobby and stereotyping as 'whingers' those marching for causes you disagree with. Which was entirely my point. The only difference between being 'woke' or 'a bigot' is whether the person labelling you agrees with you.

Sskka · 09/12/2025 21:49

Why do you want to define it? If it’s because you’ve been challenged to define it as part of an argument, do not under any circumstances get sucked into trying to do so. You will get nowhere – that challenge is always a tactic either to gotcha by identifying exceptions, or to portray you as stupid by refusing to understand simple concepts. Stick with ‘I know it when I see it’.

If it’s in good faith, some of the definitions on this thread are pretty good. Personally I’d favour ‘adherence to current progressive causes, whatever those may be from time to time’. Nominally it’s about achieving equality at group levels, but the key thing imo is that it mutates as convenience demands.

Aisha176 · 09/12/2025 21:36

AcademyFootball · 09/12/2025 21:25

'Hurt feelings' is simply a right wing political rhetorical device weaponised to delegitimise the real world harms from hate speech. It's a strawman designed to diminish consequences to one of 'offense'.

I disagree, you seem to be saying that as a deliberate mechanism of DARVO intended to police the language of those who just disagree with
you.
Same as “Right Wing” is a rhetorical device to signal or should I say “dog whistle” that the content of someone’s speech is to be ignored and preferably not read or engaged with in good faith.

The difference is I'm speaking factually. Harms do occur & the Right do employ this device for the purposes of diminishing that harms occur.

AcademyFootball · 09/12/2025 21:28

5128gap · 09/12/2025 20:35

I think it just means recognising social injustice and seeking to redress it. Obviously, people have different ideas about what is just in society, and what, if any, action should be taken, and on who's behalf.
People who think that others are seeing injustice where none exists, or disagree with what they want to do to address it, or the group/s they support, tend to label those people as 'woke'.
You will never find a consensus of definition of 'woke' because it varies dependent on the stance of the person using the term.

None of the woke people I know ever seek to redress social injustice. They just go on marches as a hobby- they don’t ever want to actually engage with the political system and certainly have no desire stand for election or do the hard work. Much prefer to stand on the sidelines and whinge about how awful “they”’are.

AcademyFootball · 09/12/2025 21:25

Aisha176 · 09/12/2025 20:19

But it's more than that. Some part of 'woke' seems to require a limitation of freedom of speech. (This is where the feelings > logic part comes in). You can't say something factual because it might hurt someones feelings.

This is more projection of 'hurt feelings' on the 'news' of white culpability in terms of the historical facts of systemic racism, colonialism & Imperialism. There are none so hurt as those 'learning' about their ancestral 'shortcomings' & its long lasting damaging consequences on modern society so much so they actively have engaged in state censorship of educational institutions teaching it like Florida…no doubt a first amendment violation of government censorship of academic freedom of speech.

'Hurt feelings' is simply a right wing political rhetorical device weaponised to delegitimise the real world harms from hate speech. It's a strawman designed to diminish consequences to one of 'offense'.

'Hurt feelings' is simply a right wing political rhetorical device weaponised to delegitimise the real world harms from hate speech. It's a strawman designed to diminish consequences to one of 'offense'.

I disagree, you seem to be saying that as a deliberate mechanism of DARVO intended to police the language of those who just disagree with
you.
Same as “Right Wing” is a rhetorical device to signal or should I say “dog whistle” that the content of someone’s speech is to be ignored and preferably not read or engaged with in good faith.

5128gap · 09/12/2025 20:35

I think it just means recognising social injustice and seeking to redress it. Obviously, people have different ideas about what is just in society, and what, if any, action should be taken, and on who's behalf.
People who think that others are seeing injustice where none exists, or disagree with what they want to do to address it, or the group/s they support, tend to label those people as 'woke'.
You will never find a consensus of definition of 'woke' because it varies dependent on the stance of the person using the term.

Aisha176 · 09/12/2025 20:19

BlessingKalmly · 14/05/2025 22:21

I am trying to deepen my understanding of the term because it is bandied about so much in conversation at the moment, I want to be really clear on what it means. I also feel it's quite a complex idea, that cannot be simply defined. It's multi-faceted, and I can sort of see some of the facets but I'm trying to understand the way in which it ties together

Because I can see how what you are saying is a part of what 'woke' is, but I think it also goes more deeply, because otherwise it would be simply known as 'anti-bias'.

But it's more than that. Some part of 'woke' seems to require a limitation of freedom of speech. (This is where the feelings > logic part comes in). You can't say something factual because it might hurt someones feelings.

But it's more than that. Some part of 'woke' seems to require a limitation of freedom of speech. (This is where the feelings > logic part comes in). You can't say something factual because it might hurt someones feelings.

This is more projection of 'hurt feelings' on the 'news' of white culpability in terms of the historical facts of systemic racism, colonialism & Imperialism. There are none so hurt as those 'learning' about their ancestral 'shortcomings' & its long lasting damaging consequences on modern society so much so they actively have engaged in state censorship of educational institutions teaching it like Florida…no doubt a first amendment violation of government censorship of academic freedom of speech.

