Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To Think That Oxfam Should Cancel Themselves

84 replies

MrsJamesofSutton · 17/03/2023 08:45

Oxfam have published a New Language Guide (if you google that phrase, there are various news sites and indeed Oxfam's own site) pouring approbation on terms such as 'Mother' , 'biological sex', 'field trip' and even apologising for the fact that the guide is written in English-a colonial language.

There are many more examples-some laughable and some quite frightening.

As Oxfam exists , primarily. to help other nations-many of them non-white-couldn't this be see as a patronising, 'Great White Saviour Organisation' and the next logical step, therefore, is to cancel itself.

OP posts:
Dotjones · 17/03/2023 09:08

YANBU, but to what other organisations will people go to if they want to do work helping others and have sex workers hired for them as a reward? Of the top of my head I can't think of other charities that have a record of this.

KvotheTheBloodless · 17/03/2023 09:09

Dotjones · 17/03/2023 09:08

YANBU, but to what other organisations will people go to if they want to do work helping others and have sex workers hired for them as a reward? Of the top of my head I can't think of other charities that have a record of this.

Yes, won't someone think of the perverts?!

Lockheart · 17/03/2023 09:10

Have you tried not using this "New Language Guide"? I'd just ignore it myself.

thebellagio · 17/03/2023 09:11

Slightly OT but I've never been a fan of Oxfam. I worked on a project many moons ago where a client was making a substantial donation to Oxfam - think £20-25k and they couldn't have been less interested in us. Whenever we asked for feedback/support on this project, we were just constantly told we didn't reach the right "corporate partner" level so we weren't entitled to any support from them

It really opened my eyes to what national corporate charities are like.

DemiColon · 17/03/2023 09:11

Yes, if they really believed the bs they spout, they'd simply shut down.

CheeseMunchies · 17/03/2023 09:24

It's the tip of the iceberg as to why they should be cancelled. Oxfam exist primarily to make money and are jumping on some woke bandwaggon. I did some bookkeeping for them some years ago, volunteralily, and was horrified by their expenses and the lavish spreads.

Lol that they have included 'sex worker' in their language guide. They know a thing or two about those at Oxfam.

ThreeFeetTall · 17/03/2023 09:37

What do the people that the charity exists to support think of the language used? This is probably more important than what some (UK based?) person on Mumsnet thinks.

Original poster
MrsJamesofSutton · 17/03/2023 09:37

Lockheart · 17/03/2023 09:10

Have you tried not using this "New Language Guide"? I'd just ignore it myself.

Well, thank you for stating the obvious. Do you normally just ignore everything shit in this world as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

If you are an English speaking woman-not to mention the rest of the crap in this guide-it does effect you.

The point of my post-just in case it wasn't clear-is that whether it's used by people or not-OXFAM have gone to the trouble of writing it and wanting it to be used.

OXFAM have written this because this is how they want language to be used going forward. They want it it to be accepted.

Anyone who buys as much as a tatty old overpriced paperback from them or who donates Grandmothers' curtains to them, is agreeing with them.

Some hard of thinking will agree with them. Fine.

Others have wit and will donate to Sight Savers, Water Aid or local charities instead.

OP posts:
myveryownelectrickitten · 17/03/2023 09:38

Yeah I won’t be taking any advice on “inclusive language” from an organisation which allowed its employees to use prostitutes as part of their job.

At least I know who I won’t be buying Christmas cards from next year. Bog off, Oxfam, with your sanctimonious crap.

Original poster
MrsJamesofSutton · 17/03/2023 09:43

ThreeFeetTall · 17/03/2023 09:37

What do the people that the charity exists to support think of the language used? This is probably more important than what some (UK based?) person on Mumsnet thinks.

Do you think?

OP posts:
Mummyoflittledragon · 17/03/2023 09:46

This is just so funny. Yes, logical conclusion.

Justmeandthedog1 · 17/03/2023 09:46

So if a person donates to Oxfam their money might contribute to developing, writing, publishing & distributing this dross rather than help the people Oxfam purports to help?
Yes, they’re past their sell by date.

