Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Please help me define 'wokeism'

79 replies

BlessingKalmly · 14/05/2025 21:05

This isn't a thread for making jokes, or at least that isn't my intention...

I just can't seem to totally pinpoint the definition, so that is comprehensive...

What is woke?

OP posts:
CassOle · 14/05/2025 21:30

I think that the meaning has changed over time. IIRC, it started as a US term for someone who was 'awake' to the systematic racism in the US. It has morphed to become a shorthand term to mean someone who is 'progressive left' and believes all the right things to be OTRSOH. It can be used dismissively and as an insult, so I think it is falling out of favour with some.

BlessingKalmly · 14/05/2025 21:54

Yes I agree... I'm looking to define it deeper than this..

it's an ideology, with what beliefs?

That the 'scale of oppression' is the most important measurement in society?
That feelings trump logic?
That individual identity is more important than personal merit?

I have all these itty bitty ideas that I can't seem to piece together in one coherent definition

OP posts:
BlackForestCake · 14/05/2025 22:04

Wokery is superficially pseudo-radical rhetoric but which, in contrast to the genuine left, aims not to build solidarity between people at the bottom of society, but to set them against each other. That is why it is promoted by banks and corporations.

parietal · 14/05/2025 22:09

I think it is not a single ideology, and the term 'wokeism' would really only be used by people who disagree with it.

the starting point is the idea that there are systematic biases in society - bias against people from certain races / groups, and biases against women and against disabled people. these come out both in explicit behaviour (racism, misogyny etc) but also in implicit decision making (manager hires a white male without considering the better candidate who is a black female, but doesn't realize he is being biased). The final claim is that if people are aware of these biases, then we are better able to counteract them and work towards a fairer society.

All those ideas have a solid evidence base in economics / psychology / sociology with plenty of evidence to show that these biases exist and impact on real world outcomes (hiring people etc).

However, there are some challenging ideas which arise, particularly when crappy 'training companies' start coming in to try to train people to be less biased but do it in a dumb way that can make people more resentful and more biased. there can also be a tendency to focus only on certain groups and ignore other groups who are also disadvantaged. This again makes people feel things are unfair. For example, in the UK, social class has historically had a very strong influence on social outcomes and it could be argued that working-class people face systematic biases and should also be supported.

I don't think your claim that 'feeling trump logic' has anything to do with it - in fact, the logical careful choice is to work to reduce bias in decision making.

and the idea that 'identity trumps merit' again should never come into it, but i can see why things sometimes look that way.

can I ask - why are you trying to define 'wokeism'? - it is not one thing, and that term is often not a helpful one.

BlessingKalmly · 14/05/2025 22:21

I am trying to deepen my understanding of the term because it is bandied about so much in conversation at the moment, I want to be really clear on what it means. I also feel it's quite a complex idea, that cannot be simply defined. It's multi-faceted, and I can sort of see some of the facets but I'm trying to understand the way in which it ties together

Because I can see how what you are saying is a part of what 'woke' is, but I think it also goes more deeply, because otherwise it would be simply known as 'anti-bias'.

But it's more than that. Some part of 'woke' seems to require a limitation of freedom of speech. (This is where the feelings > logic part comes in). You can't say something factual because it might hurt someones feelings.

OP posts:
Circumferences · 14/05/2025 22:24

"Woke" is an extreme capitalist invention.

Extreme capitalism needs a million and one individuals set against each other, rather than a cohesive coherent society in order for it to succeed. ("It" being the tiny minority of people who are at the top of the financial system).

It's divide and conquer writ large.

Circumferences · 14/05/2025 22:26

In the olden days it used to be called "politically correct"

Then there's was "politically correct gone mad"

Now there's "woke"
Which is beyond a joke.

RedToothBrush · 14/05/2025 22:33

It's telling people they should do something because it's the 'right thing' because they've been told so, without engagement of a brain and critical thoughts as to what that actually means or how it relates to the real world and a total indifferent to class lines and political issues in the UK instead preferring to defer to an American Middle Class Agenda.

Good example - lecturing to a working class area and audience about how they should be considering how terrible slavery was and how all us white people benefitted from it and we should pay reparations and recognise our privilege.

When everyone in the room has lived in the same area forever, all their ancestors worked down the local pit in appalling and dangerous conditions, just about scrapping enough money for food. Having lived through being laid off when the market conditions weren't great. They've all grafted for the benefit of the pit owners but their family pretty much just survived on a subsistence basis.

