Oxfam's analysis of its 'inclusive language crises'

[ArthurbellaScott]

Fascinating marketing analysis of the impact of Oxfam's inclusive language guide.

https://adroitinsight.com/oxfam-inclusive-language-crises/

Really worth reading for insights as well as comedy value.

Conclusion:

'Future communications can consider issues such as family, motherhood, and fatherhood, to incorporate them into a point of view that is more appealing to more conservative sectors.
This could make it easier to connect with people who certainly do not want anyone to starve to death, but who react more easily if the problem is explained to them from a point of view that incorporates concerns, they have: the family, for example.
In other countries, such as Spain, Italy or Germany, there could be a similar reaction if Oxfam shares this guide, and it is picked up by the media or a group of influencers.
It would therefore be advisable for the organisation to prepare a communication strategy in advance to deal with the controversy and negative comments that could be generated.
In the specific case of Spain, it would be even more of a priority considering that the debate on inclusive language, transgender rights and the reality of non-binary people has already generated a major debate, with laws in favour and currents actively against that have produced a lot of polarisations in society.'

“Go woke go broke”, applies to charities too. I wonder how much they paid this analysis team to tell them the bleeding obvious.

Some of it's bleeding obvious; some of it's still operating from a mistaken, prejudiced point of view. Calling UK people with gender critical views 'conservative' is just not accurate.

The agency who wrote the report seems to share Oxfam's blinkered views. And asking others in your own echo chamber for insights into people outwith it isn't likely to work very well.

'Motherhood' is conservative is it? How patronising.

I don't know why they would even want our tainted donations.

conservative (Small c) as opposed to progressive?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd1pgd005kno

Same reason The Righteous still get outraged every time the crusty old partially-sentient service bipeds fail to provide clean laundry/ hot dinners/ fresh sheets/ generalised mothering/ their naked bodies in changing rooms/ with a smile.

Because The Righteous are entitled to All The Stuff All The Time.

😂😂😂

They conducted a

"Social Listening analysis where we measured the volume of conversations, positive and negative sentiment, and the impact of certain influencer profiles on the conversation around the issue."

And they did this social listening analysis on Twitter:

"We carried out the analysis on the social network Twitter, as it is the network that allows to collect more data than other social media platforms. And more importantly, because it’s the network where users express themselves without the social containment that they impose on themselves in other networks."

"In contrast Facebook is the network usually used to interact with family, friends and even work colleagues. On this network it is rare to find harsh criticism or heated discussions. Instagram and TikTok are networks where a positive image predominates, so aren’t the natural platforms for an overly critical topic either."

So basically, they analysed Twitter activity about the topic.

Let's keep the fruits of terf labour for terfs. That's a new year's resolution to live by.

I thought this was satire! (Added bold type to emphasise the madness.)
^^
'Future communications can consider issues such as family, motherhood, and fatherhood, to incorporate them into a point of view that is more appealing to more conservative sectors. This could make it easier to connect with people who certainly do not want anyone to starve to death, but who react more easily if the problem is explained to them from a point of view that incorporates concerns, they have: the family, for example.’

😂 How nice they acknowledge that these “conservative” types who value motherhood and fatherhood don’t actually want anyone to starve to death.

Aye,let the pure of heart and mind keep them afloat.

Yes that's how I read it too. Motherhood is the thing that literally keeps the human race going, it's not inherently small 'c' conservative to care about it.

conservative (small c) as opposed to regressive? Letting males into women's prisons is going back 200 years! And basing society on masculine and feminine stereotypes is going back about 60 or 70 years.

Lols. Oxfam's head office employees are not the same people as their donors. You'd probably be hard pressed to afford a family if you were employed by Oxfam, unless you were in upper echelons of management.

When I worked for a charity, they were unashamed to pay £15k a year (in an expensive city). Workers are supposed to live on peanuts because beneficiaries are more impoverished. It's a weird martyrdom thing, you're supposed to do without financial stability as a badge of honour.

And yes, people might be more inclined to donate when things like family are invoked because we're humans with time-honoured social structures, not sexless postmodern androids.

Terfitude is definitely conservative. Conservatism (not the same as the Tory party) is about protecting existing structures because you think change is likely to throw up something worse and you should trust the accumulated wisdom of previous generations that developed those structures. Sounds bang-on for GC stuff, right?

Wow 83% vote in favour of striking on an 82% turnout! Staff relying on food banks - whatever happened to 'charity begins at home'?

Well, I believe sex is conserved however much you dick about with gender, so maybe I am a conservative? 🤷

Terfitude is fighting, for example, against putting rapists in women's prisons, and women being called 'womb-holders' or 'period-experiencing humans'. If those things are what you call progressive then you can keep your 'progress'. It's already happening, it's not some fear of future change.

And meanwhile, Oxfam staff are going on a strike which appears to be supported by such normal bedfellows as the Guardian and Daily Mail (!).
Effectively it's several different organisations; the actual people working to combat poverty and famine; the retail staff (although there are a lot of volunteers each shop will have a paid manager at least); the fundraising staff; and head office ... The last of whom should probably get out more.
Have never worked for them (thank God) but live locally so I know a lot of people who do, or have done.

It's fighting to maintain the social structures around gender that we have now. Because of a perception that proposed changes would set a cat among the pigeons and unleash both foreseen and unforeseen consequences.

I'm not in either camp. But conservative means something other than 'bad' and progressive means something other than 'good'

I don't understand the inclusion of the example of Oxfam's F-word campaign (the F-word being Famine). Although this quote from it:

“while you argue about words that no one has said, there are real people, men, women, children and whole families, dying of hunger”

illustrates how Oxfam is happy to indulge people in affluent, comfortable Western countries who have time to navel-gaze about gender identity and pronouns, but in their core and original remit of helping people in the rest of the world in desperate situations, it's back to basics with the use of "men", "women", "children" and "families".

I also take issue with Oxfam's attempt to link drought in Somalia with climate breakdown.

This could make it easier to connect with people who certainly do not want anyone to starve to death

and

while you argue about words that no one has said, there are real people, men, women, children and whole families, dying of hunger

It interesting when juxtaposed with

”The union's general secretary, Sharon Graham, accused Oxfam of hypocrisy as "its own workers report having to use foodbanks", while the charity was "an extremely wealthy organisation".”

@NoCloudsAllowed

"It's fighting to maintain the social structures around gender that we have now. Because of a perception that proposed changes would set a cat among the pigeons and unleash both foreseen and unforeseen consequences."

Is that what being gender critical is?? It's about preserving women's rights, because in some circumstances sex matters and is universal, and should be prioritised over gender identity which is not universal.

Whenever people express unhappiness with how much the top people at huge charities are paid, we're always told it's because they need brilliant, intelligent, highly-skilled elite people who are up to the task.

But I'm guessing the people who have been in charge of this fiasco are not the shop-floor employees on NMW (or even volunteering).

I'm just waiting for somebody to run a study as to whether people feel more inclined to like you if you either (A) punch them in the face or (B) offer them a comfy chair with a cup of tea and a biscuit. I'm on tenterhooks as to which way the results could possibly go...