Cleargreysky · 17/03/2023 09:47

They are a classic example of a charity that has lost its focus on its core aims.

The time and money spent on developing that guide should have been spent on their core mission.

SweetMeadow · 17/03/2023 09:54

Completely agree OP. I get such bad vibes from Oxfam and refuse to donate my stuff there (even though it’s the most convenient option with their superstore in our city) and won’t buy any of their eye watering, overpriced stuff.

I still feel disgusted about the sex worker revelations and constantly hear about the toxic environment and culture which drives them to make money.

I once had to deal with the head of another big charity (on a personal matter to him) and he was the worst bully I’ve ever come across and used to leave screaming voicemails for me with threats. I was 21 and it gave me an insight into what kind of people have these top jobs in the charity sector.

fairislecable · 17/03/2023 10:05

I know someone who worked there after Uni, she ended up on successive temporary contracts until they told her no money for 3 months until the next project. Could she work for free?

Sadly she wasn’t the only young person they did this to..

I only ever support local charities now.

BossBerk · 17/03/2023 10:10

Ew. The youth (teenagers and early 20s) are suspicious of Oxfam and their sexual exploitation and bullying issues.

I don't think oxfam will be around for much longer! The local secondary kids refused to do work experience with the 😂 their views and opinions were eye opening!

Cleargreysky · 17/03/2023 10:11

Their definition of sex worker makes it clear that they do not view men purchasing women's bodies as an exploitative or harmful practice. Which rather helps us to understand their appalling behaviour when their own workers were exploiting women in this way. From their organistion's political position, nothing bad was actually happening.

I also note that in 92 pages of definitions (92!) they deliberately avoid defining 'woman' or 'man'. Which marks them out as rather cowardly.

This document is not about avoiding offence. It is deeply offensive to many people, as they will well know. Its offensive to many women based on their understanding of the human rights of women. Its offensive to many gay and lesbian people based on their understanding of their humans rights as lesbians and gay men.

This document is a deeply political statement on Oxfam's stance on a deeply divisive human rights issues, with people on both sides viewing their positions as rights based groups. They could at least have been honest about what this document is.

kikedog · 17/03/2023 10:13

They also say English is a language of oppression, I might start sending them a lot of correspondance in welsh so they can spend translation fees...

TidyDancer · 17/03/2023 10:15

This is genuinely one of the worst examples of this shit I've seen in quite a while. They are so out of touch it's unreal.

Do we know much about the joker(s) who actually put this crap together? I'd be taking a very close look at them.

EverybodysALebowski · 17/03/2023 10:39

"Well, thank you for stating the obvious. Do you normally just ignore everything shit in this world as long as it doesn't directly affect you?"

"Some hard of thinking will agree with them."

"Do you think?"

YABU, regardless of any argument you're making, because you're being rude AF and insulting to people who respond with views different from yours.

Precipice · 17/03/2023 11:00

OP, approbation is positive! Not sure what you were aiming for - perhaps opprobium?

furryfrontbottom · 17/03/2023 11:17

OXFAM have written this because this is how they want language to be used going forward. They want it it to be accepted. Anyone who buys as much as a tatty old overpriced paperback from them or who donates Grandmothers' curtains to them, is agreeing with them.

I don't think so. Most people engaging in the transactions you describe will not have read the book and will not have an opinion about it.

Whattodonut · 17/03/2023 11:27

I think the principles are sound and were created with the people who experience the discrimination. So " sex worker" is what people who are usually called prostitutes prefer to be called. I can't see a problem with that. But I can't say I've read 92 pages of it!

Whattodonut · 17/03/2023 11:42

It even says "when working with groups that have experienced discrimination, we should always be advised by them on how they wish to be referred to"

LaviniasBigBloomers · 17/03/2023 11:57

Whattodonut · 17/03/2023 11:42

It even says "when working with groups that have experienced discrimination, we should always be advised by them on how they wish to be referred to"

Brilliant.

In that case I'll have woman (the cunty kind) for my societal and sexual discrimination and mother (also the cunty kind) for my economic discrimination.

Anything to do with Oxfam just makes me think 'they need their hard drives checking'. Horrendous organisation.