To think that "wokeism" is for the privileged few?

[Mooscow]

Wokeism and identity politics seems rife at the moment in the UK. But Canada and the US seem even worse. There is this massive push to avoid the possibility of ever offending anyone, ever. For example, I work for a North American company and we've just been given a long list of words never to use. This includes "female", "blind", "deaf", "blacklist", "homeless", "rule of thumb" and it goes on and on and on. So you can't say things like "turn a blind eye" or "tone deaf" etc. any more in case it offends a blind or deaf person. Really?!

I've just read an article in the FT (sorry can't share) that says the US has only sent 111million out of its pledge to send 1 billion vaccines to poorer countries. The US has 2 and a half times the amount of vaccines it needs for itself and Canada has ordered 8 times what it needs.

I know that vaccines and wokeism has little in common but it just struck me how so much effort is put into this new purity culture whilst at the same time demonstrating utter selfishness and lack of compassion for anyone else.

It's also like the push to remove the word women from healthcare such as cervical screening in case a transman, as a "cervix haver" 🤮 is offended at being grouped with women, while 40% of women (especially those without English as a first language and those in lower socio-economic groups) don't even know what a cervix is. But screw them, let's let them get cervical cancer while we pat ourselves on the back and virtue signal at making sure we don't offend by telling the truth the tiny, tiny proportion of trans people.

I wonder if the whole work/identity politics stuff is based in the fact that privileged people can effortlessly virtue signal to feel better about themselves whilst remaining selfish, uncaring and apathetic towards people who are actually in need or vulnerable. AIBU?

@DameFanny

So you're working in a healthcare or social services setting *@Mooscow*? Because most of those examples seen absolutely fine, e.g. sold down the river is a slavery term so just saying betrayed is better. No idea what's wrong with tipping point.

Have you asked them why female is out and not male? Or are you just going to mutter and froth and stir up some more transphobia without ever sense-checking?

"Mutter and froth" is a very unpleasant characterisation of the OP who as far as I can see has not said anything personal to anyone but is rather discussing a policy issue. It is very telling that your posts have devolved into rude attacks.

Moreover, this characterisation is surely intended to evoke images of someone with poor mental health.

The medications used to control very severe mental ill health have quite extreme side effects which make the user appear a bit unusual - muttering and frothing are both included.

It's awful for those people as they obviously know they come across a bit strangely but on balance the medicine is safest option.

I would ask you very gently to be kind and reflect on your use of language when in disagreement with people as muttering and frothing is stigmatised and adds insult to injury.

@standupsitdownturnaround thank you. Perhaps I should ask my company to add "mutter and froth", "bigot" and "transphobe" to the list of offensive phrases to avoid 😊

I'll withdraw the mutter and froth @standupsitdownturnaround, you're right there could be unintended connotations.

I don't agree that I've descended into personal attack though, just frustrated that instead of asking her company why female and not male, she's using this list to stir up intolerance here - which suggests she understands very well what they've done but doesn't want to accept it.

We don't know the very specific materials the OP is talking about - but she's already getting people to say 'utterly mental that people aren't allowed to call themselves female when they are' which isn't any kind of conclusion you can draw from what's been given - unless you want to make an in-house style guide about transphobia and get people worked up about those terrible trans people making things difficult. Which is inciting hatred.

But you carry on with your veiled calls to arms OP, and your disingenuous 'I only asked a question and they called me a bigot'. You've got plenty of people agreeing with you, of the calibre of Tommy-5-names-Robinson. Nice company you keep.

Still waiting for factual links other posters?

Still waiting for factual links other posters?

We wait! I expect they're being thoroughly assembled.

@cookiemonster2468

Isn't it a good thing that "privileged" people are in a position where they are able to consider these things ? It goes back to the hierarchy of needs I suppose and obviously people who are starving or can't meet their basic needs are going to be less able to think about something like workplace discrimination. That doesn't mean they should never be thought about.

I think the word "woke" is currently being tossed around like "snowflake" used to be. But to me basically any definition I have seen of the word "woke" just seems to mean anti-racism and anti-discrimination. I don't undertand the issue with that.

Of course there are problems in wider society and no one is 100% good and pure. The vaccine issue you speak about is one that really only people in the highest authority have any say over, so you can't really compare it to your Average Joe who is trying not to be racist, bigoted, offensive and discriminatory and who will be slapped with the label "Woke" by those who want to keep him in his place and keep the status quo.

