|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Felbrigg Hall lanyards
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you are a volunteer or a employee of an organisation in a role charged with making visitors welcome and you do something that doesn't make a group welcome, then one might think it is you that has a bit of a problem not the organisation which has asked you to wear a minor bit of clothing.
I probably wouldn't wear a poppy if directed either, but then I wouldn't put myself in a situation where it looked like there would be a scenario where this would happen (I wouldn't work or the British Legion, Commonwealth Wargraves Commission etc) and if I was in a situation where this came up and I was in a massive minority then I'd walk away.
If I worked for a museum holding a poppy exhibition, then I'd have to think long and hard about whether a poppy lanyard was appropriate for the exhibition (which it may well be) and if it was whether I was an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there during that exhibition.
I can find much to agree with in your last two paragraphs.
As to your first paragraph, while the NT may have a general mission to make their sites welcome "for ever, to everyone" I think it's fair to say that making a positive stand for LGBTQ issues is a departure from their normal activity in a way that "celebrating" war dead at war graves is not. The rainbow lanyard is no more a "minor bit of clothing" than a poppy, and it is new, more specifically at Felbrigg Hall.
The question of considering whether one is (still) an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there is legitimate, but if one has all one's volunteers' interests at heart people should not feel ostracised or forced out and wherever possible, leavers' investment in many ways over the years to a site should be recognised whatever differences there may have been.
I think it's quite possible the developments at Felbrigg meant some of these people felt disenfranchised, this was not handled sensitively, and that the gay issue may have been more of a hook to hang that on than the real underlying problem.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships?
No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.
(In other words, the amount of adultery and fornication that took place upstairs at most stately homes is also a matter of historical record. Why hide a threeway lesbian relationship as if it's somehow more shameful?)
I'm genuinely confused, because of this example in particular, about whether the Prejudice and Pride exhibition is about rehabilitating the lifestyles it highlights and affirming them as legitimate or not.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that correct or not? Are you or are you not tempted to "jack it all in" with regard to LGBT+ issues because you feel other people are not respectful enough?
This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's fair to say that making a positive stand for LGBTQ issues is a departure from their normal activity in a way that "celebrating" war dead at war graves is not.
Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues".
It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
OK, well I think most people understand that the rightness of a position about human or legal rights (or even common decency about welcoming people who are very different to oneself) is independent of the offense one feels at the way protagonists put their case.
Indeed, making decisions as to the rightness of a cause based at all on respectfulness and niceness seems a doomed project.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
That you cannot see that this resembles an excuse to avoid engaging in acceptance is part of the reason why this discussion has been less than amicable.
You're right, I can't see this. Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You'd run a site with a 350 person committee? This is insane. They wouldn't be able to decide what biscuits to have in the kitchen, much less anything of importance.
No, but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
Yes. I'm having trouble understanding why this is a problem; the general air of many NT properties is about genteel but slightly balmy aristocratic families, clearly this is a slice of a different viewpoint but isn't the whole story either.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.
Where are you getting this from? As I understand it this lanyard is tied in with the Prejudice and Pride initiative. It is not NT-wide. The scope of this initiative is here. The page mentions the NT's mission statement but nowhere on there that I can see does it suggest that this is about "making people from a particular community feel welcome".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There was acceptance amongst some at least of the volunteers at Felbrigg Hall before this exhibition was launched on 25 July. The film that was reviewed on 21 July and is part of the exhibition features volunteers from Felbrigg Hall for the live action.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
I don't think the National Trust is a volunteer organisation. It is an organisation with a lot of staff supported by a lot of volunteers.
There is no sense that the National Trust exists to give things to do to volunteers. Some charities exist for this purpose, the NT isn't one of them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues"
Sorry, I missed the first part. What I mean by that is that it is identifying with a particular advocacy issue over and above the norm. This to me is made clear by the fact that the NT has associated it with the Prejudice and Pride initiative.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The National Trust give the reason for the LGBT+ campaign as:
quote:
"Some have asked why Prejudice & Pride is necessary – why the lives of people who challenged conventional ideas of gender and sexuality should be made public and celebrated in this way. The answer is quite simple – to do anything less is to suggest that same-sex love and gender diversity is somehow wrong, and keeping these stories hidden only lets prejudice – past and present - go unchallenged."
