Originally posted by Eutychus:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
it's not a "naked threat". It's a frank admission of how I feel.quote:The NT don't just cover historic properties, though, but public history more generally (also lots of places that would come under natural history, such as areas of natural beauty). Recognising LGBT history and historical people is a really important part of LGBT rights anyway.
Originally posted by John Holding:
As I read the story, part of the reason some feel discomfort is that they believe the outing of the former owner after his death, and the NT's use of his being gay, to be antithetical to what he wanted. He'd stayed in the closet by his own choice, being a highly private person, long after it would have been easy for him to come out. The promo film outed him, and the NT is apparently using his being gay as a part of its promo. Some of those who knew him feel that's wrong.
And I'm not sure -- really not sure, in either direction -- why it's part of the NT's mandate to be campaigning for gay rights, which don't seem to me from afar to have a whole lot to do with historic properties.
John
quote:He died only two years after homosexuality was decriminalized. I doubt it would have been as easy as you imply for him to come out, as an old man in a rural community, even in the late 60s. It wasn't easy even in the mid-80s when I was at university. I know someone who didn't come 'out' until she was in her 30s because she was worried about what her family would think, and lesbianism has never actually been illegal in this country.
As I read the story, part of the reason some feel discomfort is that they believe the outing of the former owner after his death, and the NT's use of his being gay, to be antithetical to what he wanted. He'd stayed in the closet by his own choice, being a highly private person, long after it would have been easy for him to come out.
quote:I think you have put your finger on the reason why I felt vaguely uncomfortable about this... even though I don't agree with the people who wanted to keep the owner of Felbrigg Hall in the closet 50 years after his death.
If the rainbow lanyards were compulsory, it wouldn't mean that colleagues are supportive, it would mean that colleagues are maintaining the company dress code.
quote:The Independent
The YouGov survey also revealed generational divides in attitudes towards gay rights - with older people less likely to support gay sex, same-sex parenthood, and inclusive relationship education.
Seventy-eight per cent of people aged 18 to 24 said that gay sex was natural, while 69 per cent of those aged 65 and above believe it is not.
Three quarters of those aged above 65 were opposed to same-sex inclusive relationship education compared with 74 per cent of those aged 18 to 24 who supported the policy.
quote:This makes it sound as if they they need to phase out the older volunteers and get in younger ones. The Grim Reaper just doesn't come around fast enough these days!
Originally posted by Louise:
National Trust volunteers are often retired. However the younger visitors and people the National Trust needs to become members and volunteers in the future are much less likely to be anti-gay, and quite a few of them will be LGBT people themselves who want to see their history celebrated, not erased to suit the prejudices of an older generation who were complicit in keeping them and people like the late owner in the closet.
quote:What would this consultation entail?
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It does strike me that a major failing here was that the NT seems to have treated the volunteers as if they were employees, with the policy imposed upon them without consultation. Irrespective of the specific issue, that's bad enough in an employer/employee situation. But (as those of us who participate in churches know only too well) it can be disastrous when working with volunteers, who can simply decide to "walk" at any moment.
quote:Yes, that's a good point - if your charity/business model relies on people doing things for free out of the goodness of their hearts then to what extent can you expect them to sign on to your values and go along with orders from above they don't like?
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It does strike me that a major failing here was that the NT seems to have treated the volunteers as if they were employees, with the policy imposed upon them without consultation. Irrespective of the specific issue, that's bad enough in an employer/employee situation. But (as those of us who participate in churches know only too well) it can be disastrous when working with volunteers, who can simply decide to "walk" at any moment.
quote:It isn't about the volunteers values. Their values are not on display. They are representatives of the trust.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Does the application form make every volunteer sign up to an agreed set of values? This would sort the wheat from the chaff.
quote:The predominate demographic or NT volunteers is old, white people. How many do you think are amenable to inclusivity?
Originally posted by Louise:
But if your charity has been upfront that inclusion/equality is a core value, then it shouldn't come as a surprise to people when they're expected to proudly back those values in public. They should have been trained and been brought on board with these core values long before a glimpse of a lanyard.
quote:The the objectors wanted, and were granted, an exemption. Bad form, bad precedent.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I would have to sign up as interested in volunteering (so have a log in to myvolunteering) to get to the full application form to be a volunteer for the National Trust - the voluntary sector is a huge organisation, but there is a disclaimer on the employment forms that requires a signature to agree to follow the policy of the National Trust.
quote:Yes, spot on, Ricardus, thank you. I also wonder- I don't know the detail- whether the NT are imposing an early C21 narrative of what being gay is about onto an early/midC20 experience.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:quote:I think you have put your finger on the reason why I felt vaguely uncomfortable about this... even though I don't agree with the people who wanted to keep the owner of Felbrigg Hall in the closet 50 years after his death.
If the rainbow lanyards were compulsory, it wouldn't mean that colleagues are supportive, it would mean that colleagues are maintaining the company dress code.
quote:In this case wasn't it actually quite a smallish, though significant group who refused to go along with it and were re-assigned? Polling shows education level and other things bear on social attitudes to inclusivity too - there are plenty people here who buck the demographic trend. Though you can see why demographics are part of the problem and why recruiting more people from outside that demographic would really help (and that's probably something that this campaign was aimed to help do)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The predominate demographic or NT volunteers is old, white people. How many do you think are amenable to inclusivity?
Originally posted by Louise:
But if your charity has been upfront that inclusion/equality is a core value, then it shouldn't come as a surprise to people when they're expected to proudly back those values in public. They should have been trained and been brought on board with these core values long before a glimpse of a lanyard.
quote:Given the volume of academic secondary and primary source history and recorded oral history that exists on the subject and plenty of sources from people who lived and described exactly that experience - (people who had the experience of being closeted in the 50s and 60s are still with us. I can think of two I know just for starters. I'm sure some are posting on these boards) - why would you assume that the National Trust curators would be academically incompetent and not know how to properly contextualise key material for their interpretation?
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Yes, spot on, Ricardus, thank you. I also wonder- I don't know the detail- whether the NT are imposing an early C21 narrative of what being gay is about onto an early/midC20 experience.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:quote:I think you have put your finger on the reason why I felt vaguely uncomfortable about this... even though I don't agree with the people who wanted to keep the owner of Felbrigg Hall in the closet 50 years after his death.
If the rainbow lanyards were compulsory, it wouldn't mean that colleagues are supportive, it would mean that colleagues are maintaining the company dress code.
quote:What I mean is, this kind of disagreement would be avoided if new volunteers had to sign a form agreeing to support/represent the values of the trust. The trust's position on sexual equality would be one of the values made explicit right from the very start.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It isn't about the volunteers values. Their values are not on display. They are representatives of the trust.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Does the application form make every volunteer sign up to an agreed set of values? This would sort the wheat from the chaff.
quote:Instead of mentioning he was gay, they should wink and talk about his love of theatre? Perhaps wink and mention he was ever so fashionable?
Originally posted by Albertus:
- I don't know the detail- whether the NT are imposing an early C21 narrative of what being gay is about onto an early/midC20 experience.
quote:Proper and nuanced contextualisation is the job of historians and curators - speaking as someone who worked for over a decade as a curator and who has a background in academic history. If you 'wonder' if someone is not doing this, you are impugning their core job skills. The research for that film was done by Professor Richard Sandell of the University of Leicester and his team. He's professor of Museum Studies with a long record as a curator. If you're going to impugn his work and imply he's been deeply unprofessional in this case, then please provide some evidence.
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm not assuming that, I'm just wondering whether it was happening. There's a fairly universal tendency to for each generation to see the past in terms of its own time: that's very hard to avoid and I accept that it's part of what historiography (is that the right word?) is about. But I think that important nuances may be lost. This seems to me to be particularly a danger where you are dealing with a subject like this (or other aspects of 'inclusivity') where there is a risk of falling into thinking that we are terribly enlightened and understand it properly and that previous generations were groping in the dark.
It may well be that the NT historians are sophisticated enough to handle this. But in an awful lot of public history nowadays there is a tendency to miss the point that even within living memory people may have thought about and found ways of living things, including their own sexuality, which were subtly different from how people today would think and live.
quote:Absent any quotes from the employees in question, to me it appears to be a ridiculous leap to go from "not wearing a lanyard" to "homophobe". There were excellent reasons for not doing so in this instance other than homophobia.
Originally posted by Louise:
I suppose the good thing about the reversal is that someone going there now will know from the lanyard or absence of it whether their guide is anti-gay or not, but on the other hand they now know they will encounter homophobes there...
quote:It seems to me that if you need to have a rainbow lanyard round your neck you are having to make a special effort to exhibit "inclusion/equality". If I have a "core value" I shouldn't need to wear a special badge to prove it; I should embody it.
Originally posted by Louise:
if your charity has been upfront that inclusion/equality is a core value
quote:I don't see why not, although I doubt that the Trust would want to go to the expense of providing special lanyards for one exhibition at one house. These things cost money, you know. And it's difficult, if not impossible, to visit Oxburgh and remain unaware of the history of Catholic persecution... heck, they make a point of letting people go into the priest hole.
If a special exhibition was mounted there, to celebrate the fact that Catholics are no longer persecuted as they were in penal times, would the volunteers be expected to wear a lanyard in gold and white with a cross?
quote:And this - since when homosexuality has been legal in England - is relevant to Felbrigg Hall how?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Being Catholic in England has been legal for considerably longer than being a gay man has.
quote:Absent any quotes, it is the obvious and most likely reason.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Absent any quotes from the employees in question, to me it appears to be a ridiculous leap to go from "not wearing a lanyard" to "homophobe".
quote:Alright, list them.
There were excellent reasons for not doing so in this instance other than homophobia.
quote:Kinda the whole point of any campaign is to make a special effort.
It seems to me that if you need to have a rainbow lanyard round your neck you are having to make a special effort to exhibit "inclusion/equality".
quote:If you actually have that core value, you likely wouldn't object to the lanyard.
If I have a "core value" I shouldn't need to wear a special badge to prove it; I should embody it.
quote:So, you would dismiss the volunteers instead of reassigning them for the duration of the campaign?
Which would you prefer: platoons of rainbow-lanyarded NT volunteers tut-tutting at PDA on the part of LGBT visitors, or actual acceptance of diversity?
quote:Warm up your argument before stretching it this far. You are correct in that they are not the same. You are incorrect in thinking this matters.
It is not the same as a badge displaying a particular skill such as speaking a foreign language which is intended to assist visitors with specific needs during their visit (or if it is, it's absolutely not "contextualisation").
quote:As stated above, this is not accurate. The man who donated this site, Ketton-Cremer, was gay. This makes it part of the history of the site. It is relevant.
All the more so in that this was not a Trust-wide decision to put their values on display, but related to the historic content of one site. To my mind the job of the NT staff is to preserve historic sites and facilitate visits to them. They are custodians, not commentators (any commentary belongs in a museum display or event).
quote:Ah if you've not seen the quotes or heard the interview on Radio 4, you're missing quite a bit.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Late to this, but I agree with Ricardus.
quote:Absent any quotes from the employees in question, to me it appears to be a ridiculous leap to go from "not wearing a lanyard" to "homophobe". There were excellent reasons for not doing so in this instance other than homophobia.
Originally posted by Louise:
I suppose the good thing about the reversal is that someone going there now will know from the lanyard or absence of it whether their guide is anti-gay or not, but on the other hand they now know they will encounter homophobes there...
quote:It seems to me that if you need to have a rainbow lanyard round your neck you are having to make a special effort to exhibit "inclusion/equality". If I have a "core value" I shouldn't need to wear a special badge to prove it; I should embody it.
Originally posted by Louise:
if your charity has been upfront that inclusion/equality is a core value
Which would you prefer: platoons of rainbow-lanyarded NT volunteers tut-tutting at PDA on the part of LGBT visitors, or actual acceptance of diversity?
It is not the same as a badge displaying a particular skill such as speaking a foreign language which is intended to assist visitors with specific needs during their visit (or if it is, it's absolutely not "contextualisation").
All the more so in that this was not a Trust-wide decision to put their values on display, but related to the historic content of one site. To my mind the job of the NT staff is to preserve historic sites and facilitate visits to them. They are custodians, not commentators (any commentary belongs in a museum display or event).
If I visit a NT site (I've just got back from one or two) I expect the staff to help me with practical issues (actual example: providing UK change for the pay and display meter) and otherwise be as unintrusive as possible, not foist political messages on me, whether they are ones I approve of or not. They are there to serve, not militate, whatever the cause.
quote:There's a group of about ten whom Holmes is speaking for and the contextualisation (film, presumably content of tours) that the lanyard is there to promote is what they really object to - they don't want Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer's sexuality mentioned at all
My favourite part of the National Trust pride badge kerfuffle. Why do you think a gay man who died in 1969 was "intensely private", Mike?
quote:It's put in anti-marketing terms but they are refusing to incorporate new research on minority history into how the property is presented.
“Wymondham-Cremer would’ve turned in his grave to know what’s happening. He was an intensely private man, he was never open about his sexuality...
“The National Trust looks after grounds and buildings, they do not have the right to research their benefactor’s private lives to suit the needs of a marketing campaign. It’s abhorrent.”
quote:But they've made it clear they're not accepting, lanyard or no. And again I've done public heritage front of house duty. You don't sit there and tut-tut - even when the person who has come in assures you he is the rightful Earl of Blankety-Blank and your organisation has been involved in a major conspiracy to hush up his claims to the title. (How very interesting Sir and what records do you think might show this? This is how you call them up... a real example which is why I don't say what title was claimed). If your volunteers are that unprofessional, you need to spring the money for professionals or get new volunteers who can do the job.
Which would you prefer: platoons of rainbow-lanyarded NT volunteers tut-tutting at PDA on the part of LGBT visitors, or actual acceptance of diversity?
quote:Anti-Catholic persecution is sadly still a live issue in Scotland - along with its mirror-image sectarian attacks on protestant loyalists. There is an anti-sectarian charity called 'Nil By Mouth' which works to oppose both sorts of sectarianism and has a #KissBigotryGoodbye campaign. If it had a well-known ribbon, I'd think it would be an idea worth pursuing for an appropriate site to link in with that. But the obvious one - the convent which was the site of the famous Morningside riot against an eucharistic congress by Protestant Action isn't in NTS hands.
Originally posted by Edith:
A question: Oxburgh Hall (NT) in Norfolk was owned by a devout Catholic family and has a Priest's hole.
If a special exhibition was mounted there, to celebrate the fact that Catholics are no longer persecuted as they were in penal times, would the volunteers be expected to wear a lanyard in gold and white with a cross?
quote:"Funny he never married"
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Instead of mentioning he was gay, they should wink and talk about his love of theatre? Perhaps wink and mention he was ever so fashionable?
Originally posted by Albertus:
- I don't know the detail- whether the NT are imposing an early C21 narrative of what being gay is about onto an early/midC20 experience.
quote:I'm sorry but that is an attack on the competence and professionalism of a scholar who states in his script quite clearly "The truth is, when researching Robert’s life, we find many accounts that openly acknowledge his homosexuality.” You like Albertus are accusing Professor Sandell who researched and oversaw this film of gross failings as a historian and curator. Neither of you have any grasp of the primary sources ( to my knowledge) - yet you both seem happy to imply that Sandell must be in some way grossly mis-stating and misinterpreting his findings or they must be irrelevant or ham-fisted attempts at political correctness overriding scholarship.
Still, I'd be more sympathetic if this was happening at, say, Bletchley Park and related to Alan Turing, where there is plenty actually in the historical record to work from in terms of discrimination, than some through-the-wrong-end-of-a-telescope reconstruction which, at the end of the say, appears to be wholly speculative.
quote:I don't follow this logic.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Mr. Ketton-Cremer is not sufficiently interesting in his own right for his home to be worth preserving, but given that his home is a notable building, he's worth more than a footnote.
quote:If he lived in a three-bedroom home in a suburb, he wouldn't even rank a blue plaque on the wall, let alone having his home preserved for the nation. The house isn't important because of him.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't follow this logic.
quote:I'm not denying his homosexuality. What I do find contentious is the extent to which his homosexuality in and of itself makes him a legitimate subject of a "Prejudice and Pride" event.
Originally posted by Louise:
I'm sorry but that is an attack on the competence and professionalism of a scholar who states in his script quite clearly "The truth is, when researching Robert’s life, we find many accounts that openly acknowledge his homosexuality.”
quote:But I don't think "minority history" is relevant to the building, is it? It's not a notable building because it was owned by a gay man. Is Mr. Ketton-Cremer's sexuality relevant to the interior design? I've not seen the building, but somehow I doubt it.
Originally posted by Louise:
It's put in anti-marketing terms but they are refusing to incorporate new research on minority history into how the property is presented.
quote:'In defiance of the historical facts'.. 'overreach' yet you've shown not one area in which this video contradicts historical facts and/or overreaches. It's not analogous to your Breton situation because it's not based on falsification of history.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I'm not denying his homosexuality. What I do find contentious is the extent to which his homosexuality in and of itself makes him a legitimate subject of a "Prejudice and Pride" event.
Originally posted by Louise:
I'm sorry but that is an attack on the competence and professionalism of a scholar who states in his script quite clearly "The truth is, when researching Robert’s life, we find many accounts that openly acknowledge his homosexuality.”
I said nothing at all about not mentioning his homosexuality and I'm not challenging the scholarship. My issue is not with the history but with the emphasis and its expression. All the more so in that so far as I can tell, there is no comparison with the case of Alan Turing, and as I said, if something similar were to happen at Bletchley Park I'd feel differently. I think an emphasis at a site with clear links to actual historic events of discrimination would be more effective and more appropriate.
There is a campaign in my city to dual name every single street in Breton as well as in French (activists recently removed all the offending signs and piled them up at the town hall front door). Much could be said about the Breton language and its wilful suppression, first by the Germans and later by De Gaulle, but the fact is that Breton was never a widely-spoken language where I live. The dialect that was spoken here has to all intents and purposes simply been willed out of existence by Breton language militants, in defiance of the historical facts.
Which is to say that I think that history is not infinitely pliable and that there's such a thing as overreach.
quote:Lord Darnley didn't make any architectural alterations to Holyrood Palace but it would be a bit weird to demand that the guides stop telling the tourists about his connection to the property because only bricks and mortar and interior design count as important parts of Holyrood's heritage.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:But I don't think "minority history" is relevant to the building, is it? It's not a notable building because it was owned by a gay man. Is Mr. Ketton-Cremer's sexuality relevant to the interior design? I've not seen the building, but somehow I doubt it.
Originally posted by Louise:
It's put in anti-marketing terms but they are refusing to incorporate new research on minority history into how the property is presented.
Robert Ketton-Cremer's sexuality is relevant to the history of Robert Ketton-Cremer. I don't see how it's relevant to the building.
Now, if he had decorated the interior with secret gay symbols or something, then his sexuality is relevant to the building. I don't think he did, did he?
quote:This is exaggeration and you know it. I could quote from my own posts above to disprove it.
Originally posted by Louise:
But you're apparently happy to erase the history of all LGBT persons connected with historic buildings
quote:You unfortunately make it sound as though failing to have Bletchley Park in their portfolio means the NT absolutely have to cast around for somewhere, anywhere to squeeze into the mould of an anti-discrimination narrative they've espoused rather than look more dispassionately at the heritage they actually have and the prima facie story it tells which, naively perhaps, is what I would expect of the brand.