People are angry because they’re getting old, and realising that younger generations don’t agree with them about everything. It’ll happen to those young people too and the young people after that. And it’s often very boring.

This attitude of " if you can't provide me with a link on the internet you are a bigot"
is so tedious.
What must life be like in your house. 😂

@FindingFlorestan

This attitude of " if you can't provide me with a link on the internet you are a bigot" is so tedious. What must life be like in your house. 😂

The attitude is:

If you can't provide me with facts to back up your assertions then I'll question your motivations for posting inflammatory statements

Can you honestly not see that?

It bit.

[quote Mooscow]You may also find these facts rather eye-opening forwomen.scot/did-you-know/[/quote]
I linked to lots of facts and data here but you refused to look at it. I haven't look through all the links but the first one is to parliamentary data. It's not propaganda as you seemingly wish to believe.

You've also nicely demonstrated my point that the people who are so invested in correcting "wrongthink" are those who judge and fling insults at people without any basis and are not in fact the kind and compassionate people they try to convince others that they are.

I'm not going to engage any more after being personally insulted, misrepresented and told that my experiences didn't happen.

Could you specify exactly what kind of links would satisfy you.
Government documents pertaining to problems, discrimination,violence faced by women , without one single reference to" women" or " girls"? Would that be enough or does there have to be a banner headline saying that the word women is forbidden in these documents?
Health campaigns targeting female health problems with no mention of women?
Memoranda from political parties calling women " non men"?
Would any of the above do, if they only erase the word " woman" but don't actually say it is forbidden to use it?
Is " erasure" enough?

Hello @Mooscow

I did have a look at the link you just posted, but really it doesn't corroborate the very serious allegation that there is some plot afoot to erase the word "woman".

There are a couple of paragraphs which touch on the issue:

Do you know that the very word ‘woman’ will change definition, if the trans lobby succeed? If we can’t define what a woman is, how can we accurately capture data? How can we record male violence, the pay gap, our representation in government, business, finance, law, media…anywhere? Police Scotland already record incidences on the basis of gender identity, but can’t seem to recall when, or why that happened, and the census looks to be going the same way, despite the importance of recognising sex being shown quite dramatically by COVID-19.

An influential lobby loudly insisting that they won’t be erased (when trans organisations are heavily state funded and train all major businesses, branches of government, school teachers, universities and NHS boards) are actively campaigning to erase the very definition of what a woman is – best archive it, just in case! Have you noticed how easy it is to define a woman when we’re being aborted, subjected to FGM, married off, denied the vote, raped, murdered, paid less, represented less in every single sector of government and industry, expected to perform most of the world’s unpaid labour, and constituting 71% of the world’s modern slaves? The only places that seem unsure on what a woman is are the places feminism was starting to make inroads. It’s almost like there must be some sort of a connection, isn’t it?

But they're as short on evidence that women cannot call themselves women (even anecdotal, never mind reliable) as the posts here on the subject seem to be.

I've no doubt at all that there are a lot of genuine grievances to be protested, but wouldn't it be better to keep them accurate?

Whilst I agree that fair vaccine distribution is more important than avoiding the phrase ‘rule of thumb’, I have zero sympathy for your outrage about having to consider other people’s lives and wellbeing just because you consider them to be a ‘tiny, tiny proportion’ of the population.

Also, treating other people with dignity and respect is not virtue signalling. How awful to equate the two.

You refer to people who are ‘actually in need or vulnerable’... which implies that you’re just fed up of people caring about the trans community, when you consider them to be less in need than others and a minority... so you’re questioning why you should be forced to reflect on your behaviour towards them?

You realise that it’s not a competition right? You understand that there can be many different people from many different backgrounds and circumstances who are all facing a variety of different issues and are all in need or vulnerable in various different ways? Who all need support and respect? One doesn’t simply cancel out the other.

How convenient that would be!!

I guess it’s your way of excusing yourself from behaving decently towards certain minority groups... you can simply say, ‘well I’ve identified someone more in need (someone I consider worthy of my approval and respect) and therefore everyone else is a bastard, so you can’t blame me for hating them.’

Whatever next? Are you going to demand I stop doing care work because you’ve identified a person more disabled than my client? More in need? More vulnerable?

Are you going to forbid me from laughing at my friend’s joke because you heard a funnier one?