So they really really weren't the ones exploiting so shouldn't feel shame. Indeed they were the ones exploited and still feel the effects decades after the pits have closed.

The narrative a) doesn't really reflect the history of those there b) slavery was bad but the structural ideas that still exist with slavery are an American not British social problem c) British social problems are much more about class issues which are now manifesting in this wokeism as it's being used as a tool for modern day social control and power politics.

We are asked to recognise the invisibility of slaves in our history whilst making efforts to firmly erase and silence history, deprivation and exploitation that exists in our current world.

We should be recognising historically bad things happen but then using that against another less powerful group in order to control them, is tone deaf and morally fairly reprehensible.

We should be recognising our current issues and the exploitation of the slavery narrative for really rather white middle class aims or really rather racist agendas which are completely counter to the very idea of equality of individuals and opportunities which talking about slavery is supposed to be about.

Because the lack of thinking kills the ability to see the hypocrisy that runs through it and thus there's a loss of sight of the ultimate overall goal of treating everyone fairly and with respect.

Those people in the mining towns don't care about slavery. Not because they hate black people. They don't care about slavery because it has no relevance to their lives and challenges they face. It has no relevance to the lives of their ancestors either. So they just can't connect to the subject so go "why the buggery bollocks have you come ere to talk about this nonsense. We just want to get off benefits, have a job and not live in a crime and drug ridden shit hole".

Cos their lived experience is a world apart from the academic theoretical nature of wokeism. Wokeism is ideological bunkem that hasn't got worthwhile practical value in the day to day lives of normal people. It's a nuisance and it's expensive and doesn't improve the lives of those struggling economically.

LawnBoy · 14/05/2025 22:37

I'd define it as the extreme end of progressive left thinking. It has the same tenets as more moderate progressivism (e.g. pro-immigration, pro-Palestine, active "anti-racism") but it's much more dogmatic and intolerant and stifles reasonable debate on the subjects concerned. Where two causes might contradict each other (pro-women vs pro-trans, pro-Jew vs pro-Palestine), it activates an oppression hierarchy to see which should be prioritised, rather than a more nuanced consideration of the issues.

I do think the word is frequently over-applied in much the same way "alt-right" and "far right" are over-applied to fairly moderate right-wing stances, hence my narrow definition.

If it's a normal progressive stance, then it's not automatically woke. If diversity of thought is allowed, then it's definitely not woke.

RedToothBrush · 14/05/2025 22:50

LawnBoy · 14/05/2025 22:37

I'd define it as the extreme end of progressive left thinking. It has the same tenets as more moderate progressivism (e.g. pro-immigration, pro-Palestine, active "anti-racism") but it's much more dogmatic and intolerant and stifles reasonable debate on the subjects concerned. Where two causes might contradict each other (pro-women vs pro-trans, pro-Jew vs pro-Palestine), it activates an oppression hierarchy to see which should be prioritised, rather than a more nuanced consideration of the issues.

I do think the word is frequently over-applied in much the same way "alt-right" and "far right" are over-applied to fairly moderate right-wing stances, hence my narrow definition.

If it's a normal progressive stance, then it's not automatically woke. If diversity of thought is allowed, then it's definitely not woke.

Define a 'normal progressive stance'.

What we would have said was normal 10 years ago would be classed as regressive by a bunch of numpties now.

The attempt to erase homosexual rights via replacing sex with gender is one such case.

Weve ended up in a scenario where we have people simultaneously saying 'you believe in homosexual rights don't you?' then 'So we should support these transright otherwise you are bigoted and homophobic and transphobic, right?'

Even people you are talking to are homosexual and not particularly impressed they've had their rights infringed and are expected to accept someone from the opposite sex into their dating pool otherwise they will be tarred and feathered as bigotted or a hate group.

Cos that's where the founders of Stonewall find themselves now - having pushed a 'normal progressive stance' for decades.

BlessingKalmly · 14/05/2025 22:57

RedToothBrush · 14/05/2025 22:33

It's telling people they should do something because it's the 'right thing' because they've been told so, without engagement of a brain and critical thoughts as to what that actually means or how it relates to the real world and a total indifferent to class lines and political issues in the UK instead preferring to defer to an American Middle Class Agenda.

Good example - lecturing to a working class area and audience about how they should be considering how terrible slavery was and how all us white people benefitted from it and we should pay reparations and recognise our privilege.