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where are you getting this from?
<grinds teeth>
From the organisation set up to encourage businesses, museums and other organisations to use the rainbow flag to show that LGBTQ+ people were welcome and the press release from the NT explaining why they were wearing the rainbow flag. Both of which I linked to pages ago.
quote:
As I understand it this lanyard is tied in with the Prejudice and Pride initiative. It is not NT-wide. The scope of this initiative is here. The page mentions the NT's mission statement but nowhere on there that I can see does it suggest that this is about "making people from a particular community feel welcome".
NT press release
quote:
“All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our founding principles when they join us – we are an organisation that is for ever, for everyone. We are committed to developing and promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion in all that we do regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
“Relating specifically to the Prejudice and Pride programme, we do recognise that some volunteers may have conflicting, personal opinions.
“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation. We encourage people with any concerns to chat to our teams. As part of Prejudice and Pride we have worked closely with Stonewall and the University of Leicester who have been providing training and support to help as many volunteers as possible feel confident to take part.”
As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.
Some volunteers at Felbrigg have said they feel uncomfortable wearing these and we have offered them the opportunity to take a break from front facing duties if that’s what they would prefer.
They were wearing the lanyards to make LGBTQ+ people feel welcome at the exhibition.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm genuinely confused, because of this example in particular, about whether the Prejudice and Pride exhibition is about rehabilitating the lifestyles it highlights and affirming them as legitimate or not.
I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.
I thought the exhibition was simply about stating that these things happened, had been erased from history, and that reinstating them gave us a more full view of the past. (The squick factor for some arrives because they think gays are modern invention.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
No. It is broadening the account. quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
Like Doc Tor said, we cannot know things would have been different, but odds are they would not have been.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
No one said it was
quote:
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
mr cheesy:
As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.
It makes no sense to me to argue that the rainbow is being used in the rollout of an organisation-wide acceptance of LGBTQI and at the same time explain it is being used to highlight specific historic exhibitions at a limited number of sites or welcome LGBTQI people specifically to those exhibitions. I can make either of those make sense, but not both.
[ 13. August 2017, 20:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sorry, I missed the first part. What I mean by that is that it is identifying with a particular advocacy issue over and above the norm. This to me is made clear by the fact that the NT has associated it with the Prejudice and Pride initiative.
I don't think it is really fair to say that the NT itself is advocating anything as part of the Prejudice and Pride exhibition.
If they are, it is simply that there should be space for an unheard community to talk about the hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in their properties.
I don't think one normally suggests that an organisation putting on an exhibition is campaigning or advocating for that position, are they? The NT isn't lobbying parliament or sending boat-loads of volunteers to wave banners outside court.
At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.
Oh right. How do you know that then?
quote:
It makes no sense to me to argue that the rainbow is being used in the rollout of an organisation-wide acceptance of LGBTQI and at the same time explain it is being used to highlight specific historic exhibitions at a limited number of sites or welcome LGBTQI people specifically to those exhibitions. I can make either of those make sense, but not both.
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.
Well if the words "accepting", "celebrating", or "welcoming" were attached...? I'm not best-placed to comment, but it to me it could look from this inclusion as if LGBTI+ values encompassed three-way relationships. Do they? Amidst all this discussion of acceptance, I'm wondering whether the message is that these should be accepted too. At least one gay Shipmate spent some time on one occasion explaining why three-way relationships were a whole different kettle of fish to SSM.
(I've almost started a thread on 3-way relationships in DH as I've seen the subject come up a couple of times in the news lately).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think this is an entirely red herring, and one that is unfortunately right on the script for conservative Christians opposing gay relationships: if we let them do this, then it'll be bestiality and pederasty next.
