First, as a person, you can have a significant variance compared to the general ideology of the subgroup as a whole.
So let's be understood that I'm going to describe a stereotype, with possible noticeable difference from your actual opinions.
As "woke", the stereotype would be of opinions typical of the left (equality, pro-environment policies), with a heavy emphasis on identity and social justice (gender, race, disabilities and representation), and more often than not an intersectional view of society, where "patriarchy" and "whiteness" hold the top spot and have to be challenged to displace their power and correct systemic abuses.
I know you already say that you're describing a stereotype here, but that's also kind of the problem. This doesn't describe me well and is usually not why my views are called woke. It's also kind of vague; there is naturally overlap in vague left-wing policies, but egalitarian leftist economics, environmental policy, left-wing identity politics and intersectional feminism is not the same box. I have an acquaintance who's an outright TERF whose views are called woke.
There's a very specific intersection (not in the intersectional sense, but in the overlap sense) of environmentalist, intersectional, Marxist, (etc) people that tick all the boxes, but it's not really how woke is misappropriated upon people.
I had the sense to dig up an article from May this year, in Danish sadly (attitude mirrored in the States; you may disagree with this, but I'm sure others can dig up what has stuck to their brain). So it's featuring Morten Messerschmidt, the leader of the Danish People's Party; that party is as it sounds, but thing is, it's really sizable in Denmark, and the phrasing presented is not unique to the party, it's literally present with Danish Conservatives, New Right, and Left (unhelpfully; Left is centre right wing; used to be the counterpoint to Conservatives back in the day, but has moved right hard since then). So it's a general article about the usual suspects; the dangers of wokeness, with the assorted list of social justice issues and intersectional talking points being dangerous for society. Again, not unique to the party. So which is the jump board for Messerschmidt's point? It's because a coalition of parties made an agreement about state funding to media outlets, that outlets should be aware of genderedness in media (this ticks some of your boxes). Who were the woke parties that made the agreement, then? I'm gonna need some parenthesises, because Danish parties are stupidly named.
The Social Democrats (Used to be a worker's party, now it's a middle class party, slight left of centre - immigrant policy mirrors Danish People's Party, and economic policy is just slightly left of Left (who are, again, centre right)),
Socialist People's Party (Used to be more left, now it's centre-left, again dumb names),
Radical Left (Dumb name; they're the incarnation of centrism, works with whatever wing is in power),
Free Greens (these are basically the strictly wokeist people in the intersection if the word actually meant something),
The Alternative (basically Green Party, heavy on intersectional issues but very neoliberal economically) and
The Christian Democrats (really weird party to explain, kind of a Frankenstein's monster of Danish Christianity and other things). So here's the thing.
I can concede that Free Greens and The Alternative could be called woke; they hit the intersection pretty well. I would prefer if that was how it worked, since then the word meant anything. But they're also
tiny parties, nowhere near meeting the mandates of the big centre/centre-left parties.The Alternative is 2% of Social Democrats' popular mandate. Free Greens are 6%. And while this is a broad agreement, on concrete policy, there's a
dire difference as to how these parties vote and want to govern. In the article, Messerschmidt continues to talk about wokeness as a social force/conspiracy and implicates these parties as having been infected by it. And I'm just sitting there, like... It's basically a footnote of a
massive agreement on how media should be administered in Denmark; I looked up the document, and this small subnote of just being aware of genderedness in media is
two points of 90+, excluding points that are much longer paragraphs, that I didn't care to count. (The agreement of course only consists of changes to the previous agreement and the laws about it are much more detailed in practice.) The two points had Messerschmidt go on a rant about everything from universities to kids and sports. This is
consistent as to the nature of the usage of wokeness, in the vast majority of times; and the moment someone talks about the dangers of some vague left structure and put The Alternative and The Social Democrats up side by side, they've lost me. It does not make sense outside a rhetorical function,
it does not reflect how the vague left organizes within itself.
As an aside, a good amount of these opinions are also shared by people with a dim view of "wokeness", because the pejorative perception comes first and foremost from how (and how far) these views are defended than their existence to begin with (or, as I often say, it's more about "mindset" than "values").
Can you rephrase this, I have some difficulties understanding ^^ It probably has to do with my coalition outline above. My guess is that the left generally overlaps in some SJW stuff but are generally not inclinated to call themselves SJW's or woke because of it generally being a pejorative, and woke people are considered those of that caliber that are abrasive? If that's what you mean, again, I'm not sure I agree, because I mostly don't hear woke as "leftists who are abrasive", but rather, "vague leftists who are innately abrasive because they're vaguely leftist".
