How is this offensive?

[KnittingNeedles]

DD is 19 and volunteers in Oxfam. This poster is currently in the window of the store she works in - it was a Pride thing but she thinks they have just not got round to taking it out.

www.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam-in-action/oxfam-blog/celebrating-pride-2022/

The way she - and I - interpret the poster is that the charity is welcoming and inclusive, and however you define yourself, you are welcome in store. Although I know the charity has a reputation for being very "woke", this is a very bland message really.

DD was on the till yesterday and some woman came into the store demanding she remove the poster. DD asked why - woman said it was "forced speech" and a "very political statement" and ranted on about Stonewall for a bit. DD is fairly clued up on the whole sex/gender debate and tried to explain that's not what it was about, it was a message of tolerance and acceptance. Customer was having none of it and went off saying she was going to complain.

I'm confused. I'm as gender critical as they come but surely part of that is accepting that although I don't personally buy into gender other people do, and I respect their right to hold that opinion, just as I hope they respect my right to disagree with them. And that however you define yourself, of course you should be treated with respect in any shop. No I won't be giving you my pronouns as those should be blindingly obvious, but the poster isn't saying you won't be served without sharing yours.

Bemused.

Your daughter is 'clued up on the sex/gender debate' but gives her time for free to an organisation that spent charity donations on paying for child sex workers to service its staff and then covering it up at the highest level?

Odd.

I would hope that no feminist has supported Oxfam since the Haiti scandal broke.

Yes, it was oxfam.

www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/timeline-oxfam-sexual-exploitation-scandal-in-haiti

I'm glad it's not just me that remembers this. www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/15/timeline-oxfam-sexual-exploitation-scandal-in-haiti

You're seeing exactly what you're meant to see, Lemon.

In the words of the creator, a transwoman, The light blue is the traditional color for baby boys, pink is for girls, and the white in the middle is for those who are transitioning, those who feel they have a neutral gender or no gender, and those who are intersexed.

But they are not baby boys or baby girls. Neither children.

Why on earth would they think these are the best colours to represent them?

its infantilising. God I am never going to be able to unsee it now!

Krustykrabpizza · 28/07/2022 16:45
I'm gender criticaltoo but I don't get why it is offensive? Maybe those posting the sarcastic responses could just explain? This board is such a hostile place

KrustyKrab, someone already asked for an explanation near the start of the thread and there were lots of answers.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a child sex worker. Can we not use that phrase please? There are prostituted, raped and abused children. But no child, no matter how dire the situation in which she (it’s almost always a girl for these Oxfam honchos) is loving, can choose prostitution as a career.

Bloody autocorrect: in which she is LIVING

Why are they baby colours? I am pretty sure most would describe that blue as ‘baby blue’, and the pink probably ‘pastel pink’, rather than ‘baby pink’ but in my mind I still recognise it as baby girl colour. Why not neon pink and cobalt blue for all the pride, vibrancy and confidence that you would imagine you would want a trans flag to represent. It’s odd.

Well yes.

Went to a well known ice cream parlour in Northumberland and all three preschoolers went for the sparkly "rainbow" ice cream cone which was actually the trans flag; white chocolate dipped with a band of sparkly pale blue sugar and a band of sparkly pale pink sugar. (The young server was definitely non binary/ trans identified and clearly binding/ had had a mastectomy.)

This ⬇️shows the ethics of the board of management.

Mr van Hauwermeiren became head of mission for Action Against Hunger in Bangladesh from 2012 to 2014. Despite employment checks, the charity said Oxfam 'did not share any warning regarding unethical conduct'.

They knew that their senior employee was abusing the delegated authority given to him.

They knew his actions provided the enviroment where he allowed other staff to abuse their delegated authority too.

Rather than stand up and say "that that is not who we, Oxfam, are"; they choose to go for, and continued to uphold a whitewash.

When that (un)ethical decision subsequently results in a cultural framework where ethical training examines sexual misconduct and concludes that "whiteness", "women" and reporting sex crimes should be seen as a problem, should anyone be surprised?

I obviously didn't mean to imply that I thought these raped, abused children were happily choosing it as a career.

Glad to hear that you don’t think that, but I hope it’s a useful nudge to consider the implications of the language you use, as that is exactly what the phrase ‘sex worker’ is used to do: to imply that prostitution is a valid career choice like accountancy or secretarial work. I don’t agree with its use for adults, but would let it go without comment, but for children it’s a different matter.

And to point out the term "sex worker" hides the role of pimp and those who imprison, rape and sell other's bodies into sexual slavery too

My mother in law does that, too. She actually sees immediately if a book is "out of place". My poor FIL has given up and just doesn't bother reading his beloved books any more, as he can never find the one he wants.