Bletchley Park doesn't even belong to the National Trust, so are they to never mention this area of history at all, despite the many LGBT people who have lived in or owned their houses?
quote:No it's not. It's saying that I don't expect to be greeted at every notable non-white person's residence by a greeter sporting a Black Lives Matter T-shirt.
this is like saying that in a country where racist laws are an important part of their history that they should never be mentioned in public historical interpretation when discussing the life of a notable non-white person unless that person was Steve Biko or Martin Luther King and you're at a building which is associated with them.
quote:He was not, so far as I can tell, a notable victim of discrimination, nor a notable activist. He wasn't a "notable gay man". He was a notable man who happened to be gay.
And Ketton-Cremer is notable - he's important enough to have an 850 word Dictionary of National Biography entry as a biographer and county historian and he was the owner who left the estate to the National Trust.
quote:For the record, my church doesn't carry out any marriages at all, since in this country that is the preserve of the state; but at this point I think the main reason we haven't blessed a same-sex one is that nobody has asked us to yet. There is certainly nothing in any statement of faith or similar to prevent us from doing so.
does your church carry out same sex marriages?
quote:Putting words like this into my mouth is the kind of tactic that tempts me to back-track on all the long years of patient discussion here that have led me to reversing my views on homosexuality. Doing so is not discussion; it's aggression.
really should not be telling historians and curators 'this notable gay man isn't worthy of having his life under hostile anti-gay laws studied and talked about and publicised. A six minute video and a campaign with a fancy lanyard in his own house is too much attention for him.'
quote:I've been to Felbrigg Hall. I would not describe it as a notable building at all. It's nice enough if you like poking round rich people's houses and admiring antique furniture; a typical English country house, owned by a relatively undistinguished family (compared to, for example, the Churchills or the Howards). "The last owner was gay" is probably the most exciting thing they could find to say about it.
But I don't think "minority history" is relevant to the building, is it? It's not a notable building because it was owned by a gay man.
quote:And this statement isn't? It is a naked threat. "Be nice or I'll be a bigot again"
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Putting words like this into my mouth is the kind of tactic that tempts me to back-track on all the long years of patient discussion here that have led me to reversing my views on homosexuality. Doing so is not discussion; it's aggression.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I've been to Felbrigg Hall. I would not describe it as a notable building at all.
quote:Fighting ‘Erasure’
‘Erasure’’ refers to the practice of collective indifference that renders certain people and groups invisible. The word migrated out of the academy, where it alluded to the tendency of ideologies to dismiss inconvenient facts, and is increasingly used to describe how inconvenient people are dismissed, their history, pain and achievements blotted out. Compared with words like ‘‘diversity’’ and ‘‘representation,’’ with their glib corporate gloss, ‘‘erasure’’ is a blunt word for a blunt process. It goes beyond simplistic discussions of quotas to ask: Whose stories are taught and told? Whose suffering is recognized? Whose dead are mourned?
The casualties of ‘‘erasure’’ constitute familiar castes: women, minorities, the queer and the poor.
quote:My posts indicate nothing of the kind. My objection has been to the staff being required to wear a symbol of advocacy when I don't consider that to be part of their job description, and more specifically to your blanket insinuation that anyone not wearing a lanyard was "anti-gay" and a "homophobe".
Originally posted by Louise:
Your posts do indicate that you think Ketton-Cremer doesn't deserve a six minute video and a fancy lanyard in his own house which he gave to the nation or for historians to talk about his life as a gay man in the days of persecution, because he's not an icon of the LGBT firmament of the status of Alan Turing and didn't suffer in the most extreme way (his connection to the house is as good as Turing's to Bletchley - and it's not like Turing was the only important person at Bletchley).
quote:On consideration, I think my feelings would be the same about any cause - I've already stated my objection to poppies - and all the more so in a working capacity.
But have a rainbow lanyard instead of one with hieroglyphics or tartan or green white and violet for Give Women Votes and the knives are out.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And this statement isn't? It is a naked threat. "Be nice or I'll be a bigot again"
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Putting words like this into my mouth is the kind of tactic that tempts me to back-track on all the long years of patient discussion here that have led me to reversing my views on homosexuality. Doing so is not discussion; it's aggression.
How is that embodying acceptance? Or even Christianity?
it's not a "naked threat". It's a frank admission of how I feel. And there is nothing non-Christian about pointing out misrepresentation, since we are supposed to "rejoice in the truth". quote:To me this lies at the heart of the debate. Those who know me will know that I have tried to push for gay rights - specifically SSM - in a denomination which has not been keen to embrace the idea. But I wasn't comfortable with the NT's position on this (and, as others know, I've also had stick in the past for swimming against the tide with the poppies).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My objection has been to the staff being required to wear a symbol of advocacy when I don't consider that to be part of their job description, and more specifically to your blanket insinuation that anyone not wearing a lanyard was "anti-gay" and a "homophobe".
I am far from sure this is actually the case.
...
I think my feelings would be the same about any cause - I've already stated my objection to poppies - and all the more so in a working capacity.
I don't think it's right to enlist staff in a campaign that is not specifically that of the organisation in question and as someone who manages volunteers, I think it's terrible volunteer management to sanction those who wish to opt out.
quote:I'm not clear why that is the same thing. If it was a baptist church, presumably members have a say over policy.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To make a parallel. As a child, I used to attend a church that was proud to have been founded by William Wilberforce. Now I am absolutely appalled by the idea of slavery in any form; but I would not expect the welcomers on a Sunday morning to be compelled to wear "Stop the Traffik" badges - at least, not without a free and open discussion having first taken place within the congregation.
quote:I don't see why it is relevant to the discussion, but since you ask, I went as part of a group from the university Folk Dance Society to perform seventeenth-century dances on the lawn. My most enduring memory of Felbrigg is therefore of sheep-shit (we were only allowed to dance on the lawn the sheep grazed on). And this happened last century, long before this research project, so the sheep are probably dead now as well.
Did you go because you wanted to spend a day poking round a nice English country house and garden, or because you have a particular interest in R. W. Ketton-Cremer?
quote:On the face of it I have no quarrel with this statement.
Originally posted by Jane R:
If we're going to remember the past at all we should remember it as it really was, not as the people in charge at the time would like us to think it was.
quote:You seem to think that "volunteer" means "should accept any dictates on the part of the organisation or face the consequences". There's a lot more to good volunteer management than that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We're talking about volunteers of a charity not members of a church.
quote:Great! Glad to know I'm not alone. Wait - I have an idea. Perhaps those taking this view could all wear some sort of symbol...
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've also had stick in the past for swimming against the tide with the poppies.
quote:On the face of it I have no quarrel with this statement. However, I hope you are not accusing either myself or Louise (who happens to be a professional historian who knows whereof she speaks) of hypocrisy. I cannot speak for Louise, but I am deeply uncomfortable about certain aspects of British history (such as the extent to which our current prosperity depends on colonialism). It doesn't mean I am prepared to look away from it.
However, unless it is applied equitably, not just in favour of the minority cause you or I hold dear, it is hypocritical - and I think it's a rare person who would not feel "uncomfortable" confronted with some aspect or other of their personal cultural heritage they would deep down prefer to remember selectively for all manner of reasons.
quote:As I said earlier, I can see where you're coming from there, but I would respectfully suggest that it's hard for most people under the age of 40 to understand why someone would refuse to wear a rainbow lanyard if they were not opposed to LGBTQI rights, equal marriage, etc., etc.
And so far as I'm concerned, the argument that any objection to the policy is an attempt to suppress the homosexual history attached to Felbrigg Hall is a ploy to divert from the issue I'm talking about, which is press-ganging people into advocacy they didn't sign up for and then branding them homophobes when they don't comply.
quote:I've done a lot of volunteering with large national charities and there are a lot of volunteers who think that the rules and directions from the charity don't apply to them.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:You seem to think that "volunteer" means "should accept any dictates on the part of the organisation or face the consequences". There's a lot more to good volunteer management than that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We're talking about volunteers of a charity not members of a church.
quote:Absolutely not. I've said at least once that I'm not disputing the scholarship. To the extent that the owner of Feltrigg Hall was gay I have absolutely no problem with that fact and how it was lived out being incorporated into the presentation of the place.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Eutychus:quote:On the face of it I have no quarrel with this statement. However, I hope you are not accusing either myself or Louise (who happens to be a professional historian who knows whereof she speaks) of hypocrisy.
However, unless it is applied equitably, not just in favour of the minority cause you or I hold dear, it is hypocritical - and I think it's a rare person who would not feel "uncomfortable" confronted with some aspect or other of their personal cultural heritage they would deep down prefer to remember selectively for all manner of reasons.
quote:Very true; but the special-interest group with most influence now is (still) rich white people. Mostly rich white men. That is what this whole fuss is about.
To put it another way, yes, if we're going to remember the past at all we should remember it as it really was, not as the people in charge at the time would like us to think it was - nor as any special-interest group with influence now might like to reinterpret it.
quote:So the dissenting old fogeys should just suck it up? Is that not ageism? Persecution? Minority oppression? If not, what is it?
Originally posted by Jane R:
I would respectfully suggest that it's hard for most people under the age of 40 to understand why someone would refuse to wear a rainbow lanyard if they were not opposed to LGBTQI rights, equal marriage, etc., etc.
quote:Fair enough, but it is not unreasonable for life members, and even more so active volunteers, to feel they have a moral stake in something they have supported, and bad resource management to enact a decision which makes them feel disenfranchised and indeed imposes sanctions on them. If the NT wants to become an advocacy group it should say so and expect its support base to change accordingly.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd agree that the management of the volunteers in this particular instance sounds bad, however I know from experience that there are a number of elderly volunteers with the National Trust who seem to think that they can flout policy directions from above and that there are a correspondingly large number of elderly middle-class people who think that having life membership actually gives them a moral and financial share a specific given stately home.
quote:I'm out of time for the minute, but do you have evidence of which side took the story to the media?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's the point: a small number of volunteers were spoiling for a fight when they can't get the charity management to do what they want.
quote:The National Trust has plenty of meetings and opportunities for members to discuss policy and it has had several recent occasions where the management has been berated and outvoted by members.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair enough, but it is not unreasonable for life members, and even more so active volunteers, to feel they have a moral stake in something they have supported, and bad resource management to enact a decision which makes them feel disenfranchised and indeed imposes sanctions on them. If the NT wants to become an advocacy group it should say so and expect its support base to change accordingly.
[x-post]
quote:It's a fairly obvious pattern of manufactured outrage aided and abetted by the Daily Moan - which recently rubbished the NT on this exact issue.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm out of time for the minute, but do you have evidence of which side took the story to the media?
quote:Fair enough, but were there any local meetings between Felbrigg managers and volunteers before this specific policy was imposed?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The National Trust has plenty of meetings and opportunities for members to discuss policy and it has had several recent occasions where the management has been berated and outvoted by members.
quote:I quite agree, and I've seen similar behaviour in churches. But this may not have too much bearing on his particular instance.
Life members seem to think that they have special rights because they are life members outwith of their actual voting and speaking rights at meetings. In reality they have a one-member-one-vote right like everyone else.
quote:I've no idea. I'm not sure that this is really very important - given that volunteering is a privilege and that the practice falls within NT policy.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Fair enough, but were there any local meetings between Felbrigg managers and volunteers before this specific policy was imposed?
quote:I'm not sure why that's relevant.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I can see what you're getting at, but:
1. All the volunteers will have already come to their own conclusions about the nymph, which they will have seen with their eyes many times. Images and maquettes of it are probably on sale in the gift shop anyway.
quote:I think that's exactly the same. The rainbow lanyard is just a lanyard. It isn't saying anything about the person wearing it other than that it was given to them to wear by the NT.
2. The statue is property-specific in a way which The Issue We Are Talking About isn't. The badge would say nothing more than, "I work here" and could never be regarded as having any link to the wearer's individual moral and social views.
quote:Possibly. I don't know. This might have happened and the complaints were seen as a small minority or they weren't even expressed during a volunteer meeting.
3. I take the point about a small vocal minority not being allowed to call the tune (been there, got the T-shirt). But I'd still think it would be good practice for the manager to call a volunteer meeting and ask for opinions on the new uniforms before getting them ordered. The volunteers would then "own" the process - and they might have some helpful suggestions to offer, too!
quote:Social change? And it's not a new problem.
So the dissenting old fogeys should just suck it up? Is that not ageism? Persecution? Minority oppression? If not, what is it?
quote:My tongue was somewhat in my cheek there, but you give a fair answer.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Eutychus:quote:Social change? And it's not a new problem.
So the dissenting old fogeys should just suck it up? Is that not ageism? Persecution? Minority oppression? If not, what is it?
quote:From your link:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It is a six week event
quote:Who are they trying to fool? That is disingenuous in the extreme. The word "welcome" does not even figure on this page let alone this one.
the rainbow is an internationally accepted symbol of welcome
quote:I have taken to wearing my prison ID on a lanyard despite the strangulation risk, because it kept falling off the clip, and because I kept getting into trouble for not displaying it at all (and thus frequently being taken by inmates for an inmate). The pros and cons of lanyard-wearing are, however, not relevant here. The issue is whether the message the lanyard conveys is distinct from that of the organisation.
Lanyards and ID badges are normal wear for work for many people - I have both, and my work lanyard has the name of the company woven through it.
quote:There are plenty of problems with the volunteer system and its place in contemporary culture. The attempted use of these lanyards for advocacy is a distinct (though related) issue.
There was a story that predated this one that suggested that there is a problem with the National Trust's volunteer policy - along with other organisations that rely on volunteers.
quote:According to the link in the OP the story broke first in the local paper. A brief scan of recent pieces by the journalist in question doesn't suggest she is a regular purveyor of manufactured outrage. In my experience local papers have some of the best journalism around.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:It's a fairly obvious pattern of manufactured outrage aided and abetted by the Daily Moan
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm out of time for the minute, but do you have evidence of which side took the story to the media?
quote:British local journalists these days rarely leave their desks and only ever write articles when someone phones them up and gives them a story.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
According to the link in the OP the story broke first in the local paper. A brief scan of recent pieces by the journalist in question doesn't suggest she is a regular purveyor of manufactured outrage. In my experience local papers have some of the best journalism around.
quote:Sure, white people have a lot of influence in the UK. All the main figures in this, on both sides, are white: Professor Sandell, Dame Helen Ghosh and Annabel Smith (head of volunteering) are white. Mr Wyndham Ketton-Cremer was white, as are Paul Dacre (the Mail's editor) and Stephen Fry (who did the video). Given NT demographics, no doubt most of the 30 volunteers who protested about lanyards were white, as were the majority of the 320 who wore them.
Originally posted by Jane R:
the special-interest group with most influence now is (still) rich white people. Mostly rich white men. That is what this whole fuss is about.
quote:Put that way it seems fairer. In view of the sources CK has dug up I can imagine the journalists may have slanted the way the decision was taken - in fact doing so would fuel the ire on both sides.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Eutychus - I often agree with your concerns about how we treat traditionalists et al, but I think the National Trust behaved reasonably here. The lanyards were only to be worn for six weeks, it would have been pretty clear they were part of a uniform, and the volunteers were given the option of alternative duties. I think that's a decent accommodation.
quote:There is naught, in the definition of either, that is mutually exclusive.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:The non-Christian bit is the "Be nice or I shall take my ball away." It is natural to feel resentment when confronted; but it shows no commitment to an ideal if such can change one's position, nor does it reflect Jesus.
And there is nothing non-Christian about pointing out misrepresentation, since we are supposed to "rejoice in the truth".
quote:No. It is an example of confronting a tactic. It is the same call I would make regardless of the topic.
I abandoned the "hostility to traditional Christians..." thread at around the time it got sent to DH because I went on holiday, but your post is a perfect example of precisely that.
quote:Perhaps Buddhists don't understand the meaning, or limits, of "tempted". And the resentment was not about being confronted. I love confrontation. What I don't like is misrepresentation or gratuitous escalation.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The non-Christian bit is the "Be nice or I shall take my ball away." It is natural to feel resentment when confronted; but it shows no commitment to an ideal if such can change one's position, nor does it reflect Jesus.
quote:You essentially challenged my adherence to Christianity on the basis of what I wrote. When people on the "traditional" end call other people's faith into question, in my experience they would never get away with the excuse that they were merely "confronting a tactic".
No. It is an example of confronting a tactic. It is the same call I would make regardless of the topic.
quote:Buddhism was teaching this before Christianity existed. But don't worry about copyright infringement, that is not the Buddhist way.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps Buddhists don't understand the meaning, or limits, of "tempted".
quote:I think I represented what your post says accurately.
What I don't like is misrepresentation or gratuitous escalation.
quote:And I should read your mind instead? What you write is what I have to work with. To clarify, I am not doubting your devotion to Christianity. I am saying that what you wrote isn't in line with what Jesus taught.
You essentially challenged my adherence to Christianity on the basis of what I wrote.
quote:Again, I did not call your faith into question. I called into question the face value of your statement.
When people on the "traditional" end call other people's faith into question, in my experience they would never get away with the excuse that they were merely "confronting a tactic".
quote:Which bit of his teaching?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that what you wrote isn't in line with what Jesus taught.
quote:I was referring to the use of this term here on this thread, not by the NT. My charge against them is disingenuousness.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I am not sure the National Trust has been labelling people as homophobic if they don't agree with the initiative, that has come from the commentators, including those on the Ship.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:I might just be projecting but my guess is most of them feel stressed out and beleaguered. The only clear winners here are the Telegraph and Mail, who got to throw their weight around and sell a few extra copies.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
A small number of people chose to die on a very small hill. Well done them. I hope they feel it was worth it.
quote:I'm not sure I can find a specific quote in which Jesus condemns passive-aggressive threats.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Which bit of his teaching?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that what you wrote isn't in line with what Jesus taught.
quote:As Louise explained, the campaign is well within the purview of the NT and the volunteers were not asked to do anything untoward. The wearing of lanyards or other promotional items is a common thing for volunteers.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If it doesn't directly relate to the mission of the organization, it ought not to be demanded of the employees, volunteer or no. Or students.
quote:They are pretending no such thing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The orchestrated outrage is as maybe. But any organisation that pretends a blindingly obvious symbol of advocacy is no more than a "sign of welcome" (that's on their website) is not going to attract my donations or volunteer time,
quote:As this is on the page about the Pride campaign, the obvious reasoning is that it is welcoming LGBT+.
We asked all our staff and volunteers at the house to wear rainbow lanyards or badges during the six week event as welcoming symbol to all our visitors. We remain absolutely committed to our Pride programme, which will continue as intended, along with the exhibition at Felbrigg
quote:Again, with the rhetoric. You may or may not mean it this way, I cannot read your mind, but this is the sort of statement generally expressed as an excuse for opting out of support.
and when anything short of unflinching support for the way the initiative was implemented is cast as homophobia, it's not going to endear me to it.
quote:Maybe nobody would have bothered, but there certainly would have been eye rolling, at least from me. Why should my employer sign me up for random social campaigns, however meritorious? now if it were something to do with our main mission, that would be another story.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:As Louise explained, the campaign is well within the purview of the NT and the volunteers were not asked to do anything untoward. The wearing of lanyards or other promotional items is a common thing for volunteers.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If it doesn't directly relate to the mission of the organization, it ought not to be demanded of the employees, volunteer or no. Or students.
Were this a literacy campaign, I sincerely doubt there would have been any objections.
quote:History is part of the Trust's mission. How is this campaign irrelevant?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What I'm getting at is not the content of the campaign, but the irrelevance of it.
quote:Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
I am not a chalkboard to have miscellaneous political or social statements drawn upon me. (and no, I don't wear T-shirts with slogans either)
quote:Where do you get this idea from?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
quote:IME. it is common to have a visible item from a campaign worn by volunteers and staff.
