Another presenter leaves the BBC

[senua]

Nigel Rees, who has presented the same programme on Radio 4 for 46 years, is leaving because he is fed up with current "wokery". AOL and Metro

'but equally the BBC are falling into a bit of a 'go and grab one of them to prove we've ticked that box' thing

I agree with this, it often is box-ticking and for that reason they will often make a decision on only that basis, feel like they've ticked the box, and still not really address the issue.

The comedian Rosie Jones was actually on R4 the other day and joked about how she's disables AND gay so "the BBC LOVE me!" - hit the nail in the head.'

Last bit is a joke! Probably referencing the 'black one legged lesbian' thing which has been around at least since the 80!

Without context it's hard to know whether she was taking piss out of BBC changes to be more representative rather than dominated by the group that have always been the default.

I find the (also vv old) criticism of various sorts of people being on TV that I think two people at least have raised. Is and always has been vastly more revealing of what they actually feel, than anything else.

The total conviction that anyone who has characteristics that don't match the default, cannot have anything to offer around what they are on prog for.

Definitely not because they have relevant-

*Specialist knowledge
*First hand experience
*Interesting things to say
*Have brought about change/ made a discovery
*Etc etc.

That's obviously a terrible view. One shared by many though. And I've heard in RL so many times.
Couple of examples-

Only promoted because lesbian

Only promoted because she plays politics

And then onto

It feels like white men are the one discriminated against now (
(openly said to maybe 100 people at a D&I work thing launching new D&I group lunchtime. So chose to attend! In a company maybe 70 % white men and a 40% pay gap!!!

Plus of course the should select by merit not to tick equality box, the group that get this loads are women. Half the population! 50% of UK! That surely can't be there because respected expert etc.

Interesting posts.

Yes @CheeseMmmm

The total conviction that anyone who has characteristics that don't match the default, cannot have anything to offer around what they are on prog for.

It’s mainly stuffy old white blokes stating this stuff (still) but I’m hearing it more from women too. “Oh well you know why Raj got the job” - ummm this is probably the same thing that was said about you because of your sex 20 years ago.

I don’t want feminism to wash away good advances like “let’s not assume everyone except white blokes are employable/qualified/interesting” because of separate concerns about gender ID. I often listen to older bbc programmes on 4extra and it’s amazing how even 5 or 10 year old shows often seem so antiquated now because of the lack of any women’s voice and/or the kinds of off colour comments.

Blimey, I do not think that anyone who has characteristics that don't match the default, cannot have anything to offer around what they are on prog for. for example, Maggie aderin-pocock is fantastic, knows her stuff and a wonderful communicator and a great choice to be an expert voice/presenter on satellites and space topics. Rosie Jones is a really good and experienced comedian. (And of course it was a joke - jokes like that are funny because they’re true.) George the poet is brilliant.

But I want people to be there because they can do the job and are effective, like the above, and because the field is open and they aren’t choosing a white straight male by default. They should actively consider everyone else and be committed to diversity.

But that is different from box-ticking where you grab the nearest minority/oppressed group member to look good, and banish people simply because they’re a white male etc. It’s patronising and virtue-signalling and generally carried out by the same white middle-class people as ever, trying to show how inclusive they are.

Plus of course the should select by merit not to tick equality box

Yes. And I think the problem Rees faced wasn't really 'wokery' - it was more that his show wasn't really a format readily dragged into the 21st century. The 'merit' needed for his show was knowing about 'pale and stale' culture like Noel Coward. Personally I enjoy coward but it really isn't something that we should expect to be a staple of a mainstream program in the 2020s.

There's an air of this going round then - because my mum brought it up at Christmas as we watched some fairy tale thing, that she was annoyed that these classic tales had historically inaccurate casting (specifically Hansel was black/mixed race), and she felt it was being pushed too much (with a side of 'and why no asians')

I said that the kid was clearly British, his parents were probably born here too, and even his grandparents could easily have been, which made him more British than me (who purely based on looks would have been acceptable in this part to her), the story included a witch in a gingerbread house so was hardly a historically accurate account, and the fairy tale wasn't even british anyway, so all the the rest of the characters were wrong too, so no, I honestly didn't have a problem with it.

That’s a very good point about Quote Unquote. By its nature it’s about the quotes and quote-makers who have been elevated and culturally promoted in the past, so inherently not very diverse in its remit. It is one of the R4 shows that makes me heave a sigh of boredom.