So I'm not even going to go there, and I'm going to suggest that you don't either.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't understand what this has to do with anything.
A person can be gay and be in a monogamous lifelong relationship or have regular casual sex with many people.
Accepting a person as gay means accepting that this is as much part of their nature as a person's skin colour is part of them. It isn't necessarily accepting or promoting the messy relationships that they're into - any more than the NT has been supporting various forms of adultery down the years by talking about the messiness of aristocratic families.
[ 13. August 2017, 21:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
No one said it was
Then what did you mean by this? quote:
quote:
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.
It's not "tolerate my intolerance". It's a balancing act. I pushed back against the (to my mind, intolerant) scenario that "all non-lanyard wearers are homophobes". You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
One might say that the NT is supporting two person monogamous relationships by allowing weddings in some of their properties and isn't supporting other things by not allowing people to marry their dog, campervan or favourite rock - but I'd suggest this is more do to with the law of the land and economics than because they as an organisation feel particularly strongly about it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.
I would be fine with that. Exactly the same policy should have been applied for their volunteers (opt-in).
Note that your scenario above is utterly different from trying to send a corporate message about the values of the entire organisation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. How do you know that then?
Can you find anything from before the fuss supporting your position? I think the statement is confused.
quote:
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
See my above post. How can the same organisation use the same symbol both to be creating space for some special advocacy and simultaneously argue it's deploying an organisation-wide value? It's certainly confusing for me.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Note that your scenario above is utterly different from trying to send a corporate message about the values of the entire organisation.
I'm sorry I must be getting old because I simply cannot understand what you are talking about.
The facts are that there is a hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in NT properties. It is also a fact that the NT has a longstanding interest in encouraging more people from more minority groups to visit and engage in the history of their properties.
In a general way they want the NT to be a more welcoming place for LGBTQ+ people.
In a specific way, they've put on this exhibition and they're trying to ensure that any LGBTQ+ people who want to visit are made to feel welcome as per their general policy of inclusion.
Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
No one said it was
Then what did you mean by this?
Just so you know, working backwards through that is a bit confusing. Basically, I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
quote:
You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.
I don't think I've said it's a contradiction. But it's not the same thing in terms of what it says about the organisation's commitment (or otherwise) to specific advocacy. The latter is firmly within the realm of diversity management and organisational change.
If the NT is trying to rebrand itself as an overtly LGBT+-friendly organisation then I don't think these lanyards are going to be the last we hear about it.
[ 13. August 2017, 21:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.
It isn't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.
quote:
The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
Personally I think that if the prevailing mood is that this is just to highlight another example of minorities being oppressed, it should have been a rant thread and it should have been in Hell.
Which seems like a good place for me to stop for now.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.
It isn't.
No, it isn't. It doesn't require a rainbow either. But making a visible, explicit commitment to it in the form of a symbol synonymous with an advocacy movement is, to my mind, a form of advocacy.
And with that I'm really stopping (at least for now).
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
No. It is broadening the account.
Broader, perhaps. But nonetheless selective, in the story which is told and in the emphasis applied to and the interpretation placed on different parts of it. As I say, I see no way that it could not be so.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.
This doesn't address what I said, but slides around it.
quote:
Personally I think that if the prevailing mood is that this is just to highlight another example of minorities being oppressed, it should have been a rant thread and it should have been in Hell.
The prevailing discussion is on the true dynamics of the situation. Most of the contributions to this tread have been measured and reasoned, nowhere near a Hell thread.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If they are, it is simply that there should be space for an unheard community to talk about the hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in their properties.
The NT talks about comparatively mundane history associated with its buildings. It's not something I particularly care about - if I go and look at an old building, it's because I want to look at the building, and I'm supremely uninterested in who the 13th Earl was shagging or why. It's really not something I care about - so I tend to skip past that kind of stuff.