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:Where do you get this idea from?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
quote:I can think of at least two places where he says he feels like chucking it all in because of the grief he's getting for taking the line he does, and several more where he upbraids people for gross misrepresentation of what is said, which is what happened upthread.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
if you can find where Jesus' said one's moral rectitude is subservient to one's hurt feelings, I am open to be schooled on this.
quote:Yes but to my mind in this instance there is deliberate confusion between a symbol used to promote a short-term event and a symbol used to display active support for a contemporary cause. I can understand wearers feeling uncomfortable that they are being made to look like militants for a cause which is outside their own immediate area of concern or whose leading protagonists adopt tactics they disagree with.
The wearing of lanyards or other promotional items is a common thing for volunteers.
quote:It's not obvious at all, the page in question is deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The LGBT+ advocates want to be able to lay a claim to the event under the (literal) banner of the gay rights movement, at the same time they are seeking deniability by claiming, at the top of the same page as I already quoted, that "The rainbow is an internationally accepted symbol of welcome".
the obvious reasoning is that it is welcoming LGBT+.
quote:It's not rhetoric. It's what Louise said and it's why I joined this thread.
quote:Again, with the rhetoric. You may or may not mean it this way, I cannot read your mind, but this is the sort of statement generally expressed as an excuse for opting out of support.
and when anything short of unflinching support for the way the initiative was implemented is cast as homophobia, it's not going to endear me to it.
quote:Asking volunteers and staff to wear a visible item from a campaign is not the same thing at all as saying that volunteers are billboards. So where does the idea that volunteers are billboards come from?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:IME. it is common to have a visible item from a campaign worn by volunteers and staff.
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:Where do you get this idea from?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
quote:But he does not use that against against anyone.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I can think of at least two places where he says he feels like chucking it all in because of the grief he's getting for taking the line he does,
quote:Again, I do not think what you actually wrote was misrepresented.
and several more where he upbraids people for gross misrepresentation of what is said, which is what happened upthread.
quote:Where did Louise say
It's not rhetoric. It's what Louise said and it's why I joined this thread.
quote:
anything short of unflinching support for the way the initiative was implemented is cast as homophobia
quote:Wearing a lanyard is a repressive system?
What I am not in favour of is replacing one oppressive system with another repressive system.
quote:Both are adverts.
Originally posted by Gracie:
So where does the idea that volunteers are billboards come from?
quote:I never wear them. IK just don't like having stuff hang round my neck. Reason enough.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You mentioned excellent reasons other than homophobia* to not wear lanyards. I'd like to heat them.
quote:Where do you get the idea that volunteers are adverts from?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Both are adverts.
Originally posted by Gracie:
So where does the idea that volunteers are billboards come from?
quote:That is bullshit. Opting out is not the exact opposite of actively opting in.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In refusing to wear the lanyards, in dropping membership and donations, people are becoming activists.
quote:Cultural mileage may vary, but it seems to me that the rainbow symbol in that part of the world is a badge of LGBT+ activism. It's certainly not anything to do with heritage.
The volunteers wearing lanyards would not be considered activists by anyone.
quote:My point precisely. They are supposed to be doing that everywhere, on all NT sites, and welcoming all people without discrimination - that's the NT's mission statement. Apparently they don't need this "internationally accepted symbol of welcome"
It isn't reasonable to do so, they are there to help and how they help or fail to is the only thing visitors associate them with.
anywhere else to do so. The only reason they "need" a lanyard is to make a point for advocacy. It is indeed not reasonable to cast them in some other role - which they inevitably would be if photos of them were circulated, doubtless without their opinions attached.*quote:Scroll up. In short, the NT is not primarily an advocacy group, the lanyards are deliberately ambiguous, and whether or not one espouses the cause one can have the feeling of being used for someone else's agenda.
You mentioned excellent reasons other than homophobia to not wear lanyards. I'd like to heat them.
quote:Neither did I.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But he does not use that against against anyone.
quote:The exchange in question is at the bottom of this post. I'll leave readers to make up their own minds.
quote:Again, I do not think what you actually wrote was misrepresented.
and several more where he upbraids people for gross misrepresentation of what is said, which is what happened upthread.
quote:She said
Where did Louise sayquote:
anything short of unflinching support for the way the initiative was implemented is cast as homophobia
quote:I cannot make this mean anything other than what I said it means. Can you?
someone going there now will know from the lanyard or absence of it whether their guide is anti-gay or not, but on the other hand they now know they will encounter homophobes there...
quote:Not wearing a lanyard can only be "anti-gay" and a way of denoting homophobes? Seriously?
Wearing a lanyard is a repressive system?
Seriously?
quote:Presumably a Crisis and Cancer Research t-shirt. Which is what you signed up for.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have volunteered at events for Crisis and Cancer Research and the first thing I was given was a t-shirt with their logos to identify me as a volunteer.
quote:Knole House and Sissinghurst are part of this campaign, exploring LGBQ+ history on the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexual acts in 1967.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why only Felbrigg? Why not Sissinghurst or Knole etc?
quote:Yes, but this is a national campaign to highlight the LGBT+ history of houses owned by the National Trust and I suspect that as a volunteer the agreement will include a phrase like "to be involved in such campaigns as are relevant to the property". This campaign seems to have been accepted at the other properties involved, with just this house the source of public objections.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Presumably a Crisis and Cancer Research t-shirt. Which is what you signed up for.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have volunteered at events for Crisis and Cancer Research and the first thing I was given was a t-shirt with their logos to identify me as a volunteer.
quote:I am sure they will be branded publicity across all the properties for the six weeks each property is involved, the badges are national from the article I found on Kingston Lacy.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes (and so are other places, even Hadrian's Wall) - but, as far as I can discover, it's only at Felbrigg that volunteers were asked to wear these blasted lanyards and/or badges. Can anyone here confirm or deny this?
In fact I doubt if the issue would have arisen if the lanyards had been seen as part of a "branded" publicity exercise across all the featured properties.
quote:Perhaps, but I can see people coming across an issue of conscience at some point or another. The question then is whether this was appropriately handled on either side. I think there's evidence of manufactured outrage, but I also think there's evidence of disingenuousness - at Feltrigg - on the part of the NT as discussed with LB above.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I suspect that as a volunteer the agreement will include a phrase like "to be involved in such campaigns as are relevant to the property".
quote:I think this is another point of argument, yes. Louise makes a case for the person's discretion about their sexuality being a symptom of the persecution of gays at the time. I tend to think that people can be discreet about their sexuality for all sorts of reasons and that at Feltrigg, this is forcing a modern perspective back on another age, and have some sympathy with those who find it intrusive without that necessarily making them anti-gay.
One of the reasons given is anger that someone should be outed as gay after their death, possibly because this is all within living memory? The godchildren who objected had ages given as 70 and 78, so maybe this is a generational thing?
quote:Yes, I'd go along with that.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Volunteer management; activism; the politics of history; journalism - there are a lot of contentious issues in play here aside from the DH one, which might be adding some heat to the debate.
quote:I think it is probably true that in popular consumerist culture, people are billboards. If you go into a supermarket or other British shop, you are quite likely to see staff wearing branded t-shirts, badges etc publicising whatever current promotional activity is relevant.
Originally posted by Gracie:
Asking volunteers and staff to wear a visible item from a campaign is not the same thing at all as saying that volunteers are billboards. So where does the idea that volunteers are billboards come from?
quote:First off, it's very possible that you had to wear a t shirt as a volunteer for Insurance reasons. It establishes who you are in a public setting. The NT is public but based a specific and identifiable NT location.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:Yes, but this is a national campaign to highlight the LGBT+ history of houses owned by the National Trust and I suspect that as a volunteer the agreement will include a phrase like "to be involved in such campaigns as are relevant to the property". This campaign seems to have been accepted at the other properties involved, with just this house the source of public objections.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Presumably a Crisis and Cancer Research t-shirt. Which is what you signed up for.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I have volunteered at events for Crisis and Cancer Research and the first thing I was given was a t-shirt with their logos to identify me as a volunteer.
One of the reasons given is anger that someone should be outed as gay after their death, possibly because this is all within living memory? The godchildren who objected had ages given as 70 and 78, so maybe this is a generational thing?
quote:I would still be interested to read lilBuddha’s view on where this idea comes from.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is probably true that in popular consumerist culture, people are billboards. If you go into a supermarket or other British shop, you are quite likely to see staff wearing branded t-shirts, badges etc publicising whatever current promotional activity is relevant.
quote:OK. Sorry for answering a question you weren't directly asking me.
Originally posted by Gracie:
I would still be interested to read lilBuddha’s view on where this idea comes from.
quote:Yes. How do you see staff who are wearing promotional clothing?
Are you saying that the staff in supermarkets are seen as billboards by the consumers who see them wearing branded t-shirts?
quote:Well obviously if the consumers see them as billboards then it follows that the bosses must also see them as billboards, doesn't it? I'd say the difference is that the bosses obviously see their staff as having a range of functions within the business and that having them also wear promotional materials is just another way to utilise them whilst they are doing other things.
Or by their bosses who make them wear the t-shirts?
quote:Well yes again. If the consumers and the bosses see them as billboards, then to some extent the staff must also see themselves as billboards. I suspect they probably see themselves less as billboards than the bosses or the consumers, but it must also be part of the feeling they get when they walk into the shop in the uniform.
Do you think they see themselves as billboards?
quote:Possibly, but that's a different conversation than this one. This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
It seems to me that treating people as billboards is treating them as less than human beings.
quote:No problem with you giving your opinion on it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK. Sorry for answering a question you weren't directly asking me.
quote:Well I certainly don’t see them as billboards. I’m still shocked that anybody could be described as a billboard, let alone considered to be a billboard. I would see them as store employees.
Yes. How do you see staff who are wearing promotional clothing?
quote:No I don’t think it does follow. Even if consumers see people as billboards, I would expect their employers not to do so.
Well obviously if the consumers see them as billboards then it follows that the bosses must also see them as billboards, doesn't it? I'd say the difference is that the bosses obviously see their staff as having a range of functions within the business and that having them also wear promotional materials is just another way to utilise them whilst they are doing other things.
quote:Well, personally I would think that there are people out there who object to being treated as billboards – and that even someone who is not anti-gay rights may well object to being used as a billboard.
Well yes again. If the consumers and the bosses see them as billboards, then to some extent the staff must also see themselves as billboards.
quote:I thought that was exactly what it was about.
This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
quote:Right, and part of that function is to wear the clothing directed by the management in order to function as a billboard.
Originally posted by Gracie:
Well I certainly don’t see them as billboards. I’m still shocked that anybody could be described as a billboard, let alone considered to be a billboard. I would see them as store employees.
quote:Mmm. It seems to me that you are saying that if the bosses see them as billboards it isn't possible to see them as anything else, whereas I'm saying that acting as a billboard is something that the bosses see as part of the role because the consumers often see them as billboards.
No I don’t think it does follow. Even if consumers see people as billboards, I would expect their employers not to do so.
quote:Which is fair enough. And the NT gave the opportunity to these volunteers who didn't want to be billboards to do something else for the period of this campaign.
Well, personally I would think that there are people out there who object to being treated as billboards – and that even someone who is not anti-gay rights may well object to being used as a billboard.
quote:OK, my bad. What I meant was that the issue with the NT volunteers was not about the generic issue of wearing lanyards and supposedly wasn't even about the issue of wearing lanyards promoting gay-rights. According to the reports, the issue was about the outing of a dead gay guy.
quote:I thought that was exactly what it was about.
This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
quote:The experience of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Michael Pitt-Rivers, and Peter Wildeblood suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes male homosexuality wasn't legal but the rules were rather different if you had some influence ... it was generally accepted, if not overlooked (hence Tom Driberg and Bob Boothby two gay MP's). It was rather harder to be working class and gay and more likely to end up in court. A little wealth gave you the privacy and opportunity many others lacked.
quote:Point of order: the volunteers were already wearing lanyards. This is categorically not about the lanyards.
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:I thought that was exactly what it was about.
This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
quote:For there to be an argument about colour, there had to be lanyards in the first place. My specific question was whether or not volunteers could be legitimately seen as billboards.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Point of order: the volunteers were already wearing lanyards. This is categorically not about the lanyards.
The argument is over the colour of the lanyards.
quote:Yes and that's an interesting discussion to have.
Originally posted by Gracie:
For there to be an argument about colour, there had to be lanyards in the first place. My specific question was whether or not volunteers could be legitimately seen as billboards.
quote:I'm not sure why "conceding you are a billboard" is important in this context.
Originally posted by Gracie:
I don't really see how agreeing to wear a lanyard in general means you have conceded that you are a billboard.
quote:I was responding to Doc Tor who said "The volunteers had already conceded the point." Which seemed to be in response to my question as to whether or not volunteers could be legitimately seen as billboards.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure why "conceding you are a billboard" is important in this context.
quote:I don't think you are conceding anything at all - you are agreeing to wear a lanyard, that is all. I have worn a lanyard in a lot of professional situations. There has never been an occasion that I can think of, where I have perceived this as conceding that anyone has any rights.
Even if you don't concede you are a billboard, you are clearly conceding that the management have the right to ask you to wear a lanyard. So if you then say you won't wear this lanyard then you are stating that there is a problem with this lanyard rather than the idea of wearing lanyards.
quote:So let's be clear: if you work in a school, you are saying that the fact that the management tells you to wear a lanyard is irrelevant with regard to your rights? What if you don't like lanyards, don't like the design of this lanyard, find the lanyard irritating etc?
Originally posted by Gracie:
I don't think you are conceding anything at all - you are agreeing to wear a lanyard, that is all. I have worn a lanyard in a lot of professional situations. There has never been an occasion that I can think of, where I have perceived this as conceding that anyone has any rights.
quote:OK, so why are we talking about whether can be considered to be a billboard?
Yes, if you have agreed to wear a lanyard in general and refuse to wear a specific one, you are saying that there is a problem for you with wearing that specific lanyard.
quote:It's a matter of class. Had they kept their relationships between themselves then it's possible or probable that nothing would have happened.
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:The experience of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Michael Pitt-Rivers, and Peter Wildeblood suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yes male homosexuality wasn't legal but the rules were rather different if you had some influence ... it was generally accepted, if not overlooked (hence Tom Driberg and Bob Boothby two gay MP's). It was rather harder to be working class and gay and more likely to end up in court. A little wealth gave you the privacy and opportunity many others lacked.
THe BBC currently has on iplayer an adaptation of Peter Wildeblood's book of their trial, Against the Law. I recommend highly both the book and the adaptation. It gives you a glimpse into the absolute terror gay men of all classes lived in.
quote:That's more of an issue with the small mindedness of the Police rather than anything else. You could multiply that approach elsewhere.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the interviewees on The Myth of Decriminalisation so post-1967, described the time when a drunken bus driver smashed into their car in the street outside. The first thing he and his partner did was make up the spare bed. Because police were known to get distracted by the living arrangements of homosexual couples rather than the issue they had been called to deal with.
quote:It was lilBuddha that said that volunteers are billboards. That assertation surprised and shocked me. And still does. I'm still trying to get my head to accept that there are people out there, who think it's OK to treat other human beings as billboards.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, so why are we talking about whether can be considered to be a billboard?
quote:Indeed. But I wouldn't consider you to be a billboard. The hi-vis you wear identifies you as a volunteer of the parkrun. No more, no less. I would be interested to talk to the parkrun organisers to see if they see you as a billboard. I doubt it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're representing the organisation you volunteer/work for, during the times when you're volunteering/working for them.
When I volunteer at parkrun, I wear a parkrun-branded hi-vis. It has parkrun's corporate sponsors on the jacket too. I take it off when I'm done. No harm, no foul.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You're representing the organisation you volunteer/work for, during the times when you're volunteering/working for them.
When I volunteer at parkrun, I wear a parkrun-branded hi-vis. It has parkrun's corporate sponsors on the jacket too. I take it off when I'm done. No harm, no foul.
quote:I see lots of Domino's Pizza human billboards like this one.
Originally posted by Gracie:
It was lilBuddha that said that volunteers are billboards. That assertation surprised and shocked me. And still does. I'm still trying to get my head to accept that there are people out there, who think it's OK to treat other human beings as billboards.
quote:Good grief. Uniforms, name tags, IDs, lanyards, etc. are part of corporate branding and customer service. "Treat human beings as billboards" is a helluva stretch from the inescapable fact that an employee* - whatever they wear - represents their employer.
Originally posted by Gracie:
...I'm still trying to get my head to accept that there are people out there, who think it's OK to treat other human beings as billboards.
quote:You'd better take that up with lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
"Treat human beings as billboards" is a helluva stretch from the inescapable fact that an employee* - whatever they wear - represents their employer.
quote:Also:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
quote:No, not yadda yadda yadda. From where I'm sitting there are significant differences between the status of employee and that of volunteer and they are ones I get very twitchy about. I've stuck my neck out several times to stand up for volunteers to defend them from exploitative charities and other organisations treating them as employees if not indentured servants without any of the attendant labour rights (something I thought we cared about round here).
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
an employee* (...)
*Or volunteer, yadda yadda yadda
quote:I think to be fair this is a difference between France and the UK. I don't fully understand it, but I think one has a lot more rights in France than one does in the UK.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this instance, at least in this country, I reckon I could take my employer to court and win if they forced me to wear anything qualifying as a political symbol or similar during the normal course of my duties.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Neither did I.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But he does not use that against against anyone.
quote:hah
I'll leave readers to make up their own minds.
quote:Certainly. It means some of those who refuse to wear the lanyards will be homophobes.
She saidquote:I cannot make this mean anything other than what I said it means. Can you?
someone going there now will know from the lanyard or absence of it whether their guide is anti-gay or not, but on the other hand they now know they will encounter homophobes there...
quote:And here you do it again. I never said the only reason. Though I will, right now, go on record to say I think that is the most prevalent reason.*
Elsewhere it has been argued, indeed you are continuing to insinuate, that the only reason for not wearing the lanyard is homophobia.
quote:There are other reasons, I am waiting for any good ones.
Not wearing a lanyard can only be "anti-gay" and a way of denoting homophobes? Seriously?
quote:Billboards are adverts. Lanyards have a secondary purpose as adverts, in the context of the NT, museums and the like. It is a common practice to issue new lanyards, buttons, stickers, etc. the advertise new campaigns, new features, etc.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
Originally posted by
Lamb Chopped
I am not a chalkboard to have miscellaneous political or social statements drawn upon me. (and no, I don't wear T-shirts with slogans either)
quote:I've tried and so far failed to find any evidence to back up my claim regarding France because all I can find is a) cases relating to religious symbols b) cases relating to employees banning rather than requiring anything to be worn. Which already tells you something about cultural differences. We're great believers in neutrality here on these matters.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this instance, at least in this country, I reckon I could take my employer to court and win if they forced me to wear anything qualifying as a political symbol or similar during the normal course of my duties.
quote:The following two paragraphs from towards the end of the piece express my discomfort here pretty well:
In the wake of a number of highly publicized episodes of racial violence, Starbucks executives launched a campaign for their baristas to start conversations with their patrons about race relations in America. Baristas would write the words “Race Together” on customers’ coffee cups.
quote:
This kind of mobilization poses a serious threat to the right of workers, as citizens, to arrive at their political views and decisions free from the undue influence of others. Coercive mobilization also violates individual workers’ rights to free speech, as they are pressured into making political statements that they may not believe but feel are necessary to appease their employers.