When everyone in the room has lived in the same area forever, all their ancestors worked down the local pit in appalling and dangerous conditions, just about scrapping enough money for food. Having lived through being laid off when the market conditions weren't great. They've all grafted for the benefit of the pit owners but their family pretty much just survived on a subsistence basis.

So they really really weren't the ones exploiting so shouldn't feel shame. Indeed they were the ones exploited and still feel the effects decades after the pits have closed.

The narrative a) doesn't really reflect the history of those there b) slavery was bad but the structural ideas that still exist with slavery are an American not British social problem c) British social problems are much more about class issues which are now manifesting in this wokeism as it's being used as a tool for modern day social control and power politics.

We are asked to recognise the invisibility of slaves in our history whilst making efforts to firmly erase and silence history, deprivation and exploitation that exists in our current world.

We should be recognising historically bad things happen but then using that against another less powerful group in order to control them, is tone deaf and morally fairly reprehensible.

We should be recognising our current issues and the exploitation of the slavery narrative for really rather white middle class aims or really rather racist agendas which are completely counter to the very idea of equality of individuals and opportunities which talking about slavery is supposed to be about.

Because the lack of thinking kills the ability to see the hypocrisy that runs through it and thus there's a loss of sight of the ultimate overall goal of treating everyone fairly and with respect.

Those people in the mining towns don't care about slavery. Not because they hate black people. They don't care about slavery because it has no relevance to their lives and challenges they face. It has no relevance to the lives of their ancestors either. So they just can't connect to the subject so go "why the buggery bollocks have you come ere to talk about this nonsense. We just want to get off benefits, have a job and not live in a crime and drug ridden shit hole".

Cos their lived experience is a world apart from the academic theoretical nature of wokeism. Wokeism is ideological bunkem that hasn't got worthwhile practical value in the day to day lives of normal people. It's a nuisance and it's expensive and doesn't improve the lives of those struggling economically.

Yes, I think you've made an important point. Critical thinking is not a part of it, and is actively avoided. This is where it starts to cross over into ideological / religious / cult ways of thinking.

It's the pursuit of a 'greater good' or a 'heaven' and following the commandments without scrutinising them.

(With regards to the slavery thing, the bit that always baffles me, is this obsession with white/black historical slavery.... yet slavery still happens today, in Congo, in Middle East.... and in these cases it is non-white people who are the perpetrators. If slavery is the worst thing ever, why is no one talking about that?)

OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 14/05/2025 23:01

It's the 'road to hell is paved with good intentions'

But failing to understand the needs of those in your immediate vicinity and instead of listening to them to establish those needs, telling them how they should behave for 'the good of society'.

Wokeism is top down power pretending to be grass roots activism.

Its derided in the way it is, because of this sheer tone deafness.

Wokeism as a phrase is used to indicate this type of tone deafness.

CassOle · 14/05/2025 23:27

I think this video contains a good example of what people usually mean when they describe someone as 'woke'. It does focus on gender due to the claim that there are 'only two genders' which sets off the confrontation.

politickie · 14/05/2025 23:41

I find the definition depends on who's talking. Of course, that's not particularly conducive to legible discussion, but at least with context it usually becomes clear pretty quickly.

If the discussion is in a typical 'leftist' or 'progressive' space then people are often using the original and more logical definition; to be woke is to be aware of racial prejudice and how it affects people on an institutional level. Sometimes that is extended to other prejudices- ableism, homophobia, xenophobia. It's a critique that can be applied to social models of race, disability, criminal justice, and media analysis. It can initially be hard to tell if people are using the original definition or quoting someone else's use of the second definition.

The second 'definition' seems more widespread, despite being far less consistent. A lot of people seem to use "woke," or more gratingly "wokery" or "wokeism," the same way people used to speak about "political correctness gone mad" a few years back. It becomes a stand in for "PC" and "snowflake;" there doesn't seem to be a set definition beyond "whatever social causes I disagree with." I still hear it applied mostly to racial politics, as in people using "woke" as a synonym for "antiracist," but I've also heard it often in discussions around gay rights and disability activism. I see it used often to shut down conversation and dismiss talking points, rather than to raise them or continue discussion.

All that is to say that, at least outside of academic and social critique, the word "wokery" means whatever the user wants it to mean. One person's definition of "woke" may include gay rights activists, whereas other people might solely use it to refer to antiracist ideology. The best way to have a discussion around it is to ask the person you're talking to how they define their terms, because there isn't one standard meaning to refer back to.

timbitstimbytes · 15/05/2025 00:47

You are right, it's hard to characterise woke.