What I'm looking for at a historic property are technical details about how the building was built, how the ornamentation on the ballroom ceiling was done, and so on.
But apparently lots of people don't care about that stuff, but do care about the 13th Earl's sex life, and the NT should tell the stories of the gay aristocrats just as much as it should tell the stories of the bed-hopping adulterous ones, the happily-married ones, and whoever else.
Historically, the gay stories haven't been told as much, and we all know why. So making a bit of a song and dance about "now we're telling these stories" is eminently reasonable.
There seems to be some disagreement about whether the use of the rainbow flag means LGBT-welcoming, or LGBT-rights promotion and activism. At some level, it means both. Can you welcome gay people without explicitly supporting gay rights? Well, that depends on who you are. If you are, for example, a church, then "welcoming" gay people has to include blessing their relationships and treating them as equal brothers and sisters in Christ, and allowing them to serve in all your ministries on the same terms as straight people. That's basically the same as advocating for equal rights for gay people - it's hard to do one without the other.
If you are a coffee shop, on the other hand, then welcoming LGBT people merely requires you to offer friendly service to the two young ladies on their first date, and not to glare at them if they have the temerity to hold hands.
[ 14. August 2017, 04:02: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
There's a great deal in that last post which I welcome. However it does, I think, fall down at one point: there are some NT properties (eg John Lennon's house) which are only of interest because of the human interest attached to them, not their architectural merit. Granted, you may have no interest in going there (me neither) but it does mean that, at least for some properties, your argument doesn't work.
PS I like the church/coffee shop contrast.
[ 14. August 2017, 06:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Isn't it as simple as the rainbow lanyards are being used as a signal from the National Trust that this is a house with an exhibition and/or events about an LGBT+ connection - and a chapter in the book they are selling. The intention being a visual shorthand for visitors.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.
Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
Quite. If you want an example connected with another NT property, just look at the second Lord Faringdon at Buscot Park, who seems to have been a very ripe (and ISTM rather wonderful- I like his politics and I warm instantly to anybody who can absentmindedly address the House of Lords not as 'My Lords', but as 'My Dears' ) example of a comparatively flamboyant mid-C20 gay man. Curiously enough Buscot seems not to be part of the Prejudice & Pride thing: I don't know why, but I can only guess that this may be because the current Lord Faringdon, who administers it, didn't want it to be.
Probably because Buscott is rarely open for visitors (one afternoon a week, IIRC).
Buscott always raises another bog question for me - that of the ability to gift a property or estate to avoid tax, yet still retain use of it. HMRC wouldn't normally allow that sort of thing for us hoi polloi.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't it as simple as the rainbow lanyards are being used as a signal from the National Trust that this is a house with an exhibition and/or events about an LGBT+ connection
I don't sense it is that simple, any more than Brexit is simple.
I'm not about to rehash why, but take this opportunity to make a more general comment.
Most of my contributions to this thread have been me trying to thrash out in discussion why it is I sense it's not that simple. I've certainly made some mistakes along the way and drawn some erroneous, misleading, and sometimes hurtful comparisons: sorry about those.
Being pulled up on them, constructively, has helped me refine my thinking.
As an example of refining my thinking, Leorning Cniht's post above has provided a really helpful insight for me: I'm approaching this largely from a church leadership perspective and not a coffee shop perspective, because that's more my frame of reference, and as LC has so usefully pointed out, the implications of putting up a rainbow flag over each are not the same.
Differing frames of reference undoubtedly explain some of the heat generated by our respective contributions; they also demonstrate that when it comes to us discussing this case, all with our different contexts, this really isn't simple (this is, after all, page 10...).
Indeed, if DH issues were simple, we wouldn't need DH.
If we don't accept they aren't simple, we are unlikely to be able to engage constructively with each other here; it will indeed just become an extension of Hell (hence my recent plea on a tangent there for a tone that facilitates and invites discussion).
