| JWeinCom said: The beauty of the term woke is that it doesn't actually mean anything. It's a term that can be used to decry anything without actually having to say the quiet part out loud. It can in some cases be used to describe things that are genuniely toxic or bigoted. But more often than not, this is not the case. For instance, Bud Light was "woke" for having a trans person promote their beer. Their was certainly nothing anti-man or anti-cis or anti-whatever about it. Bud light just wants people to drink their beer whatever their gender expression is, because, you know, their job is to sell beer. This is kind of the exact thing the anti-woke crowd should promote, because their argument had been that you shouldn't "cancel" things or people because of their political views. I.e. if Harry Potter is a good book, read it, regardless of whatever JK Rowling things about trans people. Buy Chick-Fil-A whatever they thing about gay people. And, they may have a point if they actually followed through on that. Yet, predictably and hypocritically, they did not take a live and let live approach when someone is pro-trans, and started shooting cases of Bud Light.
Another example is the movie Turning Red, which was decried by many as woke for... reasons? What those reasons were is not clear. There is certainly nothing about the movie that is hateful towards any group of people as far as I can see. It's not really addressing any broad social issues. I don't recall any lectures about Patriarchy. In fact matriarchy is a more prevalent theme. You know, come to think about it, men are not featured very prominently in the movie at all, which might be getting us closer to the actual issue they had with it. What turning red does have is a minority character as the lead. Oh, and it mentions directly and implicitly a girl having her period. Apparently that was enough to label the movie as "woke". They struggled to explain why that was, and mostly settled on it being unrelatable to the masses. Because we were able to relate to insects, living toys, a lonely robot, fish, and anthropomorphic personifications of abstract emotional concepts... but 13 year old Chinese girl having her period is where some people draw the line I guess.
This kind of response, meaning your post, bothers me because it gives cover to the anti-woke crowd, and steelmans their position into something vaguely rational. Do they sometimes pick up on genuinely problematic behavior? Yes, because blind squirrels will occasionally find a nut. Yes, demonizing groups is a problem even if those groups are not a minority. Yes, assuming that someone who likes a book supports everything the author has ever said is a bad idea. Yes, remaking Snow White and the seven Dwarves without dwarves and with a main character who is not as white as snow is probably a bit silly. But, far more often, it's just an excuse to attack anything that supports or features a group they don't like, whether or not it is any way hateful or bigoted towards other groups. I keep hearing it's not about them disliking the groups or resenting them being represented, it's just that they are somehow being represented in the "wrong way". Somehow it's always the "wrong way". I'm skeptical that there is a right way.
Honestly, woke is just a quick and dirty shortcut to discredit something without explaining why it is actually bad, evil, hateful or w/e. And, we shouldn't accept that. If someone attacks something for being woke, we should ask them to describe the actual problem without using the term woke. Without vague allusions to some giant conspiracy. What makes this particular message or work harmful? If they can explain that, great. Most of the time, they will not be able to. |