I think it comes from the post-modernist and marxist view of seeing everything from the lens of oppression/oppressor, then reverse engineering all your views to suit that narrative. For example, white people in South Africa used to practice apartheid, therefore they are not eligible to ever be oppressed, despite violent crime against white farmers being a daily reality and an active anti-white movement in the country. I wish it weren't so, I hoped South Africa would do well after Mandela but the victim/victimiser dyad doesn't help anyone. Zimbabwe is a good example of what happens when this is taken to extremes, I worry South Africa will face the same fate.

The next point about woke is that it seems a very attractive prospect to be in the victim class, untouchable in virtue whether you identify as female (oppressed) or male (oppressor), Palestinian)oppressed) or Jew (oppressor), queer(oppressed) or heteronormative(oppressor). The victim is the top of the hierarchy. Most importantly they cannot go into any argument thinking there is any good faith between the parties.

To go back to the South African example, the fact that most of the productivity in farming by Boer farmers feeding the country is a side issue and it shouldn't be, myopic as they are to this framing of victim/victimiser narrative. What is missing is the possibility of collaboration, of positive change on both sides even if the "oppressor" acts in good faith. Daniel Penny being a good case in point.

That's the way I would describe it anyway, it's a tough one.

TempestTost · 15/05/2025 01:33

I think the essence of it revolves around people who believe they have some special insight into things, and priggishly try and 'educate' or castigate others. But the reality is that their understanding is actually shallow and reductive, and even uninformed about basic things like history.

That's the context in which their view of themselves as being awakened to injustice becomes a sort of joke.

As for their ideology - they are progressives, which is to say they have a deeply held, faith based belief that humanity is on some kind of path to increasing progress. They believe in rather simple hierarchies which dictate who is in the right and who is wrong. All relations are simple dynamics of power vs oppression.

I also find that many have a poor understanding of statistics and low language comprehension, but of course that's not ideological. I think it explains a lot of their thinking however.

LawnBoy · 15/05/2025 08:04

Define a 'normal progressive stance'.

Progressivism stems from a belief that we a) still have inequalities in society, b) these inequalities are due to some form of prejudice or lack of government support rather than being individual failings, and c) it is our duty to recognise and fix these issues by addressing the root cause.

A normal progressive stance, therefore, is simply this type of outlook on society. Most people, even self-professed conservatives, will take this stance on occasion - e.g. society's treatment of veterans or the elderly.

Woke is when everything is seen through this lens to such a degree that the believer cannot see when their ideas contradict, or are regressive, or are just plain ridiculous.

LidyaTaso · 09/12/2025 14:18

I found this page helpful when I was trying to get my head around how identity-focused politics can end up dividing people who actually want similar things: https://sites.google.com/view/the-fracturing-effect-of-ident/. It explains in plain language how some well-meaning ideas can shift into something more rigid and exclusionary without people realizing it. Made a few things click for me that had felt off but hard to explain.

LordEmsworthsGirlfriend · 09/12/2025 14:25

It's a stupid word to use for the latest iteration of 'right on' or 'political correctness gone mad' or whichever of the endless daft phrases you want to pick on - both because tooth-grindingly ungrammatical and because it is so specifically American that it's a bad fit for anything going on here. I switch off when people attack something as 'woke'.

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 14:58

LawnBoy · 14/05/2025 22:37

I'd define it as the extreme end of progressive left thinking. It has the same tenets as more moderate progressivism (e.g. pro-immigration, pro-Palestine, active "anti-racism") but it's much more dogmatic and intolerant and stifles reasonable debate on the subjects concerned. Where two causes might contradict each other (pro-women vs pro-trans, pro-Jew vs pro-Palestine), it activates an oppression hierarchy to see which should be prioritised, rather than a more nuanced consideration of the issues.

I do think the word is frequently over-applied in much the same way "alt-right" and "far right" are over-applied to fairly moderate right-wing stances, hence my narrow definition.

If it's a normal progressive stance, then it's not automatically woke. If diversity of thought is allowed, then it's definitely not woke.

I'd define it as when progressive thinking gets taken far so far that it becomes post-modernist, queer theory infested, regressive hate.

It is when women's rights are taken so far that trans'women' get them and women's rights are ended.

It is when you go from demanding racial equality and start demanding massive anti-white racism to reverse and put right the wrongs of historic racism.

It is when you go from fighting for the rights of lesbians to not suck dick to fighting for the rights of "lesbians" to have their dicks sucked by other lesbians.

