AIBU to say that people who are "Anti Woke"

[AntiWoke]

are the people who would like free reign to be racist, sexist, mysogenistic, homophobic. In short, people who want to be able to say whatever they like, even if offensive to some groups of people?

How does one determine who is 'true woke' and who isn't?

No, they're the people that don't want to shower with strangers of the other sex or indulge children that identify as farm animals lol.

There's some truth to the idea that you can be unaware of problems because you are 'privileged' enough to have to deal with them personally. What's frustrating is when people say 'go and check your privilege' instead of just explaining what they need. My privilege isn't anybody else's business (I probably have problems myself that you wouldn't understand, but I'm just not going on about them!) I want to know what the problem is and how I can help. Sure, that feels a bit unfair because you're the one that's suffering and you have to make the effort to explain what the problem is, but that's the old-fashioned way of making progress. If I go and try to 'educate myself' about every possible problem people could be facing, I'll end up an awful busybody and probably get it all wrong anyway.

Well said.
I‘m an immigrant, and I know that some people will have issues with some aspects of immigration, while others might be against it in general.
The former might well have a point worth discussing, and the latter won’t magically change their opinion just because it’s considered unacceptable in a progressive society.

Bore off OP. I don’t like trans people and I’m not afraid to say it. If that offends people then so be it. Trans women are not women. It offends me that trans women think they are women and are parodying us, it works both ways 🤷‍♀️

I've always hated the term because it sounds like bad English to me. slopes off to pedants' corner

It all depends what you mean by the definition of the word 'woke' though, doesn't it? Suffice to say that many people think the term 'woke' stands for ever-so-trendy bandwagon wankspeak.

@inamarina it's interesting because communism is another topic where so many people seem to be advocating for it as a political system, and yet when challenged, are not able to articulate why. And also when referred to all the communist systems that have come before and still currently exist, vehemently cry out that that's not the type of communism for which they advocate. So then what is it? And at that point it's conversation over! It's utterly baffling to me.

Always find it fascinating that those who espouse communism don't actually want to live in a Country that aligns with their ideals - for thee but not for me seems to cover it.

@GailBlancheViola I think it's because every single proposition is ideological rather than based in reality. Maybe communism as a concept is amazing? But when you add human greed, desire for power etc then that changes the reality.

Just like in ideological terms, it would be amazing if we lived in a society where single-sex spaces were not necessary, but unfortunately we do not live in that society.

And rather than focusing on the route causes of problems, it's actively choosing to ignore the massive pitfalls to keep advocating for systems and ways of living that have never been successful once human nature and patriarchy are added into the mix. And it's the most vulnerable in society that continue to pay the price. But hey, a banner is a banner and speaking in absolutes is easy when in your mind it applies to 'those people over there'.

Exactly this.

I am probably pretty woke, but also would be considered a card carrying TERF as I put womens rights in sport over "gender identity".

Also, shutting down people such as calling them racist leads to things like Brexit. You have to work with people, not against them.

@EasternStandard such a strange response to me. It's almost like you had ten rounds of a conversation with yourself and just wrote the end of it.

This stuff is what I am tired of.

I never said anything about women and males and consent. You've made it all up in your head and projected it on to me. Just...just know you are doing it, I guess.

Being offended should not be a crime. Hurt feelings should not be a crime.
Yet the "woke" folks think that having your hurty feelings hurt should mean the offender should be hung, drawn and quartered.

It's pretty ironic that your username was written by Graham Linehan, who has definitely had enough of woke. Incidentally, he is not racist, or xenophobic or a regressive neanderthal, nor a bigot. Neither am I, and I'm a 'leftie', as is Graham.

Contrary to what you imagine, I have spent a lot of time learning exactly what woke actually means, how it originated from critical theory, its long march through the institutions and how it has now metastasised into a quasi religion. I have spent hours listening to people like James Lindsay explain it in minute and fascinating detail. Have you?

Feeling superior is not the same as being superior. You'd do well to reflect on that.

So true.👍

Nothing.

I think @DogInATent is saying the same as you - that there are many of us being classed as extremists when we're not.

Having said that, this is the most complicated thread I've ever seen on here. A lot of the posts appear to be saying one thing, and then suddenly seeming to contradict themselves.

This is a fucking minefield!

I think it depends. You can be woke about some things but not others.

It’s free rein, but yes.