(…)
Resistance to political coercion is a concern common to the civil-rights and labor traditions. Efforts to curb employer political intimidation could remind Americans that the quality of democracy in the workplace has direct bearing on the quality of democracy at the ballot box.
quote:Just because I feel tempted to do something does not mean I have actually done it, or that I'm going to.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes you did. When a person states that their own behaviour is dependent upon another's actions, that is exactly what is being done by any normal communication conventions.
quote:How does "will know from the lanyard or absence of it whether their guide is anti-gay or not" mean "some not wearing lanyards are anti-gay?" It means: lanyard=pro-gay; no lanyard: anti-gay. No other options are envisaged.
It means some of those who refuse to wear the lanyards will be homophobes.
quote:That statement by Louise was absolute, and so far she hasn't been back to qualify it.
If you mean your posts differently, it would help if you did not attribute absolutes to statements that are not,
quote:Good. That is more than Louise has conceded.
I will, right now, go on record to say I think that is the most prevalent reason.
quote:For now I can't put it much better than the article I've just quoted.
There are other reasons, I am waiting for any good ones
quote:*sigh* I think we have established that the issue isn't whether you wear a lanyard, a bonnet, a boob tube, or garters. The issue is whether a participant is coerced (the American Prospect's word) into wearing a symbol that connotes to specific advocacy above/beyond/other than the usual mission of the organisation in question.
And I am waiting for any reason why lanyard wearing hasn't been a major problem until this campaign.
quote:But once again this isn't what the Mail and the volunteers said they were objecting to. As far as I know people weren't generally objecting to wearing this lanyard because it associated the volunteer with single-sex marriage (although I strongly suspect that this was the real reason), they said it was because of the "outing" of a dead gay guy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
*sigh* I think we have established that the issue isn't whether you wear a lanyard, a bonnet, a boob tube, or garters. The issue is whether a participant is coerced (the American Prospect's word) into wearing a symbol that connotes to specific advocacy above/beyond/other than the usual mission of the organisation in question.
quote:I think it is fairly clear what has happened with the trajectory of this story and why, apparently, large numbers of NT members are resigning in protest. And that has nothing to do with outing a former owner of a property as gay and everything about elderly volunteers objecting to wearing a symbol which is vaguely and tangentially associated with SSM.
In this instance, it may be that we are shouting at each other because of the way the media has portrayed the story and both sides are taking the media's caricature as the facts. Perhaps there was a sensible discussion and an arrangement agreed, only for the NT to backtrack under pressure, not from the volunteers on site, but following the media storm. Perhaps the volunteers are all homophobes kicking up a stink. Perhaps just one was and bullied some others. We don't know.
quote:This is what annoys me. I think this is utter bilge.
(The one fact I have against the NT is its disingenuousness in referring to the rainbow flag as a "symbol of welcome" when the whole point of it in this campaign is to stand for LGBT+ rights. That one fact, though, puts my sympathies with the objectors for now).
quote:There might be, but I highly doubt it. If one objected to lanyards then they could have done it at any time before.
But whatever the facts of this case, I deem there to be important and legitimate reasons other than anti-gay sentiment for resisting organisational coercion, and the first in-depth article I could find on it is from a progressive viewpoint and seems to agree with me.
quote:Please never get involved in volunteering in any organisation I work for. I'm sick-and-tired of people who object to things for the sake of objecting. If you don't like it, piss off.
It is honest enough to want to resist organisational coercion from right across the political spectrum.
quote:In my view you have this back to front.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But that doesn't make them employees even in a moral sense. And nobody here is going to take much notice of someone who claims that the rights of volunteers are being abused - given that the final recourse of the volunteer is to quit if they don't like it.
quote:I respect your right to think that, but that is simply not how any of the organisations I've ever worked or volunteered for operate. The charity is not (usually) there to give volunteers something to do.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In my view you have this back to front.
If one is managing somebody whose rights are not protected by law then one should be more considerate of them, not less, because they are at a power disadvantage. In particular, one should be considerate of the fact that a volunteer's investment is liable to have a more emotional component simply because there is a complete absence of financial incentive. People may well do a job just for the money, but they don't usually volunteer for something they don't find fulfilment in. So great care needs to be taken to respect them as individuals - the law won't enforce that.
quote:Tough titty. Seriously, do you understand how much effort and management time would be needed to try to iron out every potential volunteers moral qualms about every little thing? A lot. Almost no charity has that capacity.
Of course one can take the line "if they don't like it they can quit" but in reality, for a long-term volunteer you are asking them to walk away from a huge emotional and relational investment.
quote:I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with the issue. If a volunteer is being bullied or abused during their volunteering, that's a completely different thing.
That is about the level of realism of people who look at a violent relationship and say "I just can't see why she (usually but not always she) doesn't leave (him) (usually but not always him)".
quote:You're basically comparing totally different things for effect. Not cool.
Abusive relationships thrive on the principle that people simply find it too difficult to walk away. If "if they don't like it they can quit" is part of volunteer managers' usual discourse, I'd leave sooner rather than later.
quote:Great. No problem. So why are they saying the rainbow flag is "a widely accepted symbol of welcome".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The NT has a programme of trying to include various communities in the stories of their properties. In this season they're highlighting the facts relating to gay former owners of some of their properties.
quote:It's not, because the rainbow flag is a contemporary symbol of a contemporary movement. A much better example would be a Black Lives Matter T-shirt, which I offered, and which nobody has commented on.
It is exactly the same as asking volunteers to wear a symbol relating to a slavery season, or a black history season, or various other seasons that the NT has run over the years.
quote:Yes, because it is a politically charged subject which is not part of the NT's usual mission.
But somehow because this symbol is associated with LGBT+ rights - whatever that actually means today - then it is suddenly something to object to.
quote:If you were working in the US, I assume you would happily chunter off to Trump rallies if required to do so by your employer?
Please never get involved in volunteering in any organisation I work for. I'm sick-and-tired of people who object to things for the sake of objecting. If you don't like it, piss off
quote:For the nth time, the issue is not wearing or not wearing a lanyard. The issue is primarily, being coerced by virtue of being in a subordinate position into wearing a sign of contemporary advocacy unrelated to the core mission of the organisation, and secondarily, being branded as anti-<subject of this advocacy> if one objects.
There are plenty of other organisations who I'm sure you can volunteer for who will not make you uncomfortable by asking you to wear a lanyard. Bye then.
quote:No; it's there to organise activities the volunteers are keen to engage in. Take away the volunteers and you have no charity.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The charity is not (usually) there to give volunteers something to do.
quote:I can only hope you've never been on the managing end of a charity.
quote:Tough titty.
Of course one can take the line "if they don't like it they can quit" but in reality, for a long-term volunteer you are asking them to walk away from a huge emotional and relational investment.
quote:Yes. I currently manage about thirty-five volunteers. In the space of six years I have lost one due to a difference of opinion. I see my responsibility first and foremost as caring for those people in that context, and the situations they are involved in often raise moral qualms. Some of them are more high-maintenance than others, and of course there are people looking for quarrels. A good manager knows how to spot petty issues and deal with them without it wasting too much time.
Seriously, do you understand how much effort and management time would be needed to try to iron out every potential volunteers moral qualms about every little thing?
quote:In my view it starts with superiors thinking volunteers are less than human, expendable, and lacking legal protection. I have plenty of examples in mind.
If a volunteer is being bullied or abused during their volunteering, that's a completely different thing.
quote:You really think the rainbow flag isn't a symbol of welcome? It seems to me that is exactly what it is.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Great. No problem. So why are they saying the rainbow flag is "a widely accepted symbol of welcome".
quote:The National Trust is an organisation which holds buildings and land in Trust for the nation. As such it tries to engage with different groups to try to get them to visit and appreciate the collection.
Why deceive about its intent, which is to show support for LGBT+?
quote:Nope, what is dishonest is continuing to claim that this is about something that it isn't. It is dishonest to claim that these volunteers were hard-done-by and it is dishonest to claim that the NT somehow shat all over them. It didn't, there is no sense that they were exploited. If the volunteer objected that much, the NT was prepared to have them do something else so they didn't have to wear the bloody lanyards.
They are trying to minimise it, in the same way that people here keep saying "it's only a lanyard" (that is, when they're not saying that not wearing one means you're a homophobe). It's dishonest.
quote:I think it is more like the Black Panther salute. Personally I'd think that if the house had some connection to someone in the Black Panthers, that might be entirely appropriate to use as a symbol.
It's not, because the rainbow flag is a contemporary symbol of a contemporary movement. A much better example would be a Black Lives Matter T-shirt, which I offered, and which nobody has commented on.
quote:Oh right. So including people from under-represented groups in history projects at the NT is not part of their mission? News to me.
quote:Yes, because it is a politically charged subject which is not part of the NT's usual mission.
But somehow because this symbol is associated with LGBT+ rights - whatever that actually means today - then it is suddenly something to object to.
quote:Do give it a rest. A rainbow flag is nothing like supporting Trump.
If you were working in the US, I assume you would happily chunter off to Trump rallies if required to do so by your employer?
quote:And for the n+1th time, wearing a rainbow flag doesn't mean that one is advocating anything other than that a certain group of society should be made to feel particularly welcome at a small number of NT properties for a season.
For the nth time, the issue is not wearing or not wearing a lanyard. The issue is primarily, being coerced by virtue of being in a subordinate position into wearing a sign of contemporary advocacy unrelated to the core mission of the organisation, and secondarily, being branded as anti-<subject of this advocacy> if one objects.
quote:That's not the case for a very large number of charities.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No; it's there to organise activities the volunteers are keen to engage in. Take away the volunteers and you have no charity.
quote:Well you hope wrong. I've stopped volunteering - and actually I've stopped paid work for a charity - before now because of something I didn't like.
I can only hope you've never been on the managing end of a charity.
quote:Well again, that's not how volunteering works in any organisation I've worked in.
Yes. I currently manage about thirty-five volunteers. In the space of six years I have lost one due to a difference of opinion. I see my responsibility first and foremost as caring for those people in that context, and the situations they are involved in often raise moral qualms. Some of them are more high-maintenance than others, and of course there are people looking for quarrels. A good manager knows how to spot petty issues and deal with them without it wasting too much time.
quote:I see. So because you've experience bullying that means that a charity without people waiting on the every whim of a volunteer is somehow on the road to abuse.
In my view it starts with superiors thinking volunteers are less than human, expendable, and lacking legal protection. I have plenty of examples in mind.
quote:<citation needed>
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:You really think the rainbow flag isn't a symbol of welcome? It seems to me that is exactly what it is.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Great. No problem. So why are they saying the rainbow flag is "a widely accepted symbol of welcome".
quote:It can. But that's not what they're claiming. Their implication post-fuss is that it's just "welcoming". Not "welcoming a particular group".
Why can't the rainbow flag just be a sign to a particular group that they're welcome?
quote:I think it's open to misinterpretation, yes.
You've a strange idea of "support" if you think that showing a particular flag for a six week period means that a national charity most known for looking after stately homes is suddenly making a statement about anything other than inclusion.
quote:The flag cannot be both a symbol of universal welcome and a symbol of welcome for a specific minority. The lanyard cannot be both utterly trivial and a definitive marker of pro or anti-gay sympathies.
what is dishonest is continuing to claim that this is about something that it isn't.
quote:That's historic again, but even so I'd think more people than just me might think twice there. Remind me not to volunteer for your charity!
I think it is more like the Black Panther salute. Personally I'd think that if the house had some connection to someone in the Black Panthers, that might be entirely appropriate to use as a symbol.
quote:Including people from under-represented groups in history projects is not the same as requiring your public-facing staff to wear a symbol embodying the contemporary advocacy face of the history in question. Which I've discovered is called organisational coercion.
Oh right. So including people from under-represented groups in history projects at the NT is not part of their mission? News to me.
quote:It is organisational coercion in both cases.
quote:Do give it a rest. A rainbow flag is nothing like supporting Trump.
If you were working in the US, I assume you would happily chunter off to Trump rallies if required to do so by your employer?
quote:Yes it does, apparently. The NT says it means a "universal symbol of welcome", not welcome of a certain group, nothing more to see here, move along folks.
And for the n+1th time, wearing a rainbow flag doesn't mean that one is advocating anything other than that a certain group of society should be made to feel particularly welcome at a small number of NT properties for a season.
quote:https://thewelcomingproject.org
Originally posted by Eutychus:
<citation needed>
quote:<snipped a load of boring waffle>
The Welcoming Project began in 2011 to encourage local businesses, health care/service providers, organizations, and congregations in Norman, OK, to display welcoming signs for the purpose of making LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals and allies feel welcomed as patrons.
quote:Oh right. It must be - you just said so. Gottit.
quote:Including people from under-represented groups in history projects is not the same as requiring your public-facing staff to wear a symbol embodying the contemporary advocacy face of the history in question. Which I've discovered is called organisational coercion.
Oh right. So including people from under-represented groups in history projects at the NT is not part of their mission? News to me.
quote:The Telegraph says this:
Yes it does, apparently. The NT says it means a "universal symbol of welcome", not welcome of a certain group, nothing more to see here, move along folks.
quote:Most people would associate the second half of the sentence with the first - in other words that the people are being welcomed to the 'Prejudice and Pride' event, which is clearly aimed at including a particular under-represented group.
Ms Smith told the Telegraph: “As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.”
quote:The large charity I work for as a volunteer (Guide Dogs) most certainly do listen to every volunteer and often take up our suggestions. We are, after all, at the puppy-face, so to speak - and in a good position to suggest changes. My supervisor was round today and spent two hours with me, 90%,of the time listening.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The difference is that I appreciate that as a volunteer I have very limited space to change the way that they thing runs - whereas you seem to think that the charity must listen to every volunteer. That's simply not how it works.
quote:OK well I'd suggest even that is unusual and specific to the kind of volunteering you are doing.
Originally posted by Boogie:
The large charity I work for as a volunteer (Guide Dogs) most certainly do listen to every volunteer and often take up our suggestions. We are, after all, at the puppy-face, so to speak - and in a good position to suggest changes. My supervisor was round today and spent two hours with me, 90%,of the time listening.
quote:Exactly. It's specifically a welcome to LGBTQ. Not "an internationally accepted symbol of [indiscriminate] welcome", which is what the NT tries to make out at the top of its explanatory page. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the line they originally took with their staff, too.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:https://thewelcomingproject.org
Originally posted by Eutychus:
<citation needed>
quote:
The Welcoming Project began in 2011 to encourage local businesses, health care/service providers, organizations, and congregations in Norman, OK, to display welcoming signs for the purpose of making LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) individuals and allies feel welcomed as patrons.
quote:No, it doesn't have to be so because I said so. I'm open to your arguments about why this issue is distinct from the issue raised by The American Prospect.
quote:Oh right. It must be - you just said so. Gottit.
Which I've discovered is called organisational coercion.
quote:Oh, so the media, including the Telegraph, are suddenly a reliable source now?
The Telegraph says this:
quote:I think that statement illustrates the same disingenuousness as the NT website. As your "citation needed" website helps demonstrate, the symbol is an international symbol of LGBT+ welcome and it would be more honest to say so straight out.
quote:Most people would associate the second half of the sentence with the first - in other words that the people are being welcomed to the 'Prejudice and Pride' event, which is clearly aimed at including a particular under-represented group.
Ms Smith told the Telegraph: “As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.”
quote:Mentioning it in a discussion in the way you did implies this. You know, in normal, conversational English.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Just because I feel tempted to do something does not mean I have actually done it, or that I'm going to.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yes you did. When a person states that their own behaviour is dependent upon another's actions, that is exactly what is being done by any normal communication conventions.
quote:Which does not justify you inferring anything about my statements.
That statement by Louise was absolute, and so far she hasn't been back to qualify it.
quote:The article you quoted was regarding a coffee company. The primary purpose of a coffee company isn't history. It is selling coffee. Not the same thing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:For now I can't put it much better than the article I've just quoted.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are other reasons, I am waiting for any good ones
quote:No. It is about the subject of homosexuality. It isn't about being coerced.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:*sigh* I think we have established that the issue isn't whether you wear a lanyard, a bonnet, a boob tube, or garters.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I am waiting for any reason why lanyard wearing hasn't been a major problem until this campaign.
quote:One would assume that they can be trusted to quote sources accurately.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh, so the media, including the Telegraph, are suddenly a reliable source now?
quote:Only you could possibly break a sentence into parts and then claim the one half is disingenuous when read out of context of the first half.
I think that statement illustrates the same disingenuousness as the NT website. As your "citation needed" website helps demonstrate, the symbol is an international symbol of LGBT+ welcome and it would be more honest to say so straight out.
quote:I'm trying to imagine what my mum would have thought if she had been an NT volunteer. I don't think she'd have thought anything about same sex marriage. I think the rainbow and the campaign name - "Pride and prejudice" - would have made her think about Pride - in terms of parades. I reckon my mum's view of Pride is affected by the fact that all she sees of it is news reporting that dwells on images of semi-naked people in costumes that hint at (or go beyond hinting at) fetish gear.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But once again this isn't what the Mail and the volunteers said they were objecting to. As far as I know people weren't generally objecting to wearing this lanyard because it associated the volunteer with single-sex marriage (although I strongly suspect that this was the real reason)...
quote:
Annabel Smith, Head of Volunteering & Participation Development said:
“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.
quote:Since you last posted there has been some degree of consensus about that. For my part my discomfort (more on that later) relates to the concerns I find epitomised in the American Prospect article I linked to, which following its lead I am now referring to as organisational coercion. Which is where I think the lanyards, as opposed to the curatorial aspect, come in, and is why I reacted to a specific comment by you in that respect.
Originally posted by Louise:
It's clearly not all about lanyards.
quote:I don't like the idea that "mere" discomfort is trivialised. Both you and Jane R have used the word "uncomfortable". I imagine you expect your discomfort to be taken seriously. Why then draw a line so readily from the dissenters' "discomfort" to "homophobia"? They might put words on it which you can qualify as homophobic, but perhaps you're missing the chance for a conversation there.
because they feel uncomfortable with them
quote:I note the use of the word "discomforts" there again
It's when we reach that tricky bedrock where our own omissions, laziness, discomforts, habits and quibbles for which we think we have jolly good valid ‘reasons’ impact on representation and real equality for minorities that we have to grapple with the fact that we may think we’re champion LGBT allies but actually it may not look like that to the people on the sharp end who see that their history doesn't get covered or gets attacked or rubbished or gets loads of objections that naval history or 'look at the nice ceilings!’ don't get. I include myself in that - I don't think my practice is perfect. I try to keep myself honest and open to improving how I cover representation of minorities in history, but what I thought was adequate 25 years ago isn't adequate now and if I insisted that nothing had to move on from what was good enough in the 1980s then I would be open to charges of homophobia.
You've lost me somewhat in the very last bit but thank you for your frankness and evident humility in the first bit. quote:OK, I have a proposal to make to you. I'll keep my emotions in check and hold you to account every time you fail to do so in my eyes. Deal?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mentioning it in a discussion in the way you did implies this. You know, in normal, conversational English.
quote:If you think I've unjustly inferred anything in what you posted from what she said, spell it out and I'll apologise.
quote:Which does not justify you inferring anything about my statements.
That statement by Louise was absolute, and so far she hasn't been back to qualify it.
quote:The common point from my perspective is coercing workers into activism that didn't form part of the original scope of their job.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The article you quoted was regarding a coffee company. The primary purpose of a coffee company isn't history. It is selling coffee. Not the same thing.
quote:As far as I'm concerned it's primarily about coercion and the original extreme response to opters-out. I obviously don't feel as strongly about LGBT+ issues as others here, but I now feel strongly enough about them to be annoyed when I see what I deem to be less-than-good practices used to promote LGBT+ rights. I've already given another example (poppies) and could come up with more.