It is when you go from seeking to help refugees in specific, horrible cicumstances (eg Ukraine war) and start demanding that we should welcome absolutely everybody because the E|mpire did lots of bad things.

It is when compassionate progressives empty their brains and become an appalling example of what they claim to fight.

JamieCannister · 09/12/2025 15:00

LordEmsworthsGirlfriend · 09/12/2025 14:25

It's a stupid word to use for the latest iteration of 'right on' or 'political correctness gone mad' or whichever of the endless daft phrases you want to pick on - both because tooth-grindingly ungrammatical and because it is so specifically American that it's a bad fit for anything going on here. I switch off when people attack something as 'woke'.

Woke is a valid word that has a meaning. You can claim to be woke and you can turn off when you hear woke being criticized - the word still has a meaning.

bundevac · 09/12/2025 15:30

it is a new term for a marxist class-consciousness. the oppressors and the oppressed are different group though, mostly defined by identity.

nauticant · 09/12/2025 15:47

In my view wokism isn't a productive concept to explore because either you're looking at something to think about internally, in which case you should allow yourself more freedom, or you're looking at something to discuss with others, in which case you're likely to get entangled in unproductive arguments about origins, appropriation, the US Right wing, etc.

I'm more interested in thinking about harmful manifestations in the real world, and in particular a combination of the following:
being morally superior and aggressively self-righteous
holding a basket of permitted beliefs
being authoritarian on what others are permitted to believe including an intolerance of, and often aggression over, non-permitted beliefs
viewing oneself as being on the Right Side of History with anyone not on board being on the Wrong Side of History
viewing The Other as being fair game to be attacked/discredited in their jobs, family networks, friendship groups, etc.

whymadam · 09/12/2025 15:49

Woke = not being an ashole.

InSlovakiaTheCapitalOfCourseIsBratislava · 09/12/2025 15:58

OED offers up

Originally U.S. regional and nonstandard (see notes at senses 1 and 2).

2.
1924–
figurative and in figurative contexts. Originally: in a state of awareness or vigilance; spec. well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice. Frequently in stay woke (often used as an exhortation).
In later use perhaps popularized through its association with African American civil rights activism (in recent years particularly the Black Lives Matter movement), and by the lyrics of the 2008 song Master Teacher by American singer-songwriter Erykah Badu, in which the words I stay woke serve as a refrain.
In more recent use sometimes derogatory, esp. as a means of characterizing such alertness (or the political and social views stereotypically associated with it) as doctrinaire, self-righteous, or pernicious.
For an example of metaphorical use of woke up in a political context, see quot. 1943 at woke up adj.

  1. 1924
  2. Have you heard the latest street slang, ‘Stay Woke’?... It means that one should ever be on the job; should be on the alert and not rat or sleep at the post of duty.
  3. C. F. Richardson in Houston Informer 24 May 1/1
  4. 1940
  5. I advise everybody to be a little careful when they go along through there; best stay woke, keep their eyes open.
  6. ‘Lead Belly’, Scottsboro Boys (transcribed from audio recording, Libr. of Congr. 4473A3) in Smithsonian Folkways Coll. (2015)
  7. 1962
  8. If you're woke, you dig it... Woke.., well-informed, up-to-date (‘Man I'm woke’).
  9. W. M. Kelley in New York Times Magazine 20 May 45
  10. 1972
  11. I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I'm gon stay woke. And I'm gon help him wake up other black folk.
  12. B. Beckham, Garvey Lives! (typescript, Univ. of Virginia) Prologue 1
  13. 2009
  14. They used the RICO laws to imprison Mutulu Shakur..#staywoke#preventativedetention.
  15. @jonubian 29 September in twitter.com (accessed 8 Dec. 2016)
  16. 2015
  17. The best thing about having a lesbian Grandma is that she is woke af.
  18. @hopiee19 30 December in twitter.com (accessed 8 Dec. 2016)
  19. 2017
  20. We thought we'd put together a handy guide of things woke male feminists should know and live by.
  21. dailymaverick.co.za 11 October (online newspaper, accessed 9 Nov. 2017)
  22. 2019
  23. Delegitimating maleness is now a central feature of woke corporate culture. According to this ethos you can never be too gender-neutral.
  24. Mail on Sunday (Nexis) 12 May
  25. 2021
  26. Some Australians see all this as wokenonsense aimed at erasing the past.
  27. Economist 24 April 34/2