For someone who says they’ve done lots of learning about the term “woke” I think you’ve skipped over/negated a big part of it
being “woke” was all about opening eyes to the systemic and institutional barriers to black people.
As it found a wider audience/usage it became used for wider purposes (before being weaponised by certain parts of the media)

but in my mind “anti-woke” means denying structural inequality. Which is just incomprehensible to me….
you can measure structural inequality!
CVs with Indian or African names are less likely to be called to interview (shown in multiple studies across multiple countries)
women are judged to be dominating a discussion if they speak for more than 25% of the time, but men speaking the same amount are not judged to dominate, etc

if you’re anti-woke (imo) you’re genuinely either resistant to learning new information, or you’re an arse

Are you at university?

Bless you @JeeezeLouise no I run a large organisation at the absolute intersection of all these debates.

So many of us on this thread (including me!) are coming across to one another as partial and naive - both around woke, anti-woke and 'anti-anti-woke'. I think it's because we have all taken different facets of it as our start point. Early in the thread people asked for definitions - like so much cultural stuff the definition is where it's contested.
I took the angle about the idea of privilege. Others have rightly said that that idea is quite divisive and hasn't landed well in culture generally.
@Littlepinkstarsbyradish said that for her, structural inequality is what woke signifies, so for her it's a helpful concept, and that's probably a more useful way of thinking than me banging on about privilege. But others have said that the institutional capture of radical ideas has made woke "not work" for us any more, so it's not something they use any more to highlight those structural things.

Still more folks obviously feel that "woke" is a dog whistle for the extremist MRA space, so you can't "be woke" now without giving up your gender critical philosophy- which is unacceptable to many of us.

And some people are purely rolling their eyes at the idea you have to be virtue signalling and trendy.

Other people are worried that woke means you can't have free speech.

All I'd say is that all the big powers in society - those who want to keep their power and not let us have any - tech, oil, military industrial complex more broadly, patriarchy, the party political system - they all win when we fight with each other about terms. When we are divided.

@BillionaireTea @Littlepinkstarsbyradish in theory yes, what you both describe was the original intended focus - dismantling inequality - but as with most movements, it has now been taken over and colonised by the most privileged in society to bear down on everybody else. It is another tool used by the most privileged to make those less privileged less safe, and has made a mockery of the genuine good work that was being done in the context of equality.

The only people who have ever made me feel uncomfortable discussing issues around inequality have been white, middle class, English people for precisely this reason. Precisely because of their privilege. They can play at the equality game and have these ideological discussions without really having a dog in the race, and can then go home and not worry about it. While people like me have to not only constantly deal with racism, homophobia etc. but are now made to have to sit there and listen to them talk about it like it's a game. And back in the day you at least then didn't have the added salt in the wound of these sorts of people talking over you and at you and spewing their nonsense about a topic that has far more nuance than they could ever perceive.

It's like being colonised.

And my options are to not say anything, to say something and be accused of being phobic, or pour my own heart out and share my own very painful experiences in order to try and get them to listen. Do you know what the emotional toll of that is? I once had one particular woman who was this type to a tee attempt to try and compare what was worse: sexual trauma in wartime or physical torture in wartime. Nobody she had known had ever been through either. And she was speaking about this in such a cavalier fashion because again, you can do when it's not about you. Not realising that members of my family have been tortured and have those physical and mental scars. These topics are like games to a lot of these 'warriors' and it causes so much pain for others. And that particular woman eventually stopped speaking to me because when I started debating her she decided I was phobic! I guess I'm the uneducated native and should just trust that she knows best.

The kind of people the OP refers to should be called racist if they are, homophobic if they are, or perhaps bigoted as a general term.

Oh and I've just remembered: with the task force that was set up at my work to champion women in the workplace, our head of department (a woman) eventually made a man its chair. Now that in itself may not be an issue for some, but what was utterly insulting is that this man already had a handful of complaints from more junior women in the department about his misogynistic behaviour and instances of sexual harassment. Which the head knew about!

He was eventually let go, after nearly 20 official complaints against him. Guess which complaint led to his dismissal? The one made by another man who witnessed his behaviour on one occasion.

I quit the task force as did a lot of others. But I'm sure the HoD included the work of the task force in her CV as an example of her fight for equality!

This is the OP's first thread - her only comment on MN is on this thread, one about her spelling of rein.
Wind up?