To Think That Oxfam Should Cancel Themselves

[MrsJamesofSutton]

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.

Where does it say they don't use mother? They do. Explicitly. They use parents first because that includes both parents- That's what most organisations that support parents do. (E.g. NHS, SW, almost all charities except the hyper religious etc) And explicitly say "if individual parents have a preference for a role name, to respect their choices". So they'd be happy to refer to you as a mother.

Or woman? They do. All over! That's the whole 1st section.

I think they'd probably rather not call you a cunt out loud though.

😂😂

What an odd remark.

So, if I say all cats and dogs should be down immediately but say it nicely with a smiley face and flowers, then, that makes it ok does it?

And if I say free healthcare for all but say it rudely, that is not ok.

As long as I understand that it is not what I say but how I say it. That is ridiculous. Vote for me, I've got a big smile and don't vote for Johnny because he is sarcastic! Is that really how you go through life deciding what is right and wrong? dear Oh dear! No wonder so many get away with so much.

Also, if you think I've been rude, well then-maybe you're new to AIBU.

Go back and have a proper read with your reading glasses on because everyone else has seen it.

Do you work for Oxfam?

Why so angry that you call me a cunt. Most odd. You sound as if you're angry that it is over every news outlet, even Breakfast TV and you've overheated.

Perhaps you would rather it was kept quiet.

I have been here a long time. Long enough in fact to remember when most people who posted in AIBU were at least willing to consider that they might be wrong, or were interested in hearing the perspectives of those they disagreed with, even if there was no chance whatsoever of changing their opinion.

Having a robust argument backed with information, facts, and spirit is great.

Telling someone who disagrees in their interpretation "Go back and have a proper read with your reading glasses on because everyone else has seen it" does not qualify as a a robust argumentative strategy. It's just name-calling and aggressiveness and suggests you're not interested in persuading others or having your ideas challenged.

The CEO of Oxfam, was asked by Kate Garroway why they had announced they were dropping, 'mother' and 'father' and @Whattodonut , unlike you, he acknowledged this and I guess as CEO, he must know what this document says, as he said they were dropping it but a lot of places used guardian now-yes, that was his weasel defence for that one.

Maybe you should get on to him and give him the wonderful news that he hasn't dropped 'mother' after all..

He will be pleased!

I'm a mother, not a guardian and I think more than 50% of mothers will feel the same.

Happy Guardians' day to you!

The rest of his document is laughable to and before you try to defend it, I accept your apology in advance for writing in English-a colonial language used to oppress-according to Oxfam.

What do you think about the fact I have been called a cunt?

This is all a smoke screen to take the light of Oxfam and their dangerous nonsensical document.

Oh my god. I was replying to @LaviniasBigBloomers ! Calm your pants my dear!

@MrsJamesofSutton I apologise for not tagging @LaviniasBigBloomers in my post. Who referred to herself as a cunty kind of woman and mother.

I also would refer to myself as a cunty kind of woman and mother so...

and I strongly agree with @EverybodysALebowski . I believe there is a place for calm rational conversation. Rather than pearl clutching. The first thing I did was read the document. And before I replied I read the whole thing.the name guardian isn't referred to. It's like book burning. Don't assume something is as bad as the view of one reviewer. Try reading the book itself.

oxfam are just a joke. How they still exist is crazy.

I'm totally fine with you calling me a cunt @Whattodonut

It's not like the time I was called a Tory. That stung.

FFS, I wasn't posting to form a "smoke screen" for Oxfam. Are you kidding? Do you hear yourself?

I clicked on this thread because I was genuinely interested in hearing multiple opinions and insights and robust discussions of the subject.

So that's going well, obviously.

Remind me, what were the major factors that led to a decline in Welsh-speaking?

Something about a Welsh Not?

Amazed anyone still donates to them. Employing paedophiles and aid for sex!

Awful money making organisation. Yeuk!

I spend a lot in the local Oxfam bookshop. I suppose most charity shop customers don’t really notice the specific charity, they are just looking for a bargain/something vintage. However, given that I do patronise Oxfam quite a lot I am disappointed that they have wasted money on this nonsense. Were I in charge I would be ashamed to have funds squandered like this on my watch.

Ed

Yes agree good point

I don't quite get the argument- and I'd be grateful if someone could explain it to me (rationally! 😁)
So they are doing this because of the historic abuses some of the people who worked for them did. And they acknowledged that there were massive failings in screening and transparency and they needed to be better than good at both screening and transparency.

Its no secret that most anti poverty / help the poor people are just an extension of colonialism - we are rich and they are poor because historically we colonised their countries.

So when they decide to make it clearer that they are not interested in being a "poor little poor people... here have some money" charity and shift to a "poverty is caused by many things but some of the things were can and should change that will make a difference to millions of lives are... XYZ ... and here's what we're doing about it" part of that is being beneficiary led. (And I haven't got the document open any more but I'm sure beneficiary is the wrong word!)

And part of that is using language that the people they help want them to use.

So when they do that they are damned if they do and dammed if they don't?

I don't think they're perfect. I think they're a little lost and looking for a way of helping without alienating their supporters.

@kikedog @Crancod Y rheswm am fod y Saeson oedd gormeswyr y Cymry

I guess I'm asking what should they do?

Thank you so much for reassuring me that I'm not the only one who remembers this.

They used charity money to pay to rape children and then to cover it up at a senior level.

But you're fine with having your money spent on oxfam staff paying pimps for access to prostituted children?

This.

@Whattodonut I’m afraid I can’t see how it helps the poor of former colonies to do away with the word “mother” and the host of other suggestions. It’s really, really not about helping or “including” any beneficiaries; it’s about slapping themselves on the back for their “forward thinking” mindset and appeal to the right kind of supporter.

I am in no way defending them but that was in 2011. 12 years have passed and I'm pretty sure all charities have bad people in them who take advantage of the vunerable and the access being an air worker gives them. Does that mean all charities should close down? Or just those who are trying to be better now?

Oxfam is a horrible organisation, amazed that anyone still gives money to the tossers.

Aren't they all?