When I come to DH I'm sincerely trying to make the effort to dialogue here. I recognise that my posts don't convey the empathy I'd like them to. I'll try and work on that. I also welcome those who make similar efforts - not just for my own comfort but for the good of the discussion as a whole.
And that's all I have to say for now.
[ 14. August 2017, 07:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't it as simple as the rainbow lanyards are being used as a signal from the National Trust that this is a house with an exhibition and/or events about an LGBT+ connection - and a chapter in the book they are selling. The intention being a visual shorthand for visitors.
Not according to what the NT said about the lanyards, no. It said that they were about expressing a welcome to the community as part of the exhibition.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Looking for something else, I found this article in Civil Society, discussing the press coverage and issues around the Felbrigg Hall film and exhibition.
Several points:
- The National Trust announced the Prejudice and Pride programme in December 2016;
- The film about Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer was made as part of this initiative (and volunteers from the Hall took part in the film);
- Ketton-Cremer was a biographer; he left his papers to the National Trust - which strongly he understood those papers would be used;
- that if this exhibition had been about women's rights, the volunteers who protested would not have had a hearing in the press
The piece concludes that the National Trust should have held firm about the requirement of front of house volunteers should wear the rainbow lanyards, which I don't agree with, as that would add to the management problems with the volunteers.
As an aside, the tone of 22 July story in the Eastern Press about the film is very different to that of the Daily Telegraph on 21 July.
There is a comment in the front page story in the Daily Mail of 4 August that suggest there were other issues at Felbrigg Hall:
quote:
Ukip MEP Gerard Batten said: 'This is politically correct nonsense gone mad. Who the hell do the National Trust think they are? 'Why should the people who volunteer to show people around be forced to wear a badge that's got nothing to do with their role? If half the staff have walked out it serves the trust right.'
Volunteers are also furious at an order issued in a meeting two months ago to stop approaching visitors and offering to answer questions. They claim they were told to keep a low-profile and avoid becoming distracted as visitors file past valuable artefacts.
which suggests there were additional problems with some of the volunteers and their perception of their role. If something had been stolen I can see why that memo was sent.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't like clicking on the Daily Mail links, but it was worth it for this photo caption
quote:
Mike Holmes, who has served at Felbrigg Hall for 13 years, said 75 people are no longer working for at his National Trust
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Eutychus, Leorning Cniht's post was helpful to me too, as realising that's where you were coming from and why we were all talking past each other.
I wonder if part of this problem is that the rainbow lanyard is seen differently by different groups. I do not see it as a campaigning symbol, but as a shorthand for "LGBT+ welcome here", because that is how I use it in my working life. But I work in education where we were struggling to support equal opportunities for LGBT+ in the years between 1988 (Section 28) and 2003 (the repeal of Section 28). For the last 14 years we have been steadily increasing inclusion for LGBT+. I know that the situation in many church circles is different and there the campaign is still live.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
The Daily Heil goes pretty far to "suggest" a lot in that article. The blood fairly drips from their hatchet.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
That Daily Mail article was followed up by more coverage on the front page the next day, Saturday 5 August, (in concert with the Daily Telegraph) followed by the National Trust capitulating on the compulsory wearing of lanyards.
(so should have checked that coding)
[ 14. August 2017, 08:47: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However it does, I think, fall down at one point: there are some NT properties (eg John Lennon's house) which are only of interest because of the human interest attached to them, not their architectural merit.
True - and you're right, I have no interest at all in memorabilia like John Lennon's house, CS Lewis's pen, and so on, so I implicitly excluded that kind of thing before I even started thinking.
It could be that in John Lennon's house, there is what I would consider a serious historical study of his early life, rather than a big pile of tat that he happened to have owned, and if there was, I might go for that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I bothered looking to find out what was the interest for the Beatles' family houses in Liverpool. The National Trust only owns a couple of the many options, and the ones they own are the houses where many of the first records were written, with the rooms as they were at the time. John Lennon's room apparently didn't need much work as it had been used as a store room in the intervening years.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