I don’t object to casting like that at all kotatsu. It’s just not good if someone is chosen purely for diversity reasons even if they don’t have the ability or are not a good fit, and everyone non-“diverse” is kicked out for the sake of it. I think this box-ticking does happen and it’s not wrong to be aware of it. It doesn’t mean anyone who points it out disapproves of diversity. But I accept that people who do disapprove of diversity will use that argument too.

Some of the other long running radio 4 shows have been able to adapt to good, more 'diverse' participants and be all the better for it.

Yes definitely. I’m sorry I haven’t a clue has moved on a lot. News quiz also.

It's beginning to feel a bit like any article mentioning the word "woke" gets a thread on this board

I don't really like the word being used as a putdown. It did have a proper meaning once, and I still consider it to be "woke" or politically aware to fight sexism and misogyny. Especially when it's out of favour, like now!

@bishophaha

It's beginning to feel a bit like any article mentioning the word "woke" gets a thread on this board

I don't really like the word being used as a putdown. It did have a proper meaning once, and I still consider it to be "woke" or politically aware to fight sexism and misogyny. Especially when it's out of favour, like now!

We did have a thread on the word woke and what we could possibly use instead. Can't remember how it ended now.

@bishophaha

It's beginning to feel a bit like any article mentioning the word "woke" gets a thread on this board

I don't really like the word being used as a putdown. It did have a proper meaning once, and I still consider it to be "woke" or politically aware to fight sexism and misogyny. Especially when it's out of favour, like now!

It still has a proper meaning - it means someone who is awake to/aware of social inequalities. People who use it as an insult are the ones who are using it wrong - or else revealing their own innate ignorance or prejudice, because when you dig down to what they are actually objecting to, it frequently just comes down to the fact minorities exist and are visible.

With regard to woke, I believe the conclusion was that there wasn't now much chance of finding a better more accepted word, in part because it has a strongly ironic quality. Several people tried to provide other options, but they tended to be too technical or too specific, and as was pointed out, when people use them they tend to be told they are "wrong" too.

It's not too much different than people complaining that woke is the same as "PC gone mad" as if that was clearly just bollocksy people not worth considering. In fact political correctness has a specific meaning around authoritarian imposition of speech and thought that is what people were trying to get at with the term, and it was the beginnings of what we are seeing now with authoritarianism in universities and speech and no debate, so perhaps they were not so wrong to think it might lead to problematic places.

But I think if people are unwilling to accept woke, politically correct, identity politics, or any of the other possibilities, they need to suggest something else and perhaps should just start using that, and perhaps it will catch on.

Also, the "original" meaning of woke is that you are no longer asleep, as in, in your bed, it's hardly a situation where we can say it's not the case that words can acquire different meanings.

It still has a proper meaning - it means someone who is awake to/aware of social inequalities.

Yes, that's why I wrote what I wrote in my post.

Santa I think your comment is about woke has changed meaning (v arguable), so why not man, woman, boy etc?

Correct me that's not what you thinking!

That's a totally hopeless equivalence! Like. Just not in any way the same!

A better equivalent to woke becoming used as a shorthand for thing I think is vv annoying and too many of them around.

Would be eg.

Woman - adult human female
Often used mainly by men but by women as well, to give negative view.
Bloody women
That bloody woman
Typical woman
Etc etc.

Unless you think shorting 'awake to inequality' to 'woke',
Which I'm sure will have been added to dictionaries by now, in ADDITION to original meaning.

Is similar to altering women, girls, and often female as well.
From adult/juvenile human female for woman girl, and ??? for female.
REPLACING the original meaning.
And replacing the group those words described, with phrases eg. Person with a vagina, menstruators, person assumed is/will be able to be impregnated etc.

You don't see the difference?

Well I mean overwhelming likelihood is you do, with everything to do with this topic.

That's irrelevant when your beliefs are your truths. It doesn't matter at all that as per above comment, insistence on changing anything is nothing to do with logical, reasonable arguments.

And so over the media, internet, RL conversations, statements from a huge number of people including ones with social /institutional power.

Which are growing more bizarre, more aggressive, showing zero empathy with impact of any of this on... Bodies with a vulva. To the point of anything goes however clearly it shows extreme misogyny and/or effectively zero grasp of basic obvious stuff.

It's been so long now that little is surprising any more. Even the idea it's hilarious that separate sex anything should exist because rapists rape and no one can change that...

Again no logic.

If single sex spaces don't provide any benefit to vulva people from testicle people then abolish them. Logical. Answer. No. No way. Irrational.