No. It is about the subject of homosexuality. It isn't about being coerced.
Again, find me a printed lanyards are teh evilz campaign about other subjects.
quote:This isn't about emotions. This is about how phrased them. The sentence you wrote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
OK, I have a proposal to make to you. I'll keep my emotions in check and hold you to account every time you fail to do so in my eyes. Deal?
quote:is the type generally construed as tit for tat in English as she is spoke. Granted, you didn't say you would backtrack, but implication is the same.
putting words like this into my mouth is the kind of tactic that tempts me to back-track on all the long years of patient discussion here that have led me to reversing my views on homosexuality.
quote:Starbucks employs people to sell coffee. They might require politeness and acceptance of customers, but forcing them to engage customers with non-coffee things could be said to be out of range.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The common point from my perspective is coercing workers into activism that didn't form part of the original scope of their job.
quote:No deal then
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Granted, you didn't say you would backtrack, but implication is the same.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:They might have signed on for an NT campaign, but not for something that could be percieved as an LGBT campaign.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It isn't activism to have NT volunteers discuss campaigns, it is what they signed on for.
quote:I don't know how the staff there would have reacted. From where I'm sitting, I would find the second option far more acceptable than the first one. And I still think there is an element of coercion, because I think volunteers are more than billboards.
I seriously doubt the reaction would have been different if the lanyards had been plain white with black lettering saying "Ask about our Pride Campaign" or "Ask me bout our new film".
IMO it is disingenuous to blame the rainbow or "coercion".
quote:Cannot have a deal if you insist on misrepresenting the point.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:No deal then
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Granted, you didn't say you would backtrack, but implication is the same.
quote:They sign on to the NT which has various campaigns.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
They might have signed on for an NT campaign, but not for something that could be percieved as an LGBT campaign.
quote:For one, billboards don't whinge.
And I still think there is an element of coercion, because I think volunteers are more than billboards.
quote:There's that "discomfort" word again.
Originally posted by Pomona:
Ultimately LGBT people's humanity - which includes reversing the historical erasure of our lives - come before cishet discomfort over LGBT people and history being acknowledged.
quote:If you win me to a cause I'll be a forceful advocate for it, but you'll only win me if I feel free from undue influence and free to make statements I believe wholeheartedly. Not everyone's wired like me, but that's how I roll and I assert my right to my individual freedom of conscience and by God's help, to thinking things through myself rather than allow someone else to do the thinking for me.
This kind of mobilization poses a serious threat to the right of workers, as citizens, to arrive at their political views and decisions free from the undue influence of others. Coercive mobilization also violates individual workers’ rights to free speech, as they are pressured into making political statements that they may not believe but feel are necessary to appease their employers.
quote:One of the great ironies of the Ship for me is that practically everywhere else I hang out, I am perceived as a threat to traditional values because of my pro-gay stance, and probably kept at a distance from some circles I would otherwise move in because of it. I would lay good odds on the church I help lead being the first in the region to bless a same-sex marriage.
we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God.
quote:My issue is a) with organisational coercion b) branding all those who disagree with a particular action homophobes. That is all.
LGBT people aren't an abstract issue to be disagreed with or not
quote:WTF? That certainly doesn't correspond to anyone in the LGBT (real) world I know.
Eutychus - I feel like there's a perception of LGBT people, particularly by many cishet Christians, as a model minority
quote:See the second part of my post here. I have come to accept a role for 'aggressive' activism but I strongly disagree that this is the only legitimate means of advancing any issue of minority rights.
Minorities historically have had to get 'aggressive' in order to get a basic modicum of respect and protection from the law - politeness has unfortunately rarely worked
quote:Of course not, but again, discomfort can come from a whole load of sources and not all of them can simply be labelled "homophobia". Discomfort can be the first step to positive change, if you'll allow it. Simply inflicting verbal violence on outsiders may not have the same terminal consequences as physical violence or suicide, but that doesn't make it right or desirable.
I'm sure conservative discomfort feels horrible but it's not really the same as being targets of actual violence.
quote:If the deal is that being trapped in the mind and body of a cishet male I lose all rights in this forum to express any and every emotion I may feel in this debate (and whatever you say, that was my sincere intent) while you, not being the above, get a free pass to provoke my emotions any way you damn please, then no.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cannot have a deal if you insist on misrepresenting the point.
quote:I think there's an ambiguity here revolving around the word "campaign" and how it relates at present to LGBT activism, and that this fuss arises partly from that ambiguity, deliberate or otherwise. Yes it is an NT "campaign" but it looks suspiciously to me as though it's part of an LGBT campaign, which is not the same thing at all. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not the same thing.
quote:They sign on to the NT which has various campaigns.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
They might have signed on for an NT campaign, but not for something that could be percieved as an LGBT campaign.
quote:I refer you to my comments about dealing with matters of conscience for volunteers in particular. If someone feels in all good conscience that a temporary initiative is "not what they signed up for" then good volunteer management should find a suitable and respectful compromise for all. After all the heat generated by this incident it's impossible to tell whether this happened here or not, but that's how I'd handle it.
For one, billboards don't whinge.
Seriously, though. I never said they were only billboards. This is more of the pushing a comment farther than it reads.
quote:Again, I think there is broad consensus here that we don't really know how things actually went down at Felbrigg. That means we're left with the tabloid reports, our speculation, and naturally our own projection of our own feelings and experiences.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There also might be - as you suggest - a kick-back here against being co-opted into possibly contentious socio-political campaigns. I'm going to suggest in return that this is a post-hoc justification for what is most likely low-level bigotry.
quote:Funny, aggressiveness is exactly what it took to start the modern gay rights movement.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
To my mind, if homosexuality is something to be embraced I shouldn't need to resort to aggressiveness or duplicity for people to be persuaded of that.
quote:"Hehp, help! I'm being gaypressed!"
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:If the deal is that being trapped in the mind and body of a cishet male I lose all rights in this forum to express any and every emotion I may feel in this debate
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cannot have a deal if you insist on misrepresenting the point.
quote:I'm not questioning what your meant as much as what you said.
(and whatever you say, that was my sincere intent)
quote:What I am trying to provoke is your ability to reason. What you mean to express and the meaning of what you say can be different things.
while you, not being the above, get a free pass to provoke my emotions any way you damn please, then no.
quote:They did. "If you do not like the lanyard, you can work in another part of the facility for the duration".
If someone feels in all good conscience that a temporary initiative is "not what they signed up for" then good volunteer management should find a suitable and respectful compromise for all.
quote:True, but at the risk of starting all over again, my feeling is that they should have been allowed to opt out gracefully (on all sides) without being branded homophobes, because they did not sign up as volunteers to promote gay rights. If they did not get such an approach, then there was an element of coercion regardless of the cause in question.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I concede that we don't know their motives, but I think, on balance, it's more likely that the 30 refusniks have a beef about being seen to promote gay rights than they are a vanguard of radical libertarianism.
quote:This is a thing ("Prejudice and Pride") that the NT are doing at a number of its properties (anywhere where they can dig up a gay connection) to commemorate the 50th anniversary of decriminalization.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's a fair point: 'rainbow washing' is indeed a thing. However, that's it's (AFAIK) just something that this one property is doing, due to the specific connection with the previous owner, I'm not sure the NT are guilty of it in this instance.
quote:Do you see these boards as an extension of that same campaign on the same terms? Think carefully before answering. And read what I said to Pomona.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Funny, aggressiveness is exactly what it took to start the modern gay rights movement.
quote:Seems I got the proposed terms of the arrangement clear, anyway.
"Hehp, help! I'm being gaypressed!"
quote:Then engage with the reasoning I put forward and ignore all the rest. That's how I manage to answer you, anyway.
What I am trying to provoke is your ability to reason.
quote:There are a million ways that could be put forward and discussed. We just don't know how it went down.
"If you do not like the lanyard, you can work in another part of the facility for the duration".
quote:If my discomfort is because as a member of a privileged majority group I'm being asked to give a discriminated-against group something I take for-granted but which they've been denied, then yes my discomfort should take second place and doing right by that other group should take precedence as matter of justice and equality. It should override my feelings. Easier said than done, but nonetheless it's what I think should happen.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Since you last posted there has been some degree of consensus about that. For my part my discomfort (more on that later) relates to the concerns I find epitomised in the American Prospect article I linked to, which following its lead I am now referring to as organisational coercion. Which is where I think the lanyards, as opposed to the curatorial aspect, come in, and is why I reacted to a specific comment by you in that respect.
Originally posted by Louise:
It's clearly not all about lanyards.
quote:I don't like the idea that "mere" discomfort is trivialised. Both you and Jane R have used the word "uncomfortable". I imagine you expect your discomfort to be taken seriously. Why then draw a line so readily from the dissenters' "discomfort" to "homophobia"? They might put words on it which you can qualify as homophobic, but perhaps you're missing the chance for a conversation there.
because they feel uncomfortable with themquote:I note the use of the word "discomforts" there again
It's when we reach that tricky bedrock where our own omissions, laziness, discomforts, habits and quibbles for which we think we have jolly good valid ‘reasons’ impact on representation and real equality for minorities that we have to grapple with the fact that we may think we’re champion LGBT allies but actually it may not look like that to the people on the sharp end who see that their history doesn't get covered or gets attacked or rubbished or gets loads of objections that naval history or 'look at the nice ceilings!’ don't get. I include myself in that - I don't think my practice is perfect. I try to keep myself honest and open to improving how I cover representation of minorities in history, but what I thought was adequate 25 years ago isn't adequate now and if I insisted that nothing had to move on from what was good enough in the 1980s then I would be open to charges of homophobia.
We all need to try to keep ourselves honest - volunteers, historians, activists, peacemakers, servants, leaders - and especially when the issues are hot-button ones for us.
quote:I think I saw a claim in the press somewhere that it was just this place that made the lanyards & badges compulsory - I'll see if I can find it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
That there is nothing negative in the press around this campaign that I could find about any of the other properties taking part seems to suggest that this campaign hasn't been seen as a problem at the other properties, just this one.
quote:
However, a decision by the National Trust to demand 350 of its volunteers at a Jacobean mansion wear the banner or be banished to backroom chores has triggering an angry backlash.(sic - straight copy and paste)
quote:You can see how the Daily Mail and Telegraph are stirring up trouble by the way they both describe these backroom jobs as "chores".
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The National Trust asked customer facing staff to wear the badges and lanyards and offered back room jobs for those that didn't want to wear them at Felbrigg Hall.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Do you see these boards as an extension of that same campaign on the same terms? Think carefully before answering.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Funny, aggressiveness is exactly what it took to start the modern gay rights movement.
quote:I did. The last post anyway. Not sure which part you are considering relevant. I think I might, but it might be simpler if you just link which para you mean.
And read what I said to Pomona.
quote:On discomfort:
Originally posted by Louise:
To say privileged groups can give up privileges to other groups who've been disadvantaged or oppressed to bring justice and equality closer and nobody at any stage feel any discomfort or hurt feelings in that process isn't going to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the specific case of Felbrigg Hall it may well be that the non-lanyarders were simply being, as Doc Tor put it, low-level bigots, but I don't think the case is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, or that it sets a universal jurisprudence ("all uncomfortable non-lanyard-wearers are bigots"). I've looked at my own sense of discomfort over this issue as honestly as I am able, and so far as I can tell it is because of the presence, as I see it, of organisational coercion.
quote:I wonder if the difference with Felbrigg Hall is that this is a new story - the research that the last owner was gay. For many of the houses the stories of e.g. Sissinghurst and Knole are well known, so would not be a surprise to the volunteers. Here much of the outrage is around outing the previous owner. To accept the previous owner was gay will require changes in understanding of the story of the house and coming to terms with a different history to that that the volunteers have absorbed, and maybe their own feelings around homosexuality. The stories refer to the ten people who protested all being older and having volunteered at the house for 10 years or more - which suggests they are likely to be in their 70s, so were young people before the decriminalisation of homosexuality and have the attitudes of that generation (I can hear my parents in my head in those reported comments, who are of that generation). (It's in the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph stories I linked to above.)
(Could it be that difference between Felbrigg Hall and the other P&P sites was not that they have more bigoted volunteers but that the way the initiative was presented meant the line of organisational coercion was crossed?)
quote:Sort of, but not really. My point was more about the unconscious processes which surround volunteering, and how in particular the process of identification is disrupted by an organisation that assumes that someone who has volunteered based on identification with a given prospectus, as it were, will continue to identify with and work towards an altered prospectus.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(ThunderBunk appears, to me at least, to be feeling something similar, albeit using different words).
quote:In that case I apologise for co-opting you into my argument.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:Sort of, but not really.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(ThunderBunk appears, to me at least, to be feeling something similar, albeit using different words).
quote:I don't know anything about Ketton-Cremer, although I do know Felbrigg. But is your statement really true? Because, at face value, it suggests that, had he not had to repress his sexuality, then his house wouldn't be so "aesthetic". That doesn't sound quite right to me.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The illegality and thus repression of homosexuality at the time had two relevant effects. First, it encouraged sublimation of sexuality into aesthetic activity, as in this case work on the house.
quote:I think that might be at the heart of the matter here, and in this case it may well be (as much as it pains me to concede the point) that the NT are guiltier in breaking the peace treaty by coming at the issue in a ham-fisted way.
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty.
quote:I'm not sure I accept this interpretation that this was a new story. An unmarried man who dies childless and with no relationships with women. There would have been speculation, there would have been talk. And there was. He was described as ‘the bachelor squire’ and ‘not one for the ladies’. Hard to think that the volunteers had no understanding.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I wonder if the difference with Felbrigg Hall is that this is a new story - the research that the last owner was gay.
quote:I'm not sure about this.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think that might be at the heart of the matter here, and in this case it may well be (as much as it pains me to concede the point) that the NT are guiltier in breaking the peace treaty by coming at the issue in a ham-fisted way.
quote:I'm not saying that the NT aren't allowed the benefit of the doubt. But having been at the sharp end of several well-meaning but ultimately ham-fisted employer initiatives, the onus is on the NT to implement change with due care - they are the ones in the position of power here.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not sure about this.
Why is the NT allowed no benefit of doubt, but the volunteers must be?
quote:Really? I think this debacle shows a different power dynamic than you seem to.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
the onus is on the NT to implement change with due care - they are the ones in the position of power here.
quote:I push to be treated fairly and would like to be treated well. But I do not want my comfort at the expense of other people being treated fairly.
It comes down to, ultimately, how I would like to be treated.
quote:Clearly they have. They might not have stopped the film, but they made the case that the tail can wag the dog. And that equality isn't quite equal for everyone.
We can near-enough guarantee that the volunteers are all old, and come from a generation where gay relationships were seen as shameful. And, bluntly put, they're going to die soon. They shouldn't be able to hold the NT to ransom - and they clearly haven't,
quote:Funny, though. The day history gives for the end of a conflict often pre-dates the its last victim.
Blessed be the peace-makers and all that. And bearing in mind that as far as the under-35s are concerned, the battle is pretty much won, even in the church.
quote:My response, before reading Doc Tor's to you, was exactly the same as his on this point. The NT is in the position of power here. I think the reason you can't or won't see that is because they happen to be exercising that power to the advantage of a cause you hold dear.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Really? I think this debacle shows a different power dynamic than you seem to.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
the onus is on the NT to implement change with due care - they are the ones in the position of power here.
quote:What do you have to say to CK's analysis of the volonteers' discomfort here?
But I do not want my comfort at the expense of other people being treated fairly.
quote:Indeed. From your perspective, in their capacity as subordinates, the volonteers are "less than equal". You objectified them. They are billboards (that's what you said, however much you try and walk away from it) and should just suck it up or leave and get over it.
And that equality isn't quite equal for everyone.
quote:And I find a major problem with your argument is that you are trying to make this about gay rights and nothing else. You have cast the volonteers' behaviour in the worst possible light by defining homophobia as covering the range from slight discomfort to hate, thus allowing you to qualify their discomfort as homophobia, and deny anyone else the possibility of any more nuanced explanations of it, as CK has put forward.
A major problem with some of the arguments here is that people want to shift the blame to how the NT might have mishandled this instead of how the volunteers actually behaved.
quote:They haven't stopped the film. They haven't stopped the exhibition. They haven't stopped the updating of the history of the hall. Most (90%+) of their colleagues have identified them as low-level bigots, or out-and-out homophobes. So have most of the rest of the country. A country which now, as a result of them throwing their toys out of the pram, knows far more about Felbrigg Hall and it's last, gay, owner than it would have done previously.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They might not have stopped the film, but they made the case that the tail can wag the dog. And that equality isn't quite equal for everyone.
quote:Thank you. This is worthy to be written in diamonds surrounded in gold.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Is that enough, or do you want to crush them like beetles beneath your heel as well? Because how we behave in victory is how we will be treated in defeat.
quote:Firstly, because people react much better to carrots than they do sticks. Like it or not, in the only culture they grew up in that was most likely the only paradigm they encountered. It takes time to change people's minds.
Originally posted by Pomona:
why should I be gentle with someone's unjustifiable prejudice against other human beings?
quote:A little tangential story: lots of science conferences are now considering how they have historically acted in ways that discriminated against women. It wasn't so much that they were not platformed (although that did happen), it was largely that the whole culture failed to recognise underlying causes of discrimination.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There is a saying that a man cannot be reasoned out of an opinion he has not reasoned himself into.
I go to a lot of Science Fiction conventions, and there's been moves to make these 'safe spaces', that is to actively exclude those who hold racist/sexist/ableist/whatever views. Personally, that strikes me as a purity test (which, when they include Christian, will exclude me), and I'm very much agin it.
I much prefer the 'holy ground' model (as in Highlander) in that anyone is welcome, as long as a set code of conduct is kept. Which is pretty much how we operate in all public spaces anyway.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What do you have to say to CK's analysis of the volonteers' discomfort here?
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
LGBT people being treated as human beings isn't like not understanding Twitter or contactless cards - age is no excuse. It erases the experiences of older LGBT people and their struggles and suffering. I would be gentle with someone who can't work an ipad, but why should I be gentle with someone's unjustifiable prejudice against other human beings?
quote:Don't you get tired of this shtick? The point was that the lanyards were not a new concept. Indeed, one that volunteers in trusts, museums and such the world over are used to.
Originally posted by Eutychus:Indeed. From your perspective, in their capacity as subordinates, the volonteers are "less than equal". You objectified them. They are billboards (that's what you said, however much you try and walk away from it) and should just suck it up or leave and get over it.
quote:Gay rights are workers rights. They are human rights, both of them. Gay v. worker isn't what this is about.
In other words, in your mind gay rights trump workers' rights, every time.
quote:Inaccurate. Typical of your all or nothing responses, though.
If an initiative advances the cause of gay rights (as you suppose) there can be no admission of mistakes,
quote:You appear to be pretending it is libertarianism and and nothing else.
And I find a major problem with your argument is that you are trying to make this about gay rights and nothing else.
quote:That is the word we have. I asked for alternates, whatcha got?