It really wasn't the point of the posts I made which were about Oxfam's institutional support in and covering up for the exploitation and rape of children.

Glad to hear you don't think that ??

so before I 'clarified', you were genuinely unsure if my posts were pro or anti children being raped by Oxfam staff? Or if I considered being raped a worthwhile career choice for children? 🙄

BloodandFire - well, you were the one who used the phrase ‘child sex worker’, presumably without thinking about its implications of legitimacy of occupation. But yes, I would hope and believe anyone who posts on MN is against the rape of children, so didn’t really think you were writing in approval.

So basically, the charity that originally launched as Oxford Famine Relief is (probably successfully) using fashionable conceits to distract prospective donors from its record of aid workers sexually exploiting hungry women and children in the present day.

It’s odd how their ‘aid workers’ know what a woman or girl / boy is when they choose who to exploit, rape, and disbelieve huh.

Kinda like they don’t actually believe their own poster. I guess that’s what we call pink washing or virtue signalling.

If after this thread your DD continues to volunteer for this ‘charity’ OP, l’d be bemused too.

I understand why you think this, but I think you need to consider that people are well aware that these situations are abusive, rape, etc. and that no, actually, using the phrase "child sex worker" does not mean that we think that is ok any more than we think talking about child labour in a factory is ok.

Personally I tend to use "prostitute" when it's applicable but not all people involved in sex work are actually prostitutes, so there is room for a larger category and some use it most of the time so as to include various types of activities.

The people who think sex work is great or even just that it should be legal generally absolutely do not think that children should be doing it, but even if some do, it's possible to argue against that without policing the words of people who in fact agree that it is horrible.

Why hide the various types of activity?

There are many types of activities which result in people living off the proceeds of prostitution but its never a winning argument to claim we should go with gentrification of what is involved.

Fluffy words to hide the collateral damage result in people not admitting what is actually involved.

Oxfam's board of management decided on gentrification when they opted for a buyout clause rather than a gross misconduct disciplinary.

No one here has suggested that Oxfam has any leg to stand on.

But I see this again and again where someone will use a phrase that makes sense in the context, like "child pornography" and they will be brought up on it as if somehow a using perfectly understandable phrasing that is purely descriptive of the object - pornographic material which contains images of children - is some kind of attempt to hide the fact that the production of such material involves sexual exploitation of children.

Or things like telling people that they shouldn't use terms like sexual intercourse when it is a case of rape because somehow that would imply the person consented, or, in this instance, that sex can be involved as a item of trade in an economic transaction.

It was completely clear that the poster was not saying that children, or anyone else, should work in the sex trade. It's part of this larger tendency to police speech and tell people their language is wrong and it's not helpful.

To me that poster says, "Say out women, you don't count".

It's a bit like using a swastiker to say you welcome people of minority faiths, the other use of the symbol is offensive.

It's a bit like putting up a sign that says, "We welcome, white, green, blue and purple people", well that excludes a lot of people.

A bland coloured poster (I am so fed up with flipping rainbows) saying ‘everyone welcome’ would be fine - man, woman, child, adult, any race, creed or religion, refugee or the queen.

this - ‘welcome if you believe in the new religion’. It’s a charity with a murky and seedy last which they haven’t really addressed or apologised for, have they? But ask a male not to use the ladies changing room (Monsoon recently wasn’t it?)and their be prostrating themselves.

Thank you very much for this.

I wasn't going to respond to the previous post, because I didn't want to derail the thread further, which is what they did by picking up on my use of a phrase they object to and going on relentlessly about it, rather than responding to the content of the several posts I made, in which it could not have been clearer that I was condemning Oxfam's actions in the strongest possible way.

This from @SolasAnla

Glad to hear that you don’t think that, but I hope it’s a useful nudge to consider the implications of the language you use, as that is exactly what the phrase ‘sex worker’ is used to do: to imply that prostitution is a valid career choice like accountancy or secretarial work.
is in and of itself incredibly patronising, and a huge assumption that there is only one 'correct' view on the use of language.

It's astonishing that they would think that lecturing a grown woman in this way is going to be effective.

But when they then went on to say

Fluffy words to hide the collateral damage result in people not admitting what is actually involved. Oxfam's board of management decided on gentrification when they opted for a buyout clause rather than a gross misconduct disciplinary.

They are implying that @MangyInseam and I are in some way akin to, or partially to blame for, or not fully condemning what Oxfam have done, which is not only totally out of order and wrong, but a complete distraction from what really matters here.

Clue: telling a feminist activist that their choice of words makes them somehow complicit in the rape and abuse of children is a shitty, shitty thing to do. I hope this is a useful nudge to consider the language you use more carefully in future.