Woke is a widely-used adjective. Woke is generally understood to involve supporting or believing in various notions that are widely accepted among social justice warriors. People who consider themselves woke generally:
- Consider themselves to be left-wing
- Support identity politics
- Support feminism
- Believe in rape culture
- Believe in male privilege
- Believe that street harassment is a serious problem
- Believe in and reject cultural appropriation
- Favour strong limitations on free speech
- Favour diversity over merit
The woke are typically intolerant but use the language of tolerance. They are typically exclusionary while using the language of inclusion.
Today I want to present a new concept to you. I call it The Woke Continuum, or increasingly just The Continuum.
There are various movements alive in the world today. Most have appeared within the last few decades and they have characteristics in common. These movements include Marxism, feminism and Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion. Another one that is not as well known is the BDS movement. Each of these movements could be described as ‘woke’.
Feminism, of course, needs no introduction here other than to say that while there are many forms of feminism on paper, Intersectional feminism won decades ago. This is so true that referring to feminism without further qualificiation is a reference to intersectional feminism.
Intersectional feminism concerns itself with the intersection of various grievances based on gender, ethnicity or sexual preferences. This set up feminism to be central to the woke continuum that was to come.
It also prompted some anti-feminists to start referring to the grievance hierarchy in reference to the difficulties feminists have in adjudicating difference sorts of grievances.
BDS is short for boycott, divestment and sanctions. The BDS movement is an anti-Israel movement. While it’s officially opposed to Israel it seems to be anti-Jewish as well.
In 2018 some women’s marches in the US excluded Jewish women’s groups. This is a good example of the types of problems encountered within intersectionality. Who’s grievances are more important?
Black Lives Matter was founded by three women, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and Opal Tometi. Cullors has explicitely referred to herself and Alicia Garza as trained Marxists. During one interview Cullors commented on the wide range of philosophies she had read while attending a year-long course at the National School for Strategic Organising (NSSO):
We spent the year reading, anything from Marx, to Lenin, to Mao, learning all types of global critical theory and about different campaigns across the world,…
Meanwhile Cullors has invested millions of US dollars in real estate. Some Marxism.
Information on what BLM truly believes used to be on their website but was removed in September 2020:
We make our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
And later on the same page:
We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).
Here we see clear links to feminism and Marxism.
BLM was ostensibly founded to assist Africa-Americans but it was clear during the riots in 2020 that it was doing nothing of the sort. Management at the many American corporations that supported BLM at the time should be ashamed of themselves.
Extinction Rebellion is a radical environmental group that is well known in the UK and Australia for disruptive protests. Extinction Rebellion aligns itself with feminism and BLM in embracing anti-Colonialism and also aligns itself with BDS in taking an explicitely anti-Israel position.
Generally speaking groups like Extinction Rebellion are pushing for a reduced standard of living to counter what they term as an imminent threat from climate change.
These movement exist on a continuum. They don’t all agree with each other on everything. Their members don’t all agree. But they exist on a continuum and they work together when it makes sense to do so.
This helps them to be evasive. They can deny an association with one of the other groups when needed but then join with them when it makes sense to work together. This gives them plausible deniability and has made it difficult for those outside of these movements to define them. Each of these movements have characteristics in common.
They tend to be good at manipulating language. They redefine words in a manner reminicient of New Speak from Nineteen Eighty-Four and thus avoid clear definitions. Consider a word like Colonialism. Who can deny that colonialism happened? But they change the implied meaning.
I believe that since about 2015 feminism has been less successful at manipulating language. They’re tending to produce more clear definitions which is making our job a lot easier. We can now direct responses at their clear definitions and discredit them.
A good example is toxic masculinity. They are increasingly listing characteristics that they argue constitute toxic masculinity. In particular they talk about stoicism as leading to toxic masculinity while stoicism is very much a double-edged sword. It can be destructive but it can also lead men to greatness.
These movements are intolerant of alternative view points and tend to shout down opposition. They all seem to have been influenced by Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
They tend to be grass-roots and have little or no strong leadership. Even BLM which has identifiable leaders has tended to be decentralised with different groups managing to act in a concerted effort with little coordination.
Many have noticed the apparent decentralised nature of these groups. Some then posit that there must be a conspiracy going on. Some even argue that George Soros must be involved.
George Soros was originally born in Hungary. He’s from a non-observant Jewish family and survived the Nazi occupation of Hungary. I’m quite certain these events helped to shape his world view.
Soros funds various progressive groups and organisations through his Open Societies Foundation but it is notable that the BDS movement has been critical of Soros for his investments in Israel.
I reject the conspiracy explanation. I think something simpler is going on. I believe these groups are effective because the message and the concepts used are simple and easy to grasp.
I’m arguing these movements are organic, which is far more dangerous. You can’t cut the head off the snake if it doesn’t have one.
The focus of these movements is remincient of the Four Olds the removal of which were central to the Cultural Revolution in China which lasted from 1966 to 1976:
- Old Ideas
- Old Culture
- Old Customs
- Old Habits
Consider what we’ve seen from these movements in recent years and where this may go from here.
Identity politics, or more recently idpol, is an ideology in which people are categorised on the basis of characteristics that are often readily identifiable. Characteristics often include gender, race, gender identity or sexuality. While identity politics often uses terminology such as diversity it is really talking about a coarse form of diversity based on physical characteristics and ignores important forms of diversity such as diversity of thought.
One of the greatest misunderstandings about the men’s rights movement and anti-feminism is that they in any way involve identity politics. Merely seeking to address the problems faced by a particular group does not imply acceptance or endorsement of identity politics. In contrast, Feminism is increasingly tied to identity politics and post modernism.
The Oxford Dictionary defines identity politics as:
A tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
Identity politics is inherently exclusionary and intolerant even as it uses the language of inclusion and tolerance.
The men’s rights movement accepts anyone who wants to help us regardless of their gender, ethnicity, sexuality or any other characteristic they might have. Every major men’s rights organisation has had women in leadership roles. This is because those women were willing and able to fill those positions. Anyone who wants to help MRAs address the problems facing men and boys is welcome.
Compare to feminist groups. Many exclude men from leadership roles and some exclude men entirely – calling them ‘allies’. Some don’t even want male allies. That’s identity politics.
But all is not well among socialists and adherents of identity politics. There has been an ongoing war within socialism for years over identity politics. Some socialists argue that identity politics is central to socialism in the 21st century while others argue that it distracts from the core issues around worker’s rights.
Socialist Alternative is a good example of a socialist group embracing idpol. It’s also worth noting that they actively opposed the March for Men in 2018 in Melbourne, Australia in which I spoke. On their Red Flag website Socialist Alternative made an attempt to take me out of context that was so bad I now use it as an example.
In contrast the World Socialist Web Site actively attacks Socialist Alternative and claims they are part of the pseudo-left. Similarly Sahra Wagenknech is a prominent politician in the democratic socialist Left Party in Germany. She also thinks that identity politics is just a distraction from the core aims of socialism.
This conflict within socialism has been ongoing for many years and it isn’t clear what the outcome will be. We’re seeing a similar conflict inside feminism. Feminists that oppose the trans movement, such as Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, are rebranding as Women’s Rights Activists. Some may think this opens the door for them to work with MRAs, but it doesn’t. WRAs are still highly gynocentric. They have also taken to calling the trans movement a men’s rights movement. This is clearly not so. It was feminism that argued for 50 years that gender is a social construct. This is the natural end result of that position.
Continued in part 2.
Credit Daniel Baines, conference attendee, for the cover image.
