Z. Michael Gehlke
Dear Steven,
I wrote this paper to help explain why I find you and people like you so morally repugnant I won’t associate with you anymore.
Yours Truly,
Z. Michael Gehlke
Executive Summary
This paper examines the societal perception of two groups: prostitutes, who have faced stigma for centuries due to cultural and moral norms, and adherents of the “woke” ideology, particularly those in corporate environments or leveraging Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) frameworks. While prostitution is often driven by economic necessity and does not inherently harm others, “woke” advocates promote divisive and bigoted policies that undermine social cohesion, harm their own communities, and even deny opportunities to their own children. The betrayal of familial loyalty and moral principles by these individuals places them in a position of far lower “face” than prostitutes, whose actions are typically driven by survival rather than malice or ideological zeal.
Introduction
“Face” is a concept rooted in respect, reputation, and social dignity, deeply intertwined with morality and cultural norms. Prostitutes have long been stigmatized for violating societal expectations surrounding sexuality. However, their actions are often motivated by economic necessity or systemic marginalization, and they rarely inflict harm on others, particularly their families. In stark contrast, adherents of “woke” ideologies—those who advocate for divisive and discriminatory policies through corporate platforms and ESG initiatives—engage in actions that actively harm others, including their own children. By prioritizing ideological conformity or personal gain over ethical obligations, these individuals lose face to a degree that surpasses even one of the most historically stigmatized groups.
This paper argues that the actions of “woke” advocates result in a profound betrayal of moral principles, making them more socially and ethically disreputable than prostitutes.
Comparative Analysis
Prostitution has historically been stigmatized due to its association with sexual immorality and societal taboos. However, prostitutes often operate out of necessity, driven by economic hardship or systemic inequities. Their actions, while controversial, are typically confined to personal, consensual relationships and do not inherently harm others. On the contrary, many engage in sex work as a means to provide for their families, underscoring their commitment to survival and caregiving despite societal rejection.
In contrast, adherents to “woke” ideologies in corporate or ESG contexts willingly advocate for policies that inflict harm on others, particularly their own families. These policies often include race- or gender-based hiring quotas that undermine meritocracy, ideological censorship that stifles open dialogue, and divisive educational initiatives that indoctrinate children with harmful narratives. By promoting these policies, these individuals erode societal trust, foster resentment, and betray their most fundamental responsibilities: to protect and nurture their own children.
Unlike prostitutes, whose motivations are rooted in survival, “woke” advocates act out of opportunism. They consciously leverage their positions within corporations to secure financial rewards, career advancement, or social status, even when these actions harm their families and communities. This willingness to trade the well-being of their own children for personal gain reveals a profound moral failing that diminishes their social respectability.
Harm to Children and Families
A defining feature of “woke” advocacy is the harm it inflicts on the families of its proponents. By endorsing policies that prioritize ideological conformity over fairness, “woke” advocates subject their own children to discrimination and reduced opportunities. For example, race- or gender-based quotas may deny their children the ability to compete on equal footing, while curricula that emphasize systemic guilt or victimhood can foster confusion, psychological harm, and a diminished sense of agency.
This harm is not incidental; it is a direct result of their advocacy. Unlike prostitutes, who often engage in their work to support their children, “woke” adherents act in ways that actively undermine their children’s futures. This betrayal of parental responsibility—one of the most universally sacred moral obligations—sets them apart as individuals who consciously choose to harm those they should protect.
Broader Societal Harm
While prostitution is often stigmatized, its broader societal impact is relatively limited. The act remains personal and localized, and when regulated, sex work can function as a legitimate form of labor. In contrast, the actions of “woke” advocates extend far beyond their families, influencing corporate policies, educational systems, and social norms. Their promotion of divisive ideologies erodes social trust and fosters resentment, creating long-term harm to societal cohesion.
The systemic nature of this harm magnifies the moral failure of “woke” advocates. By advocating policies that prioritize identity over merit, suppress dissenting views, and fragment communities, they undermine the principles of fairness and justice that are foundational to healthy societies. Their actions betray not only their own families but also the broader social fabric.
The Magnitude of Betrayal
The loss of “face” experienced by “woke” advocates surpasses that of prostitutes because their actions represent a deliberate and calculated betrayal of moral principles. Prostitutes, though stigmatized, often act out of necessity and are seen as victims of circumstance. Their actions rarely involve intentional harm to others, and in many cases, they demonstrate resilience and care for their families despite societal rejection.
In contrast, “woke” advocates willingly compromise the well-being of their own children, communities, and society at large to align with divisive ideologies. This betrayal of natural responsibilities is viewed as deeply immoral, reflecting a conscious rejection of ethical values in favor of personal or ideological gain. The deliberate nature of their actions renders them far less redeemable in the eyes of society.
Conclusion
The concept of “face” reflects an individual’s social respect and moral standing. While prostitutes face enduring stigma, their actions are often driven by necessity and do not inherently harm others. In contrast, adherents of “woke” ideologies in corporate and ESG contexts actively harm their families, communities, and societal cohesion. By prioritizing personal gain and ideological conformity over fairness and familial loyalty, these individuals demonstrate a profound moral failure that results in an unparalleled loss of face.
Their actions undermine the well-being of their own children, deny opportunities to their families, and betray the very values they are entrusted to uphold. This betrayal positions them as less respectable—both morally and socially—than even one of the most stigmatized groups in history.
Recommendations
- For Corporations:
- Reevaluate ESG frameworks to prioritize genuine inclusivity, fairness, and family integrity over ideological conformity.
- For Society:
- Foster open dialogue to challenge divisive ideologies and hold individuals accountable for harm caused to their families and communities.
- For Individuals:
- Prioritize ethical principles, particularly the well-being of one’s own children, over financial or ideological incentives.
This white paper seeks to provoke critical reflection on the profound moral and societal implications of ideological advocacy, urging all stakeholders to confront these issues with clarity and accountability.