You have cast the volonteers' behaviour in the worst possible light by defining homophobia
as covering the range from slight discomfort to hate, thus allowing you to qualify their discomfort as homophobia,
quote:Did you fall from a window as well?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Is that enough, or do you want to crush them like beetles beneath your heel as well? Because how we behave in victory is how we will be treated in defeat.
quote:I suspect - perhaps wrongly - that working-class people are under-represented among visitors to NT properties and that the Trust actively wants to reach out to them. I also suspect that many heritage organisations, in their zeal to attract families by offering "child-friendly" displays and experiences, have unwittingly put off older (or, at least, unchilded) visitors who want a more "serious" approach.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The reality is that the NT wants to expand their welcome to people beyond their usual constituency of middle-class heterosexual families a.
quote:I don't think you are wrong to suspect this and I'm sure that the NT does want to reach out to them.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I suspect - perhaps wrongly - that working-class people are under-represented among visitors to NT properties and that the Trust actively wants to reach out to them.
quote:Possibly - but here's the thing: there are hundreds of NT properties, and by far the majority are variations on a single theme: a large house owned by an upper crust aristocratic family with extensive formal gardens and/or deer parks. If one wants to go to a NT property to see the "serious" approach with lots of gilded furniture, paintings, ceilings and other bling, there are plenty to choose from.
I also suspect that many heritage organisations, in their zeal to attract families by offering "child-friendly" displays and experiences, have unwittingly put off older (or, at least, unchilded) visitors who want a more "serious" approach.
quote:It would be amazingly unlikely if gay people didn't feel unwelcomed because the sanitised and whitewashed history presented by the NT until very recently conveniently didn't portray much beyond the weirdness of scatter-minded aristocracy.
But, while welcoming the current exhibitions being mounted by the Trust, I would like to ask if there is any evidence that gay people felt unwelcome at, or excluded from, their properties before. (As a straight man, I cannot comment from personal experience!)
quote:Well, that's not how you're coming across. And you're misrepresenting the NT's concession.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't want anyone crushed. What I would really have like is the NT to use the kerfuffle as an opportunity to teach. Instead we got "What am I like? Sorry"
quote:Well, that's as much to do with the way that the Trust was set up, and the Government telling property owners that they leave their properties to the NT and avoid death duties, as anything else. I suspect the NT would love to diversify its portfolio - though, I grant you, people seem to love seeing the "olde" and picturesque" (and gawp at "life above stairs").
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are hundreds of NT properties, and by far the majority are variations on a single theme: a large house owned by an upper crust aristocratic family with extensive formal gardens and/or deer parks. ...
If, on the other hand, you want to see something that reflects a different aspect of British life - from the Workhouse to the back-to-back to the cotton mill etc - then there aren't many to choose from in the catalogue.
quote:Surely any pretence (if it indeed exists) comes from the Trust itself, not the volunteers?
If, on the other other hand you want to see black history or gay history or punk history or whateverelse history then you're not going to see it in the vast majority of NT properties. Not because it isn't there, but because the bloody volunteers want to pretend it isn't there.
quote:Fair comment, but I think you may be muddling two aspects of social history there: class and sexuality.
It would be amazingly unlikely if gay people didn't feel unwelcomed because the sanitised and whitewashed history presented by the NT until very recently conveniently didn't portray much beyond the weirdness of scatter-minded aristocracy.
quote:Though I went to the old Bristol Industrial Museum about 15 years ago, and the slaver heritage was given a very high profile.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Until very recently, highly gilded churches and public buildings in Bristol did not want to acknowledge that the gold was paid, at least in part, from the profits the Merchant Venturers made from slavery.
quote:I had an interesting discussion with someone in Mary Redcliffe about 20 years ago because slavery wasn't mentioned there at all. Even now you have to dig very deep in their website to see any mention of it.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Though I went to the old Bristol Industrial Museum about 15 years ago, and the slaver heritage was given a very high profile.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Until very recently, highly gilded churches and public buildings in Bristol did not want to acknowledge that the gold was paid, at least in part, from the profits the Merchant Venturers made from slavery.
quote:Not really: there is a more complex history in all NT properties than the most obvious story about privilege.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Fair comment, but I think you may be muddling two aspects of social history there: class and sexuality.
quote:Then you haven't listened properly to what CK had to say. Discomfort can be down to poor organisational management just as much as to homophobia.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What do you have to say to CK's analysis of the volonteers' discomfort here?
quote:Divert, divert, divert. The issue is that your attidude, and especially that statement "volunteers are billboards" (not "sometimes...", and not "in some ways..."), comnveyed that because they were volunteers they were less than those campaigning for LGBT rights, which trump everything else. Especially if they opted not to wear them.
Don't you get tired of this shtick? The point was that the lanyards were not a new concept. Indeed, one that volunteers in trusts, museums and such the world over are used to.
quote:Your redefinition of language never ceases to amaze me. They clearly aren't the same thing, and sometimes they might conflict¹.
Gay rights are workers rights
quote:Yes, but the fact that they are elements in the same set does not make them identical.
They are human rights, both of them.
quote:No, it's about a whole load of overlapping and sometimes conflicting interests, including but not limited to:
Gay v. worker isn't what this is about.
quote:It's typical of your position on this thread. In fact can't find anyone with a more absolutist view than you. I can't see anywhere to date on this thread that you've got anywhere near conceding anything. Can you? Your position is that the rainbow campaign was appropriate and justifiable, there were no reasonable grounds for dissent, and all opposers are ipso facto homophobes. If that's not all or nothing I don't know what is. Am I misrepresenting you there? If so, show me.
quote:Inaccurate. Typical of your all or nothing responses, though.
If an initiative advances the cause of gay rights (as you suppose) there can be no admission of mistakes,
quote:I'm not casting around for alternates, I'm suggesting a) that you narrow your ridiculously broad scope of meaning for "homophobe" b) that you accept that their could be reasons for discomfort in this situation that no impartial bystander would deem to constitute homophobia.
That is the word we have. I asked for alternates, whatcha got?
quote:The NT had a national platform to talk about why these sort of campaigns are important. They didn't grasp it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@lilBuddha - How do you know that the National Trust are not using this debacle as an opportunity to teach?
quote:As I've mentioned more than once on the Ship, I've a tendency to post in way that could be considered terse. I need to work on this. Part of it, honestly, is reactionary as well. Also my fault. I shouldn't let anger or annoyance affect how I post.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Well, that's not how you're coming across.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't want anyone crushed. What I would really have like is the NT to use the kerfuffle as an opportunity to teach. Instead we got "What am I like? Sorry"
quote:One, I don't think they will be shamed. The volunteers will likely fill all the range from complete acceptance to complete lack of acceptance. And most of them are in the same peer group. So, IMO, there will be more sympathy than antipathy on site.
And you're misrepresenting the NT's concession.
All the refuseniks got was "you don't have to wear a rainbow lanyard if you don't want to". Everything else - literally everything - is as originally planned. Those that do turn up for duty, while they won't have someone following them, ringing a bell and shouting "shame! Shame!" behind them, will know that virtually all their colleagues either enthusiastically or tacitly agreed with the NT's approach. I would have thought that quite enough of a 'teaching opportunity', right there.
quote:It's not outrageous if it's reached as a reasoned compromise. It is outrageous if it was presented as an ultimatum, or amid much rolling of eyes and sighing.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think the original position of wear the lanyard or work behind the scenes for the duration is an outrageous position.
quote:That the NT backtrack could as easily be about fear of negative publicity.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It's not outrageous if it's reached as a reasoned compromise. It is outrageous if it was presented as an ultimatum, or amid much rolling of eyes and sighing.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think the original position of wear the lanyard or work behind the scenes for the duration is an outrageous position.
The fog of media and feelings running high makes it impossible to know exactly how this position was arrived at, but the fact the NT backtracked does suggest it was not reached by reasoned compromise in the first instance.
quote:Try working in amateur dramatics, dahrling. The stage roles are literally the only ones that matter. You could do a Michaelangelo-quality stage painting, and it'd still be about who plays Lady Bracknell.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, the reaction of the volunteers really denigrates those behind the scenes workers.
quote:The flag is also associated with events discussing homosexuality. No one think a Starbuck's shop is gay because it has a rainbow flag. Just like they do not think their barrista John really loves an Iced Shaken Mango Black Tea Lemonade because he is wearing a button that says he does.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's not like any other campaign or exhibition if you ask everyone involved to wear a symbol of gay pride, an issue previously unconnected with this heritage.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Try working in amateur dramatics, dahrling. The stage roles are literally the only ones that matter. You could do a Michaelangelo-quality stage painting, and it'd still be about who plays Lady Bracknell.
It does rather depend on what you do behind the scenes in amateur dramatics. quote:We've been here before.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one think a Starbuck's shop is gay because it has a rainbow flag.
quote:That is because an Iced Shaken Black Tea Lemonade is trivial and not, probably, wrapped up in all the rights and identity and politics issues the rainbow flag flown in association with LGBT issues is, and that's what makes it different. It comes with contemporary baggage.
Just like they do not think their barrista John really loves an Iced Shaken Mango Black Tea Lemonade because he is wearing a button that says he does.
quote:I think Doc Tor has nailed the really core issue dividing us all here. I worked as backstage crew for years at school, and my dream job was to become stage manager for the school panto (I can't remember whether I eventually ascended higher than simply being manager stage right).
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It does rather depend on what you do behind the scenes in amateur dramatics.
quote:I am more than familiar with this. But one's "Olivier winning performance" won't be seen if the lighting tech doesn't show up.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Try working in amateur dramatics, dahrling. The stage roles are literally the only ones that matter. You could do a Michaelangelo-quality stage painting, and it'd still be about who plays Lady Bracknell.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, the reaction of the volunteers really denigrates those behind the scenes workers.
quote:What would that mean? It likes other coffee shops? It doesn't get turned on by the greengrocer's shop?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one think a Starbuck's shop is gay because it has a rainbow flag.
quote:Actually, I would think that. For John to wear an I heart Iced Shaken Mango Black Tea Lemonade badge when he thinks it's a ghastly sugary concoction would be dishonest.
Just like they do not think their barrista John really loves an Iced Shaken Mango Black Tea Lemonade because he is wearing a button that says he does.
quote:That isn't even close to what I was saying. The point I was making that you are missing is the separation between the organisation and its workers. No one assumes every worker supports every thing an organisation does.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You can't simultaneously argue that the nobody will think an organisation is denoting support for LGBT rights because it sports a rainbow flag and that not sporting a rainbow flag is homophobic.
quote:That is because an Iced Shaken Black Tea Lemonade is trivial and not, probably, wrapped up in all the rights and identity and politics issues the rainbow flag flown in association with LGBT issues is, and that's what makes it different. It comes with contemporary baggage.
Just like they do not think their barrista John really loves an Iced Shaken Mango Black Tea Lemonade because he is wearing a button that says he does.
quote:Granted. But I think it is poor management to coerce employees into wearing anything unrelated to its normal mission, much worse management to coerce them into wearing something that stands for advocacy for a distinct cause*, and even worse management to do so for volunteers.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one assumes every worker supports every thing an organisation does.
quote:That's an interesting example. I wonder how women visiting Emily Pankhurst's home would feel about being greeted by guys wearing that as a lapel button*?
Originally posted by stonespring:
The "venus" symbol might work to represent women's rights and history, but although people are familiar with it as a symbol for women, people are less familiar with it as a symbol for women's rights (indeed, when I have seen it as a feminist symbol, it has usually had a fist added inside it).
quote:I think that's one of the things that makes it a) so contentious b) hard to find good equivalent examples.
aside from LGBT+ rights, I cannot think of any other "color campaigns" associated with rights movements that have widely seeped into corporate and nonprofit culture.
quote:Because cancer and homosexuality don't respect racial or class boundaries. Your son won't wake up you up to tell you he is black and your wife won't come back from the doctor having found out she is African.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Employees are used to being asked to participate in all kinds of campaigns to raise awareness of/raise funds to fight diseases like breast cancer (and the pink tsunami associated with it), but aside from LGBT+ rights, I cannot think of any other "color campaigns" associated with rights movements that have widely seeped into corporate and nonprofit culture.
quote:I don't think this follows. Why would I care what Starbucks thinks about marriage equality?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The natural conclusion to draw from Starbucks flying a rainbow flag is that Starbucks supports gay rights in general, and probably whatever aspect of gay rights is currently under political discussion in particular.
quote:If I ever went to the Pankhurst residence, I'd hope any male volunteers were wearing this badge.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's an interesting example. I wonder how women visiting Emily Pankhurst's home would feel about being greeted by guys wearing that as a lapel button*?
quote:If I were wearing that I'd be on the lookout for angry feminists accusing me of doing the equivalent of Rachel Dolezal.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd hope any male volunteers were wearing this badge.
quote:I can't see why, you're not claiming to be a woman by wearing this badge, you are honoring the bulldog spirit of the Pankhurst women to get the suffrage.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If I were wearing that I'd be on the lookout for angry feminists accusing me of doing the equivalent of Rachel Dolezal.
quote:I don't understand - the Black Lives Matter t-shirts often have the black panther salute in the middle of them. White people wear them. Why wouldn't they?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm only half-serious. But still... upthread you mentioned the idea of volunteers sporting a Black Panthers symbol. Again, not sure how that would go down if you are white.
quote:Black Lives Matter seems pretty straightforward to me.
For the rainbow symbol, the issues for me are a little different, but I think these few examples further highlight that it's not as straightforward as some have suggested.
quote:Cultural appropriation?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand - the Black Lives Matter t-shirts often have the black panther salute in the middle of them. White people wear them. Why wouldn't they?
quote:In my experience treading the line between support and appropriation is not easy.
the imitator, "who does not experience that oppression is able to 'play', temporarily, an 'exotic' other, without experiencing any of the daily discriminations faced by other cultures."
quote:Not to me. I could imagine myself (just about) donning a BLM T-shirt to offer my considered, personal support to an event or demonstration (much more qualms if it had a Black Panther logo on it). But I would definitely feel "uncomfortable" about being coopted into wearing it to support an exhibition in a tangentially related site and being made to feel a racist if I didn't.
Black Lives Matter seems pretty straightforward to me.
quote:Or a hand-pressed pomegranate lemonade for that matter.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Just like they do not think their barrista John really loves an Iced Shaken Mango Black Tea Lemonade because he is wearing a button that says he does.
quote:Black Lives Matter arose from the black community, but has always included white people. A white person wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt is much more likely to be hassled by white people than black. A white person wearing one isn't appropriation, but support.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Cultural appropriation?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't understand - the Black Lives Matter t-shirts often have the black panther salute in the middle of them. White people wear them. Why wouldn't they?
quote:With the understanding that BLM isn't a black power movement, would you still feel uncomfortable?
But I would definitely feel "uncomfortable" about being coopted into wearing it to support an exhibition in a tangentially related site and being made to feel a racist if I didn't.
quote:Felbrigg Hall isn't 'tangentially related'. Its last owner who left it to the Trust was gay. It's quite normal and unexceptional to have exhibitions or projects about particular owners of stately homes. I don't have time for a detailed post but this is what annoys me. People keep claiming it's about a lanyard and then simply can't help themselves wanting to denigrate or dismiss the significance and relevance of the history.
a tangentially related site
quote:I'm almost sure that here in the states I have been a customer at places where all employees had pink ribbons or buttons or t-shirts or bracelets for breast cancer awareness (or more specifically, to demonstrate their company's support for Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure). It is often done to encourage customers to donate or to buy pink products where parts of the proceeds go to Race for the Cure.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would astound me if an employer compelled its employees to wear a cancer awareness ribbon symbol or similar.
quote:Which is why it's important it's their own decision to do so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A white person wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt is much more likely to be hassled by white people than black.
quote:I would if I felt I really didn't get a free choice in the matter, yes. Like I said, to me it's not about the worthiness of a cause, it's about individuals' freedom to become a visible advocate for it.
With the understanding that BLM isn't a black power movement, would you still feel uncomfortable?
quote:I'm sorry, I wasn't happy with that word when I posted it.
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Felbrigg Hall isn't 'tangentially related'. Its last owner who left it to the Trust was gay.
a tangentially related site
quote:It's about being compelled to wear a lanyard that associates the wearer with a contemporary advocacy cause that is neither the focus of the organisation they are there for nor embodied in the history of the site, especially if the history is not as they had understood it until recently.
People keep claiming it's about a lanyard and then simply can't help themselves wanting to denigrate or dismiss the significance and relevance of the history.
quote:I didn't, but I'm sure he didn't put it that way!
I heard the spokesman for rejecting this campaign on the radio explicitly advocating the continued erasure of gay history at this venue
quote:That doesn't necessarily mean they don't feel differently, just that more nuanced and conciliatory statements don't make soundbites or sell copies of the Daily Mail.
and so far there's not a single cheep from any of the other refuseniks to contradict his sentiments
quote:Yes it is, but I'm not sure mandatory lanyard-wearing would solve that and that is yet another part of the problem. Putting a rainbow lanyard round my neck does not cure me of homophobia, any more than sporting a pink ribbon means I have really grasped the issues surrounding breast cancer (especially if I'm a man).
When my gay friends can't enjoy the same simple pleasures that I do without having to worry about homophobic attitudes from the people who are supposed to be the customer service, then something is wrong.
quote:Once again, though, that is clearly not what the NT are trying to make the rainbow mean (whatever their website says). If they did and meant it they'd stick a rainbow flag at the front of every one of their properties as an expression of their corporate values.
Originally posted by Louise:
Also to add if a business or visitor attraction is sporting the rainbow symbol, I'd take it in that context to mean 'You should expect our customer service to come without anti-gay attitudes as an extra and to be made welcome'. I don't think I'd expect it to mean anything more in that context.
quote:As discussed upthread, I think there is a genuine pond difference here in terms of the law on what employers can compel employees to wear and do and cultural expectations in that respect.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
During breast cancer awareness season whole NFL teams wear pink articles (socks, shoes, towels, jerseys, etc) in support.
quote:Which is why it's important it's their own decision to do so.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[qb]A white person wearing a Black Lives Matter shirt is much more likely to be hassled by white people than black.
quote:Nope, as shown that (a) isn't how the flag is used (b) that isn't how the NT said they were using the flag and (c) as we've heard, that isn't how the minority in question take the use of the flag.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Once again, though, that is clearly not what the NT are trying to make the rainbow mean (whatever their website says). If they did and meant it they'd stick a rainbow flag at the front of every one of their properties as an expression of their corporate values.
But no, it's part of their campaign, Prejudice and Pride. That's a clever play on words, but it incontrovertibly denotes their use of rainbow symbol as pertaining to LGBT rights advocacy. As such it should have been opt-in from the start.
quote:But it is not going to be relevant unless the site of the programme is related, directly, to that cause. Can you imagine a US employer asking all its employees to wear BLM t-shirts for a race awareness day? Would you think that's a legitimate way of raising awareness of the cause? Could you imagine some employees feeling uncomfortable about it for reasons other than racism?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If an institution is doing a programme on BLM, no one is likely to be bothered at all for wearing BLM materials.
quote:I've been very much with Eutychus on this post. One suggestion though is that asking (not compelling) people to wear the lanyards or badges relating to the exhibition (and suggesting that they think through their responses to the request) could be a way of gently provoking them to start examining their attitudes - although one would hope that the exhibition itself would do that anyway.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Putting a rainbow lanyard round my neck does not cure me of homophobia, any more than sporting a pink ribbon means I have really grasped the issues surrounding breast cancer (especially if I'm a man).
quote:Is the NT's use of the flag supposed to denote their general acceptance of LGBTQ persons and their willingness to ensure they feel welcome along with everybody else at all their properties, or to draw attention to LGBTQ issues on tha basis of the history of particular sites in their portfolio?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In fact that's a big steaming pile of nothing.
quote:Bad example, men are affected by breast cancer when their wives, mothers and daughters are affected and also, men get breast cancer too - 350 a year in the UK and 2600 in the USA. The prognosis is OK if diagnosed early enough, but there is the rub, because men don't believe they can get breast cancer. You've just demonstrated that attitude.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Putting a rainbow lanyard round my neck does not cure me of homophobia, any more than sporting a pink ribbon means I have really grasped the issues surrounding breast cancer (especially if I'm a man).
quote:Bad answer. I know men are affected by breast cancer, and had that in mind when I posted. I can't begin to imagine that the psychological consequences are anywhere near the same as for a young childless woman undergoing a double mastectomy.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:Bad example, men are affected by breast cancer when their wives, mothers and daughters are affected and also, men get breast cancer too - 350 a year in the UK and 2600 in the USA. The prognosis is OK if diagnosed early enough, but there is the rub, because men don't believe they can get breast cancer. You've just demonstrated that attitude.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Putting a rainbow lanyard round my neck does not cure me of homophobia, any more than sporting a pink ribbon means I have really grasped the issues surrounding breast cancer (especially if I'm a man).
quote:Why do you think I'm self-employed?