'Hurt feelings' is simply a right wing political rhetorical device weaponised to delegitimise the real world harms from hate speech. It's a strawman designed to diminish consequences to one of 'offense'.

InSlovakiaTheCapitalOfCourseIsBratislava · 09/12/2025 19:43

I suppose mostly it is the new twenties answer to ‘political correctness gone mad’ but with an extra dimension of exploitation? I think some people when describing media works as woke (eg dr who under Chris chibnalls tenure) are using it in that sense.

i certainly use it as an insult, if I say that someone is so woke they’re positively an insomniac I mean that they want to be regarded as right thinking so much they’ve forgotten how to think critically and there is so much virtue signalling there is no room for anything else .

its a shame it’s moved away from the meaning of being aware of and awake to social injustice

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 17:59

RoyalCorgi · 09/12/2025 16:55

This is what I've come up with: "Wokeism is an obsession with identity politics to the exclusion of all other issues, and is characterised by an obsession with symbols (eg taking the knee, rainbow crossings, remembrance days) rather than material change, and a vicious intolerance towards those who dissent from its orthodoxies."

I like that but not sure it covers everything. (Not saying I can do better).

What I don;t understand is why "working class" or "poor" or "ordinary" or "average or below income" aren't regarded as "identities", and why someone woke does not say "people suffering in an unequal society are the biggest identity group, and being poor is worse than being a woman or black or Jewish or gay, so as people obsessesed with identity politics why don't we focus on economically underprivileged people as the most important identity group?"

The answer has to be something to do with it being imposed by the rich, or perhaps the fact that the people pushing woke are simply relatively privileged middle class people, or utter grifters, and they all care about individual rights and freedoms much more than they do left wing politics.

CurlewKate · 09/12/2025 17:55

It means whatever the “you can’t say anything nowadays” people think it means. Not a word anyone with half a brain would use.

nauticant · 09/12/2025 16:59

BlackForestCake · 09/12/2025 16:52

If I was rich and selfish and thought the left were utter morons I would have invented woke in order to destroy any hope of reducing inequality.

Some of us suspect this is exactly what has happened.

One conspiracy theory I rather like is that big business was rattled by the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the in-roads it was making, and the pivot to enthusiastically embrace many "woke" ideas was in response to being painted as the bad guys and to "woke-wash" their activities and branding.

RoyalCorgi · 09/12/2025 16:55

This is what I've come up with: "Wokeism is an obsession with identity politics to the exclusion of all other issues, and is characterised by an obsession with symbols (eg taking the knee, rainbow crossings, remembrance days) rather than material change, and a vicious intolerance towards those who dissent from its orthodoxies."

BlackForestCake · 09/12/2025 16:52

If I was rich and selfish and thought the left were utter morons I would have invented woke in order to destroy any hope of reducing inequality.

Some of us suspect this is exactly what has happened.

InSlovakiaTheCapitalOfCourseIsBratislava · 09/12/2025 16:52

When I looked in t up on the OED I was quite surprised the definition didn’t have the pejorative sense, which I think has definitely gained more traction

nauticant · 09/12/2025 16:49

I am not sure that any time in 1960 to 2015 the idea that someone with a penis can be a lesbian would have been regarded as liberal.

It was, in fact, the domain of extremely sexist and homophobic men claiming that a lesbian would actually enjoy sex with the right man, or people stating this ironically to take the piss out of the idea.

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 16:38

InSlovakiaTheCapitalOfCourseIsBratislava · 09/12/2025 16:28

I would define woke as a word said with degree of scorn, describing something that previously would have been quite liberal , but has now been a victim of overuse or hyper inflated language

The idea that someone with a penis can be a lesbian is a woke idea. I am not sure that any time in 1960 to 2015 the idea that someone with a penis can be a lesbian would have been regarded as liberal. I think it would have been regarded as utterly insane (and maybe also regressive and bigoted if anyone could have been persuaded to take the idea seriously enough to actually deconstruct it properly).

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 16:36

InSlovakiaTheCapitalOfCourseIsBratislava · 09/12/2025 16:28

I would define woke as a word said with degree of scorn, describing something that previously would have been quite liberal , but has now been a victim of overuse or hyper inflated language

Previous it might have been used to describe progressive things like black rights and gay rights. Now the people who describe themselves as woke are pushing a racist anti-white ideology, and a homophobic anti-LGB ideology. And a pro-men anti-women ideology as well.

The left used to say "we believe in class struggle, in other words we want to reduce economic inequality. We also want equal rights for minorities".

The woke left now says "We need to uplift the most oppressed, and that can be done by stomping on their oppressors. Black rights means reparations and positive discrimination (ie anti-white racism). Transgender people are the most oppressed therefore a straight man's right to date a lesbian trump LGB or women's rights. Meanwhile we kinda want a bit more economic equality, but trans rights aare more important."

If I was rich and selfish and thought the left were utter morons I would have invented woke in order to destroy any hope of reducing inequality.

InSlovakiaTheCapitalOfCourseIsBratislava · 09/12/2025 16:28

I would define woke as a word said with degree of scorn, describing something that previously would have been quite liberal , but has now been a victim of overuse or hyper inflated language