You can’t just compare people, decide one is in more need and therefore scapegoat the other.

I wonder if the whole work/identity politics stuff is based in the fact that privileged people can effortlessly virtue signal to feel better about themselves whilst remaining selfish, uncaring and apathetic towards people who are actually in need or vulnerable. AIBU?

This is a brilliant article about "luxury beliefs" (wokeness). Agree that many of these ideas are pushed by the privileged who are the real beneficiaries of such ideas;

nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-status-symbol-for-rich-americans/

I opened this thread thinking this might be an interesting debate.

But it's one of those threads by stealth.

That's a shame.

@Mooscow

As someone who has participated on plenty of social media and forums on that (N American) side of the pond - I’m surprised that the trend of using of females pejoratively by men and misogynists especially in Northern America is something that is not on your radar. As a black woman I have noticed this been a thing for at least 5 years. An example phrase “these females are always complaining” or “Females are so emotional - men need to….”. Women and girls are now mirroring this language and saying things like “I’m not like these other females”. There are countless examples on social media of this trend and many (not all) black feminists have been at pains to try and get people to remind themselves “woman” and “man” should be used as nouns and “female” and “male” as adjectives (so female artist or female formula one driver) or in scientific speech and writing but has no place in day to day language. This use of “female” as opposed to woman by younger generations has become so pervasive - I’m not surprised that there is now guidance about it. And many people on this thread were confused about the lack of guidance about “males” vs “men” - again its a quirk of this trend (hence the idea it is rooted in sexism) that men are almost never identified as males by the people who use females to describe women in their speech.

@334bu

Could you specify exactly what kind of links would satisfy you. Government documents pertaining to problems, discrimination,violence faced by women , without one single reference to" women" or " girls"? Would that be enough or does there have to be a banner headline saying that the word women is forbidden in these documents? Health campaigns targeting female health problems with no mention of women? Memoranda from political parties calling women " non men"? Would any of the above do, if they only erase the word " woman" but don't actually say it is forbidden to use it? Is " erasure" enough?

That'll do, yes

[quote lonelyapple]I wonder if the whole work/identity politics stuff is based in the fact that privileged people can effortlessly virtue signal to feel better about themselves whilst remaining selfish, uncaring and apathetic towards people who are actually in need or vulnerable. AIBU?

This is a brilliant article about "luxury beliefs" (wokeness). Agree that many of these ideas are pushed by the privileged who are the real beneficiaries of such ideas;

nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-status-symbol-for-rich-americans/[/quote]
What does that mean for, say, a care worker who supports BLM and Me Too? Are they also elite hypocrites?

Are you a hypocrite if you have more than a certain amount of money, or does talking about 'woke' matters make you an awful person anyway?

Yes @skullbabe! MRAs have taken to using 'female' like Star Trek's Ferengi - very creepy

"I'm not going to engage any more after being personally insulted, misrepresented and told that my experiences didn't happen"

You were trying to stir up hate, without evidence. I asked for evidence. You didn't supply any, and conveniently ignored any questions that might reveal the context of your in-house style guide and therefore the context of the word choices.

I despise the word ‘woke’. It’s used far too much to silence people who are are already marginalised.

I actually think the use of language is extremely important. I’m quite offended that the use of the word woman is no longer used in some circumstances because that is what I am and how I would like to be described. As a consequence I’m happy to use the words that people want to describe them. I’m also more than happy to avoid words that others may find offensive. I don’t want to cause anyone any upset, even if I don’t necessarily understand the reasoning.

I think Maya Angelou said it best:
"I did then what I knew how to do. Now that I know better, I do better."

We may not always have realised the questionable origins of some well-used phrases, but now that we do we don’t need to continue using them just because we always have. People are well within their rights to ask us to stop using language that they find offensive or uncomfortable. It doesn’t make them ‘woke’ it just means that they have good boundaries.

www.nhsggc.org.uk/working-with-us/hr-connect/policies-and-staff-governance/policies/menopause-policy/

Not one mention of " women"

What the fuck. Not being able to say "female."

blogs.gov.scot/fairer-scotland/2020/10/19/period-products-in-schools-regulations-coming-in-to-force/

Not one mention of" girls" when referring to students who need period products.

Enough of the derailing. A blanket ban on the word "female" is a way of keeping women from having a legitimate way of defining themselves by sex, since TRAs are intent on invading the word "women."