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You do have an easy time at work, don't you?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
)quote:Thanks for this. I am confident that any grandchildren I have will regard some of the views that i hold today as abhorrent. Like yourself, I hope they will be kind to me.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Firstly, because people react much better to carrots than they do sticks. Like it or not, in the only culture they grew up in that was most likely the only paradigm they encountered. It takes time to change people's minds.
Originally posted by Pomona:
why should I be gentle with someone's unjustifiable prejudice against other human beings?
Secondly, because we should hope that future generations will treat us with the same patience and dignity. Do you believe that we have reached the pinnacle of human morality? Or is it possible that we, too, have huge blind spots that will have to be pointed out to us by subsequent generations.
Society vilified LGBT+ people for generations because society's moral consensus said that there was something wrong with them. Now society has mostly changed its moral consensus. Is the real solution then really more vilification? Or could it instead be to combat the 'othering' mindset that brings about the vilification in the first place?
quote:Yes, indeed.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I would hope that the National Trust will be working with those who have objected to the new information about Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer
quote:I'm reminded of an incident near here when the ownership of a church building changed hands. The longstanding resident congregation was charismatic; the pastor representing the new owners was a dispensationalist. On the first Sunday he announced the sudden and radical change in the church's doctrine and told anyone who didn't like it to leave. He was within his rights, but the change could have been handled far more sensitively.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Again, struggling with analogies, but a school in a very white-bread area which has no BME pupils can be an excellent school with no problems with racism, until a black family move in opposite the school gates. The headteacher suddenly discovers that 10% of her staff don't like being in a school with black kids, and are everything from casually racist to members of the Klan.
What are management supposed to do? I'm much more with Louise here, while still wanting to seek some form of transitional arrangement. The lay of the land has changed irrevocably, but if we don't set out some sort of Elephants' Graveyard, where outdated ideas go to die, won't we end up having unnecessary, pointless battles with people who are essentially our grandmothers?
quote:How long do we maintain the graveyard? Though full decriminalisation is only 4 years old and the struggle for full equality isn't over, the active battle has been going since the 1970's.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The lay of the land has changed irrevocably, but if we don't set out some sort of Elephants' Graveyard, where outdated ideas go to die, won't we end up having unnecessary, pointless battles with people who are essentially our grandmothers?
quote:You'd burn a cross in their garden, but only out of principled rejection of agenda, not hate?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
quote:lB, I'll say this as gently as possible: beginning a sentence with "You'd burn a cross in their garden" ain't gonna aid discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As I've mentioned more than once on the Ship, I've a tendency to post in way that could be considered terse. I need to work on this.
quote:I'm with her. If you have de facto segregation due to house prices/restricted covenants/refusal of services, then it needs to be challenged, whatever. My scenario simply posited a place where no black people lived previously due to entirely benign circumstances.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:You'd burn a cross in their garden, but only out of principled rejection of agenda, not hate?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
Seriously, why the Hell would their motive matter? You accept people or you do not. This obsession on motive and agenda paints a different picture than your stated position on equality.
quote:What I meant, to stick with Doc Tor's illustration and not my local church one, was, the dynamics are very different if it turns out that the black family* didn't move into the white neighbourhood spontaneously but with an advocacy group behind them before the fact expressly encouraging them to provoke maximum outrage at the school.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(edited to add, no, of course I don't think Eutychus is going to burn a cross. But I'd like to understand what he meant in the context of activists confronting power.)
quote:I think his meaning is obvious. Did your hypothetical black family move in across from the school because they found a house available to rent that was convenient for their places of work, or are they part of some black rights group that identifies areas with no black people, and sends its members to live in those areas in order to expose and confront the racist attitudes that they expect exist there?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(edited to add, no, of course I don't think Eutychus is going to burn a cross. But I'd like to understand what he meant in the context of activists confronting power.)
quote:If, as I suspect, this story is manufactured outrage by certain newspapers, I am not sure that the National Trust could have used this as a national platform to talk about why these sorts of campaigns are important. Part of what the National Trust seem to be dealing with is a media driven campaign attacking the Prejudice and Pride events. Anything that forced the issue would have added fuel to that media storm rather than giving an opportunity to educate.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The NT had a national platform to talk about why these sort of campaigns are important. They didn't grasp it.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@lilBuddha - How do you know that the National Trust are not using this debacle as an opportunity to teach?
quote:And in answer to a query about sublimation of sexuality, in the Daily Telegraph article of 21 July,
I personally didn’t think there was any suggestion he was gay. The first I heard was when I was shown the article in the Telegraph about the Trust’s film.
quote:
Mr Wyndham Ketton-Cremer, ... <snip> ... spent many years restoring Felbrigg before bequeathing it to the nation.
quote:Sorry, let me have another go at this. Running with Doc Tor's analogy was probably not a good idea but let me try and stay sort of with it and draw it a little closer to what was in my mind, i.e. blessing SSM in a church.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:You'd burn a cross in their garden, but only out of principled rejection of agenda, not hate?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
Seriously, why the Hell would their motive matter? You accept people or you do not. This obsession on motive and agenda paints a different picture than your stated position on equality.
quote:Because it depends what you mean by acceptance.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are still putting conditions on acceptance of a group.
How is this not fucked up and prejudiced?
quote:Of course it's fucking prejudiced. People are prejudiced.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to Eutychus and LC
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
You are still putting conditions on acceptance of a group.
How is this not fucked up and prejudiced?
quote:If the racist neigbour grumbles in his soup about living next to n-words, but otherwise ignores them, is he actually doing any harm?
We cannot compel people not to be dicks. We can compel them not to do people harm.
quote:I'm not implying anything. I'm asking a question. That is a distinction which ought not to be difficult to understand, particularly for 'someone who worked for over a decade as a curator and who has a background in academic history'. And now you have, helpfully, gone some way to answering that question.
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:Proper and nuanced contextualisation is the job of historians and curators - speaking as someone who worked for over a decade as a curator and who has a background in academic history. If you 'wonder' if someone is not doing this, you are impugning their core job skills. The research for that film was done by Professor Richard Sandell of the University of Leicester and his team. He's professor of Museum Studies with a long record as a curator. If you're going to impugn his work and imply he's been deeply unprofessional in this case, then please provide some evidence.
Originally posted by Albertus:
I'm not assuming that, I'm just wondering whether it was happening. There's a fairly universal tendency to for each generation to see the past in terms of its own time: that's very hard to avoid and I accept that it's part of what historiography (is that the right word?) is about. But I think that important nuances may be lost. This seems to me to be particularly a danger where you are dealing with a subject like this (or other aspects of 'inclusivity') where there is a risk of falling into thinking that we are terribly enlightened and understand it properly and that previous generations were groping in the dark.
It may well be that the NT historians are sophisticated enough to handle this. But in an awful lot of public history nowadays there is a tendency to miss the point that even within living memory people may have thought about and found ways of living things, including their own sexuality, which were subtly different from how people today would think and live.
quote:Sorry. It was my fault for carrying on down that road and taking the analogy in a different direction.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, it has. I was trying to highlight the management problem of how to deal with employees/volunteers over a hidden bigotry suddenly brought to light.
quote:Trying to deduce people's motives is difficult, though. I'm curious what you lose by taking people at face value, and responding to their actions?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That said, in positions in which one has a responsibility for others, in my experience attempting at least to discern (and hopefully not to impugn) the motives of people bringing a project to the table, especially a controversial one, is important.
quote:But they could also be from the local Mormons. They do that.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If I see two middle-aged guys come to our church together, leave together, don't stick around afterwards, don't seek to greet anyone and never come back, the chances in my view are that they are from domestic intelligence (I am not kidding).
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:No, they hit on me directly.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They could be gay dudes, checking out the hot pastor...
quote:This is a probably a dumb question, but what did they want?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was in a meeting a few years ago at the Préfecture about chaplaincy services at which two guys from Intelligence were actually introduced.
quote:Might be true. Does your suspicion alter the way you treat them?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If I see two middle-aged guys come to our church together, leave together, don't stick around afterwards, don't seek to greet anyone and never come back, the chances in my view are that they are from domestic intelligence (I am not kidding).
(seriously, we really do try hard to be this. My favourite event of late was one where unbeknown to each other, we had an ex-convict, a policeman from the crime squad, and a guy I'm pretty sure was in trouble with the law).quote:SO although you have suspicions about your two guys, what you actually do is take them at face value, and treat them as you would any pair of visitors that come to your church.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Good call. No. We're like the National Trust: for ever, for everyone
quote:A brief scrolling back suggests I never actually said I would treat them differently, at least at the outset.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I understand that you might have suspicions about their motives, but I'm not sure what you think you gain by treating them differently.
quote:It is annoyance, not rejection.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sorry you feel that way and sad about the deep sense of rejection that your post communicates.
quote:Nor should you. If apologies you owe, it is for your words.
I'm not going to apologise for being a straight white male
quote:I'm not seeing it in your words. Honestly, with no hint of animosity in this statement, I do not think your words represent what you think they do.
As I've said, I've come to terms with the need for activism and I respect your right to be an activist.
quote:Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.
I'm sad, however, that you can't seem to find it in you to come to terms with the need for some peacemakers.
quote:The article uses Felbrigg Hall as an illustration. Of the 350 volunteers at the Hall, 30 objected to wearing the lanyards (the early stories in the Torygraph and Mail identified 10 refuseniks - which begs a question as to who drummed up the additional 20 reactionaries). The trumpeted 240 members who have left have been replaced by 7000 new members in the same seven day period (which has not been reported by the right wing press).
modern life is rubbish, comes the message from its critics; stop messing with this progressive nonsense; the National Trust’s job isn’t just about the physical preservation of old country houses and lovely English coastlines, it’s about the preservation of good old-fashioned tradition. This year alone, departing from tradition has prompted conservative hysteria on everything from Easter-egg hunts and cafe snacks to promoting sexual equality.
quote:Which words, exactly? How do you expect me to know which words you take exception to if you just start being, um, "terse" (which to be honest is putting it mildly if you review some of the things you've said to me) in return every time? We were talking about degrees of acceptance. If that's what makes you see red, why?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If apologies you owe, it is for your words.
quote:Perhaps it is, but if you're interested in having a discussion here, including with straight white males, this is not a joker that you can play every time you get annoyed.
For straight, white males power is normative.
quote:I recently gave a presentation at an international academic research symposium on the topic of empathy, and I think you have that exactly wrong.
Part of the problem, I think, is that you sympathise, but do not yet empathise.
quote:Precisely. In addition to concessions, it involves the prospect of doing what is best for both parties - which involves at least assuming as a posture in discussion (if one cannot believe it to the core of one's being...) that the other party is entitled to basic respect, has rights and expectations, and that whatever ther views, they as individuals are no "less than" those on your side.
Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.
quote:This is a tangent, but the NT has over 4,000,000 members. Wouldn't NT membership normally rise by about 7000 a week at this time of year? I know the National Trust for Scotland encourages tourists who might be in Scotland for only a couple of weeks to take out membership; it can be cheaper to take out a year's membership than to pay to visit three properties. If the NT operates in the same way as the NTS most of those "new" members will be tourists from overseas.
The trumpeted 240 members who have left have been replaced by 7000 new members in the same seven day period (which has not been reported by the right wing press).
quote:In the 2014-2015 report(Doc. page 7, actual page 9) there is a line in a table Total number of memberships(m)³ that shows membership from 2012 to 2015 hovering around 2 million. However, the footnote³ says Actual number of members at the end of the year was 4,242,371
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to that same Annual Report, the membership was 2.02 million in 2013/14, and according to the 2014/15 Annual Report membership in 2012/3 was 1.97 million, so if the 4 million figure is correct, then whatever happened was between 2011 and 2012.
quote:From page 1 you tried to make this about being forced to wear lanyards instead of objecting to mentioning homosexuality despite mentioning homosexuality being in the quotes from the objectors.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which words, exactly?
quote:Yes, some statement have been made angrily to you. In legitimate response, IMO.
How do you expect me to know which words you take exception to if you just start being, um, "terse" (which to be honest is putting it mildly if you review some of the things you've said to me)
quote:I do not play it every time. It is, however, the basis of much of the inequity in our society.
quote:Perhaps it is, but if you're interested in having a discussion here, including with straight white males, this is not a joker that you can play every time you get annoyed.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:For straight, white males power is normative.
quote:Empathy requires one to understand, first. And if you came close to understanding, you would not have made the black activists moving into an area analogy.
quote:I recently gave a presentation at an international academic research symposium on the topic of empathy, and I think you have that exactly wrong.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Part of the problem, I think, is that you sympathise, but do not yet empathise.
quote:You missed the as much as possible bit. Respect is earned, not given. And it is not a totality. One can respect the rights of others without respecting their views. And their views are not synonymous with their rights.
quote:Precisely. In addition to concessions, it involves the prospect of doing what is best for both parties - which involves at least assuming as a posture in discussion (if one cannot believe it to the core of one's being...) that the other party is entitled to basic respect, has rights and expectations, and that whatever ther views, they as individuals are no "less than" those on your side.
Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.
quote:Ending Aperthied, and any that began in oppression, was made possible by confrontation. I do not condone the violent parts, but confrontation was necessary and vital.
(I would argue that the (fragile) peace in Northern Ireland was achieved by that route, same for the end of apartheid,
quote:Nor I, you. Oh your good with make nice, pretty pretty words, but then you make statements and analogies which contradict understanding.
I would further argue that outside Hell, these boards fuction on the principle that the parties are at least willing to "get round the negotiating table", as the picture at the top of Purgatory suggests).
Again, I haven't seen any sign of that at all from you here.
quote:The Pride Campaign, and Felbrigg Hall's participation is appropriate and justifiable.
your absolutist position as I understand it: "the rainbow campaign was appropriate and justifiable, there were no reasonable grounds for dissent, and all opposers are ipso facto homophobes", and immediately gave you an honest offer to correct me: "Am I misrepresenting you there?
quote:Being forced to display advocacy values for X where X is not directly related to whatever one has signed up to and being branded X-phobes if one objects (which was actually said, although not by you) is what I took exception to.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From page 1 you tried to make this about being forced to wear lanyards instead of objecting to mentioning homosexuality despite mentioning homosexuality being in the quotes from the objectors.
quote:I'm sorry, it's not clear to me which campaign you're talking about here. If you want an explanation you'll have to be more precise.
You also have tied to minimise the importance and scope of the campaign and tried to characterise it as activism.
quote:However legitimate you might feel it to be, FWIW I don't think it does your position any good at all. You might like to consider the fact that other people apart from me have called you on it.
Yes, some statement have been made angrily to you. In legitimate response, IMO.
quote:OK. Well perhaps we can take that as read now and move on.
It is, however, the basis of much of the inequity in our society.
quote:The original analogy was Doc Tor's, not mine, I recognised above that it was not a good one to have extended and apologised. Did you miss that?
Empathy requires one to understand, first. And if you came close to understanding, you would not have made the black activists moving into an area analogy.
quote:I couldn't have put it better myself. A little more respect for me regardless of how you see my views would go a long way.
You missed the as much as possible bit. Respect is earned, not given. And it is not a totality. One can respect the rights of others without respecting their views. And their views are not synonymous with their rights.
quote:Perhaps. But not by confrontation alone. In the context under discussion, don't you think gay rights have advanced beyond the initial "confrontation" stage? If the situation has got as far as working out how to redress wrong interpretations of LGBTQ history in the context of museums, I think that's evidence the process is a bit further along.
Ending Aperthied, and any that began in oppression, was made possible by confrontation.
quote:Can you explain how statements like that are supposed to help constructive dialogue? How is that respect? What do they add?
Nor I, you. Oh your good with make nice, pretty pretty words
quote:Then the adult thing to do is either to ignore them or seek clarification, not cast around for insults.
but then you make statements and analogies which contradict understanding.
quote:Fine. Thanks for the clarification; that's helpful.
The Pride Campaign, and Felbrigg Hall's participation is appropriate and justifiable.
I didn't say that the dissenters were for a fact all homophobic, but that is the most likely explanation.
quote:You apologised for going down the wrong road, but you didn't retract what you said. There is a massive difference.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:The original analogy was Doc Tor's, not mine, I recognised above that it was not a good one to have extended and apologised. Did you miss that?
Empathy requires one to understand, first. And if you came close to understanding, you would not have made the black activists moving into an area analogy.
quote:Then spell it out to me. I can't read your mind, and I'm not clear what, in what I said, you would like me to retract that isn't covered by my previous apology.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That you made it in the first place is indicative of the problem. Understanding why the statement is so fucked up to begin with would be a step down the road to empathy.
quote:What I meant was not, "aha, but my a priori assumption is of course, being black in that neighbourhood, they must have moved in with an agenda" (which would have been impugning their motives) but (unwisely taking your analogy places it was never supposed to go), "supposing that they had?"
did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?
quote:Leorning Cniht certainly seemed to read it that way, and in the subsequent exchange with LC I think it was clear that my assessment of their motives would not, to the best of my ability, be based on any a priori assumptions on my part.
the dynamics are very different if it turns out that the black family* didn't move into the white neighbourhood spontaneously but with an advocacy group behind them before the fact expressly encouraging them to provoke maximum outrage at the school.
*Insert any minority here.
quote:It seemed to me that you said you would rather back racist teachers than you would a black child's right to an education, based on what you discerned to be the motive. Rather than asserting the child's fundamental human rights.
(Another aspect is that I absolutely dread such a prospect emerging, not out of the normal course of church life but out of some activist group seeking to prove a point or establish a test case (to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
quote:I wasn't considering the bellicose racist teachers at all. That's why it was stupid of me to try and pursue the analogy.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You have a school where a proportion of the teachers are bellicosely racist enough to object to teaching black children, and your response was immediately to question the black family's motives.
quote:Pretty much. Establishing a condition on acceptance isn't acceptance. It is just more subtle expression of "know your place".
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You have a school where a proportion of the teachers are bellicosely racist enough to object to teaching black children, and your response was immediately to question the black family's motives.
quote:It seemed to me that you said you would rather back racist teachers than you would a black child's right to an education, based on what you discerned to be the motive. Rather than asserting the child's fundamental human rights.
