Fuck Oxfam

[DismantledKing]

Anyone seen the tweet by Maya tonight about this little animation by Oxfam? Here’s the link:

https://twitter.com/mforstater/status/1665817901327085568?s=46&t=U7-xooKExwmFQ8mivn72lw

as I said, fuck Oxfam.

Sorry I've only just seen this. I'm assuming their Twitter feed is run by a young UK person who is trying to use the language they believe won't offend anyone - wrongly, obviously - but the charity is African based and led and they absolutely know what a woman is, the whole trans ideology isn't a thing in their work as they focus on dealing with women's biological health issues and the cultural issues that affect these.

A charity commission spokesman said: “We note that Oxfam International has apologised for the concerns caused by its video and has made changes to it.

“We have carefully considered the issues raised.

“Oxfam International, the organisation that posted the video, is not registered in the UK or registered with us.

“Oxfam GB, which is registered with the commission, has submitted a serious incident report to us detailing its response to the reputational damage caused by the incident, and we have concluded that there is no further role for us as regulator.”

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/charity-commission-calls-respect-jk-130649758.html

I wonder how long it took Oxfam GB to realise that they needed to make a pro-active move to stop being investigated by the Charity Commission, so submitted a "serious incident report"?

Hypocrites.

More negative coverage in the Times today - people within Oxfam not happy with the rollout of inclusion guidance featuring stonewall content

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7440787e-070d-11ee-b1f9-dbcd37af20fb?shareToken=714b694d84343287ca052f665cd14a78

The piece in the times has this chilling bit.

“Copies of the presentation were sent to staff who did not attend the meeting. A separate slideshow also sent out features a section entitled: “What pushback do we anticipate?”

“Responses include: “Media leak/hostile sharing”, “complaints from staff who feel their behaviour/beliefs are being policed” and “awkward questions from supporters, volunteers, etc.”

Basically, they are signalling to people to STFU and don’t complain if they feel this is unequal treatment of women. I suspect that their head office and executive have no ideas, they have been hired because they all share the exact same ideological values.

It really is reaching a crescendo with the message that Oxfam really do hate women.

Wonder if many are on mumsnet🤔 there definitely is a boycott culture rapidly gaining force stemming from bud lite, Nike etc.. People are actively seeking alternatives now & are seeking whose values align with theirs. There is a cost of living crisis, hard earned cash is tight, companies need to work for customers money. I for one won't support wokeness or any company using woke language trying to make the word woman extinct like the dodo birds.

“55balloons”

I suspect that if women start leaving their volunteering positions as well and go and work for another charity, Oxfam will notice the impact when they cannot open stores some days due to lack of volunteers.

I’m probably behind on the thread. I’d expect that mega brand charities with global reach, but who have national set ups for organisation, fundraising and governmental charity regulation-and who want to retain the power of one shared charity name/identity- would normally have very senior people paid to be coordinating their comms outputs so it’s all consistent

But if (bafflingly) UK Oxfam had nothing to do with this advert and was unaware of it prior and if UK Oxfam condemns promoting misogyny via personal attacks, and promoting racist stereotype caricatures, and deplores the global Oxfam office apparently promoting these, then shouldn’t the UK Oxfam strongly say so?
And explain how it had no oversight and was as upset as anyone else by this?

@Slothtoes doesn't matter what branch released whet statement. It's Oxfam as an organisation that needs a full boycott. All women need to find other organisations which actually recognise them as women & appreciate their worth in the charity.
It is funny seeing Oxfam trying to limit the damage control though😂

@Slothtoes Having worked in international development a little bit (very much on the fringes) I suspect it's a combination of things here, but mostly that across the sector there's an atmosphere of guilt (entirely appropriately, in Oxfam's case) that the big international aid organisations have been dictating aid policy for decades from comfortable offices in london and New York. The move towards giving actual financial, cultural and executive power to Global South aid organisations has been a long time coming. This film was made in Bangalore by women of colour and had presumably been signed off by Oxfam's member offices in India. For some Brit to say 'hang on, in the UK we've been having this conversation for ages and this isn't OK' would have felt (to the British office) uncomfortably like colonialism - these words get thrown around pretty freely in the sector and the issue is red hot.

Not saying it makes it ok but I can see how it happened.

Looks like UK Oxfam got themselves into a Catch 22 situation, then. Richly deserved.

There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

Can they be subject to an FOI? All the emails between oxfam and the film makers, for instance?

As far as I’m aware, charities are not legally defined as “public bodies” and not subject to FOI act unless they’re delivering a public service under contract

which is a shame because I’d love to see the email trails on this!

How can an ordinary person tell the difference between Oxfam UK and Oxfam International?

And if donating to Oxfam UK means money is shifted to Oxfam International how can you claim the two are separate?

The idea that the fact they are registered differently means fuck all. Especially if one organisation isn't fully saying the other is out of order or isn't looking to rename itself to disassociate itself.

Oxfam UK gets its money off the brand reputation. Same goes for Oxfam International.

And in that respect they ARE the same. And that's the only thing that matters to the public.

There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

I'm not sure where this quote comes from, but the paired pictures of the cartoon in the OP and the photo of JK Rowling wearing a similar dress, with a badge or brooch where the TERF badge is, are difficult to reconcile with this statement (sorry, I don't have a link to the side-by-side pictures).

Yes, shame!

I wonder if this will be leaked by a disgruntled member of staff. Had the agency still locked its twitter account?

Indeed. That denial is a load of old cobblers, imo.

Even if charities were subject to FoI, that's a UK law - wouldn't apply to Oxfam India.

It should be a condition of receiving government funding over a certain threshold that you are subject to FOI. But, sadly, it isn't.

That link seemed to go to a list of Times stories? There's an archived copy of the new Oxfam news report here: https://archive.ph/jNRSh

I think perhaps the share tokens are now time or click limited @TheBiologyStupid?

They seem to work for a bit and then stop. Thanks for posting the archive link - I didn't think MN allowed them

Yes, it would need JKR to sue them and obtain the documents through disclosure I suppose? But IADNAL.

Exactly it's Oxfam full stop no matter what way they desperately try to spin the narrative to suit themselves. They must be losing millions already through loss of revenue & cancelled standing orders hence all the statements!

Isn't TERF a hate term. People are being sued for using much less emotive words.

quote from Oxfam:

“It is only when we respect and uphold all human rights that we can overcome poverty.”

nope

poverty and human rights are two separate things. deciding that you're going to ensure human rights (what human rights?) are rolled out to everyone before you can start focusing on poverty definitely counts as scope creep, and means you will fail in the objective of relieving poverty