(Another aspect is that I absolutely dread such a prospect emerging, not out of the normal course of church life but out of some activist group seeking to prove a point or establish a test case (to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
quote:They are not separable. As the ongoing racial inequities and LGBT+ struggles demonstrate.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Lastly, I think you're correct in absolutum that rights are rights regardless of motive, but I think that the issue in play at Felbrigg Hall as regards LGBT+ people is not their rights but acceptance.
quote:Ok, so we're back to where my last attempt to discuss acceptance with you ended here.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Establishing a condition on acceptance isn't acceptance. It is just more subtle expression of "know your place".
quote:No doubt.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Intolerance will always be with us
quote:And this is where we part company. It seems to me you're ignoring the undecided. If I can risk another analogy, the way your position comes across to me, you'd go for towing the car every time.
the best we can hope for is reduction.
quote:That sounds like a great idea to me.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I regret introducing analogies. We can talk about the thing instead of talking around the thing.
quote:One membership, four members. I was going to make the same point.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Up until recently, the Torlets were on mine and Mrs Tor's family membership. I don't know whether that counts as one membership, two, or four. Certainly, four members though.
quote:We've been over this. The lanyards are symbols of the campaign, they were not intended to communicate the wearers position.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Donning a rainbow lanyard might give an appearance of LGBT+-friendliness but it can't change the wearer's core attitude. If there is no due consideration of the latter it seems a pretty poor method of advancing acceptance of LGBT+ people to me.
quote:There is nothing to show this was implied by the NT or that the objectors felt this.
If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe",
quote:Right. Whilst there are other symbols, they postdate Ketton-Cremer. Well, there is one that he would possibly have recognised. However, its use in his time had a quite different association.
That seems a mis-application of the rainbow flag to me, as it is a contemporary symbol, not a historic one.
quote:I've repeatedly said prejudice is a spectrum. Hate isn't a necessary component of any form of prejudice, even racism.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not everyone on the other side is an extremist.
quote:The may also be separating life memberships from annual memberships.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Up until recently, the Torlets were on mine and Mrs Tor's family membership. I don't know whether that counts as one membership, two, or four. Certainly, four members though.
quote:You and I obviously differ over this. At the very least, I'd say it creates potential confusion, and the less trivial the thing the symbol stands for (LGBT rights compared to flavours of coffee) the greater the potential for that confusion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The lanyards are symbols of the campaign, they were not intended to communicate the wearers position.
quote:Be that as it may, I think that onlookers to the debate we're having here could well draw that implication (essentially, of coercion) from some LGBT+ supporters' initial reactions to the kerfuffle (which is where, if you recall, I joined in).
quote:There is nothing to show this was implied by the NT or that the objectors felt this.
If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe",
quote:You speak in mysteries here (at least as far as I'm concerned).
Whilst there are other symbols, they postdate Ketton-Cremer. Well, there is one that he would possibly have recognised. However, its use in his time had a quite different association.
quote:How do you see that applying here?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Looking at the way they're dressed and the banners they're holding, I presume they're about to take part in a Pride Parade of some kind, rather than preparing for their shift at Felbrigg Hall?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
1. Again, what are the people in this photo supposed to be communicating?
quote:It's Hurst Street, so in the heart of Birmingham's Gay Village.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Somewhere on the NT website there is a comment about taking part in Birmingham Gay Pride, and this looks as if it might be that group (not sure where the photograph was taken).
quote:No, you're making that whole apples-are-oranges argument again. The NT asked for volunteers to represent them at another event.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If your theory about the photo is correct (thanks Anglican't for that important piece of context!), then that's evidence that in that case at least, the NT adopted an opt-in policy.
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
quote:It isn't being used as a symbol of advocacy in the context it was used. I've already shown you how it is being used, I've already shown you how the NT said they were using the symbol, we've already discussed how people from the community concerned understand the symbol.
In the general case, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that individuals have a reasonable say over what symbols of advocacy they can and can't be compelled to wear as they "do what they usually do".
quote:It seems like you think good organisational management involves people banging on about minor issues and getting themselves in the national press.
Good diversity management involves organisations respecting their staff and working in cases of conscience towards a compromise that demonstrates respect towards the individuals in question and the organisation's values.
quote:Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
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.
quote:I suspect the Daily Mail tried quite hard to find another property with complaints by volunteers. My daughter, who is local to one of the properties, mentioned letters in her local paper from volunteers at another property complaining that the Daily Mail had been asking for stories of protest there, but I can't find this online.
The trust said it was unaware of complaints by volunteers at other properties.
quote:The "apple" of an event distinct from the NT is not at all the same as the "orange" of a special event at an NT property, and the rainbow flag is being used by the NT to cover both.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, you're making that whole apples-are-oranges argument again.
quote:Only within limits. I'm not suggesting the NT are about to invite volunteers to torture people, but that there are reasonable limits to what volunteers can reasonably be expected to do.
In an event in their own properties the NT expected volunteers to do what they were asked.
Surely that's fairly normal practice.
quote:If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
It isn't being used as a symbol of advocacy in the context it was used.
quote:No, good diversity management involves organisations acting in such a way that there is no excuse for the story hitting the national media in the first place.
It seems like you think good organisational management involves people banging on about minor issues and getting themselves in the national press.
quote:That is exactly what happened. The way you phrase it implies they didn't.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Felbrigg Hall were to have staged a professionally researched exhibition reexamining the site's history in terms of its owner's sexuality, and using the opportunity of the exhibition to raise concerns about LGBT+ issues,
quote:Look at it this way then. The volunteer's reaction positively sent the message that acceptance of diversity still has a way to go.
and invited exhibition-manning volunteers to opt in to the event by sporting the rainbow lanyard, I think it would have sent a far more positive diversity message overall and been just as effective. And I wouldn't have been complaining.
quote:The Pink Triangle is the only symbol that Ketton-Cremer's time would know. And it was a symbol of hate at the time. Certainly not one that he would have worn.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:You speak in mysteries here (at least as far as I'm concerned).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst there are other symbols, they postdate Ketton-Cremer. Well, there is one that he would possibly have recognised. However, its use in his time had a quite different association.
quote:What do you mean by here?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:How do you see that applying here?
Originally Posted by lilBuddha:
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
quote:That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
quote:It wasn't meant to. I'm satisfied that's exactly what happened. I was trying to point out that I had no quarrel with that, because that fact seems in danger of being overlooked.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is exactly what happened. The way you phrase it implies they didn't.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Felbrigg Hall were to have staged a professionally researched exhibition reexamining the site's history in terms of its owner's sexuality, and using the opportunity of the exhibition to raise concerns about LGBT+ issues,
quote:That's true. But the existence of the campaign and the lack of objections elsewhere send the message that it has already got quite some way, and I think that needs to be taken into account in the tone of the conversation.
Look at it this way then. The volunteer's reaction positively sent the message that acceptance of diversity still has a way to go.
quote:I'm trying really hard to keep the snark out of my posts. Could you do the same?
The Pink Triangle is the only symbol that Ketton-Cremer's time would know. And it was a symbol of hate at the time. Certainly not one that he would have worn.
You want a period appropriate symbol? Perhaps this?
, it's that it's an anachronism that is too bound up with a current advocacy cause to be imposed on wearers.quote:Felbrigg Hall.
quote:What do you mean by here?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:How do you see that applying here?
Originally Posted by lilBuddha:
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
quote:Exhibit 1 (I'm sure there are others, this is just the most recent):
quote:That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
quote: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.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
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.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
quote:The National Trust is trying to move into the 21st Century with this Prejudice and Pride season - baby steps - and are facing vilification for even this move forward.
Annabel Smith, Head of Volunteering & Participation Development at the National Trust said: “All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our core ambition when they join us
<snip>
“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation.”
quote:The snark helps me keep this here in DH.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm trying really hard to keep the snark out of my posts. Could you do the same?
quote:Way to miss the point. There is no symbol appropriate to Ketton-Cremer's time. Anachronism is a blind, intentional or not.
The problem to my mind is not that the rainbow symbol isn't sufficiently demeaning or hostile
quote:This was written in response to your not everyone on the other side is an extremist comment. It would apply at Felbrigg Hall the way it applies anywhere else.
Originally Posted by lilBuddha:
I've repeatedly said prejudice is a spectrum. Hate isn't a necessary component of any form of prejudice, even racism.
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
quote:You said 'simply clothes-horses'. CK makes the point that lanyards, badges, shirts and such are a normal thing that doesn't imply wearer views. You twisted that into meaning she said wearing such is their only function.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Exhibit 1 (I'm sure there are others, this is just the most recent):
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
quote:OK. Just be aware that not everyone sees it like you do, and moreover some of us don't really give a shit what people who aren't involved think of the flag.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The "apple" of an event distinct from the NT is not at all the same as the "orange" of a special event at an NT property, and the rainbow flag is being used by the NT to cover both.
In fact if we're right about that photo, the "apple" is being used to promote the "orange" and yes that makes me uncomfortable because I think it unhelpfully blurs the distinction between two completely different things.
quote:Oh god, you really just used the Milgram experiment as some kind of argument about your perception of a flag. In a stately home in a country you're visiting.
]Only within limits. I'm not suggesting the NT are about to invite volunteers to torture people, but that there are reasonable limits to what volunteers can reasonably be expected to do.
quote:I'm not sure why you are asking me to explain other people's reactions or why you think this is really any kind of explanation for the use of the flag.
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
quote:Bullshit. I mean, really. Why should the NT kowtow to a very small number of people at one property out of several solely on the basis of the Telegraph and Mail using coded language to whip up feelings.
No, good diversity management involves organisations acting in such a way that there is no excuse for the story hitting the national media in the first place.
quote:I don't really care any more.
It is my contention that if the NT had done things right the first time round at Felbrigg - specifically, inviting people to opt in to lanyard wearing rather than reposition them if they opted out - it would not have needed to back down.
quote:What's your involvement? Just curious.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
some of us don't really give a shit what people who aren't involved think of the flag.
quote:Yes, because it was, albeit in an extreme way, as I conceded, devoted to
Oh god, you really just used the Milgram experiment as some kind of argument about your perception of a flag.
quote:If you can't see that this has nothing to do with that, I can't help you.
focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
quote:Because you brought it up again.
quote:I'm not sure why you are asking me to explain other people's reactions
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
quote:Acknowledging diversity means acknowledging that "my way" (for all values of "my") is not the only possible way and working out how a better compromise could be achieved. It is not true that everyone "involved", whatever that means, is telling me the opposite.
Once again you seem insistent that your way is the only possible way to understand the thing, even when everyone involved seems to be telling you the opposite.
quote:They did. Given their obvious support for LGBT issues, that suggests to me that they weren't sure enough of themselves to stick to their guns.
Why should the NT kowtow to a very small number of people at one property out of several solely on the basis of the Telegraph and Mail using coded language to whip up feelings.
quote:What is this flag supposed to communicate about the occupants of Smallhythe Place?
when challenged on this point, they pivot and claim it is about the use of a fucking flag.
quote:What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
I don't really care any more.
quote:It suggests to me that they were surprised by the bigotry they encountered and nonplussed by the reaction.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Given their obvious support for LGBT issues, that suggests to me that they weren't sure enough of themselves to stick to their guns.
quote:Perhaps he communicating how what you post makes him feel. I'm told that is a valid thing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
Orginally posted by mr cheesyI don't really care any more.
quote:Very solid and reasonable conclusion.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think, on reflection and much reading around, that I've come to a settled conclusion.
quote:But as I've told you several times now, this isn't how this thing went down.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because it was, albeit in an extreme way, as I conceded, devoted toquote:If you can't see that this has nothing to do with that, I can't help you.
focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
quote:There is nothing to compromise. The NT is going to welcome LGBT+ people. If the volunteers don't like it, don't volunteer.
]Acknowledging diversity means acknowledging that "my way" (for all values of "my") is not the only possible way and working out how a better compromise could be achieved. It is not true that everyone "involved", whatever that means, is telling me the opposite.
quote:Oh FFS. They don't have obvious support for LGBT issues they just want to publicly welcome people from different communities in the country. This isn't really hard to understand.
They did. Given their obvious support for LGBT issues, that suggests to me that they weren't sure enough of themselves to stick to their guns.
quote:And my contention is that nobody gives a shit what you think given that you've taken exception to a flag. A flag that the community themselves say is a symbol of a welcome, and which everyone else understands does not mean that the individual or the organisation concerned is actively campaigning for gay or trans rights.
My contention is that if they had engaged in better diversity management, they could have, and that this would have been to the benefit of the LGBT cause, not its detriment.
quote:Because when you are like this, you really can't see how boring you are. And it is really quite tiring given the effort other people have made to explain it to you.
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
quote:Firstly from the Daily Telegraph article that started this debacle:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
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.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
quote:And in the Daily Telegraph article of 29 July:
With the case of Robert, the people we interviewed were clear that we weren’t outing him because amongst those who knew him, this was widely accepted.”
quote:For the other cases you mention, I suspect you are writing back into history what we know now. Noel Coward's sexuality has been openly discussed and reviewed in the last 45 years since his death. What was generally known in his lifetime (other than an open secret amongst his intimates) and before 1967 is going to be difficult to review back. Noel Coward did not allow it to be mentioned publicly that he was homosexual in his lifetime and asked Sheridan Morley not to write this in his 1969 biography.
[Professor Richard Sandell] said he spoke to four local people who lived near the Felbrigg Hall who said the late squire’s homosexuality was an open secret. He also cited an extract from a biography about Sir John Betjeman that referred to Wynhdam as an openly homosexula close friend while they studied at Oxford University together.
quote:I agree, with the proviso that I think that this version is fuelling extreme positions on both sides.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
the NT is now completely hostage ot a weak, poorly thought out, Daily Mail version of our history.
quote:(That's just a sample from your most recent post).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
as I've told you several times now
(...)
No doubt you are now going to try to pretend that the reaction means something-something-something-something about you and gays because
(...)
This is really all about you.
(...)
nobody gives a shit what you think
quote:I think I've made a best effort to engage with you on those terms and I'm tired of dealing with people who don't engage on those terms. The more anyone refuses to do so, and instead of walking away turns up the verbal abuse, the more I doubt the validity of their position.
involves at least assuming as a posture (...) (if one cannot believe it to the core of one's being...) that the other party is entitled to basic respect, has rights and expectations, and that whatever ther views, they as individuals are no "less than" those on your side.
I would further argue that outside Hell, these boards fuction on the principle that the parties are at least willing to "get round the negotiating table", as the picture at the top of Purgatory suggests)
quote:If they'd managed diversity issues properly in the first place (and I don't think there's any doubt that LGBT issues fall squarely within that definition, first Google hit for "diversity issues") and really cared about them, then I think they and LGBT concerns would have had everything to gain by standing firm.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It suggests to me that they were surprised by the bigotry they encountered and nonplussed by the reaction.
quote:And that's it all up and down. You've said several times that - apparently - the attitude of other posters makes you wonder about your commitment to marriage equality.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think I've made a best effort to engage with you on those terms and I'm tired of dealing with people who don't engage on those terms. The more anyone refuses to do so, and instead of walking away turns up the verbal abuse, the more I doubt the validity of their position.
quote:Nobody said you had to answer, that's all on you.
So from now on on this thread I reserve the right to simply ignore posts with content I personally deem to fall outside the scope of Commandment 5 whilst doing my best to abide by it myself (and mr cheesy, that applies to your most recent post).
quote:
If you choose to see that as a victory, I think it's a pretty Pyrrhic one.
quote:sigh: once again - the small minority of volunteers who decided this was an issue of conscience were given the opportunity to volunteer in different ways. They instead choose to talk to the Daily Mail.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
By "managed properly" I mean that they would have addressed this issue like any other on that list and come to a reasonable accommodation with their volunteers that they could defend unequivocally in public. In short, in agreement with several others here, I mean they should have made the lanyard-wearing an opt-in and not an opt-out measure.
quote:We're in danger of going back to square one.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
By "managed properly" I mean that they would have addressed this issue like any other on that list and come to a reasonable accommodation with their volunteers that they could defend unequivocally in public. In short, in agreement with several others here, I mean they should have made the lanyard-wearing an opt-in and not an opt-out measure.
quote:I never said anything about marriage equality. I expressed frustration with being misrepresented, once, and this is another example of it. That issue was put to rest between lilbuddha and me and here you are bringing it up again. Since you've managed not to be offensive I'll go the extra mile and once again respond.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You've said several times that - apparently - the attitude of other posters makes you wonder about your commitment to marriage equality.
quote:That is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation on your part.
You've taken the wishes of other people to have a flag to recognise a welcome as a personal insult
quote:My position is that it is important to consider any issue in the context of the human dimension of all those involved, including that of "other people".
Because somehow the attitude of other people is more important to you than the issue. Can't you see the problem there?
quote:I'll engage with you to the extent that time affords and I personally deem your posts to be within the spirit of the 10Cs.
What is making me very cross is your refusal to actually engage in anything that I've said
quote:Is it? How else is one supposed to take your unsubstantiated allegations about the support of the NT for gay rights causes, your repeated insistence that the flag stands for the cause even when everyone involved says it doesn't etc?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation on your part.
quote:There are more ways than one of that opportunity being presented, and that is where the evaluation of the management comes in. The fact is that I don't know how the meeting actually went, and unless you were there, neither do you.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
the small minority of volunteers who decided this was an issue of conscience were given the opportunity to volunteer in different ways.
quote:Some of them did. Again we simply don't know why the others followed. Maybe they thought it through. Maybe they were bigots-in-waiting. Maybe they had other qualms. Maybe there was a whole mixture of things. Maybe if the discomfort of some had been better handled then they would not have been tempted to join the boycott. I don't see why we should take the outrage reported in the Mail & co. as the whole story [ETA I think this answers Doc Tor's post above too].
They instead choose to talk to the Daily Mail.
quote:That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
quote:No. No more than if a majority of volunteers had been shamed into wearing them.
What if somehow a majority of volunteers had been shamed into not wearing the lanyards? Is that acceptable?
quote:No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships?
quote:I don't doubt that you do support equal marriage and I'm not really very interested in discussing your intricate position on associated matters. That's not really relevant.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]
quote:I never said anything about marriage equality. I expressed frustration with being misrepresented, once, and this is another example of it. That issue was put to rest between lilbuddha and me and here you are bringing it up again. Since you've managed not to be offensive I'll go the extra mile and once again respond.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You've said several times that - apparently - the attitude of other posters makes you wonder about your commitment to marriage equality.
I.support.equal.marriage.
quote:Because it isn't relevant to Felbrigg Hall and it is this discussion already has too many distraction to hide behind. Doc Tor has provided a concise and accurate summation.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
¹ Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships? (Smallhythe Place); serious question. Third time of asking; nobody's attempted an answer yet.
quote: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.
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
quote:Right. And once again with 300 volunteers that's not only impractical, that's impossible.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
quote:I don't. I think it is an easy way out of addressing his post.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA I think this answers Doc Tor's post above too].
quote: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.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
Orginally posted by mr cheesy:
Other than sitting down the volunteers and asking them in advance how they thought the campaign should have been run, what else could they have done?
quote:I can find much to agree with in your last two paragraphs.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean 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?)
quote:This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
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?
quote:Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues".
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
quote:You're right, I can't see this. Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote: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.
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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".
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues"
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."
quote:<grinds teeth>
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where are you getting this from?
quote:NT press release
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".
quote:They were wearing the lanyards to make LGBTQ+ people feel welcome at the exhibition.
“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.
quote:I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.
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.
quote:No. It is broadening the account.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote: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.
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.
quote:Like Doc Tor said, we cannot know things would have been different, but odds are they would not have been.
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.
quote:No one said it was
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
quote:This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Oh right. How do you know that then?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.
quote:Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.
quote:Then what did you mean by this?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No one said it was
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
quote: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.
quote:This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.
quote:I would be fine with that. Exactly the same policy should have been applied for their volunteers (opt-in).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.
quote:Can you find anything from before the fuss supporting your position? I think the statement is confused.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. How do you know that then?
quote: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.
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
quote:I'm sorry I must be getting old because I simply cannot understand what you are talking about.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Then what did you mean by this?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No one said it was
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?
quote:The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.
quote:I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
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 discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.
It isn't.
quote: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.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No. It is broadening the account.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote: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.
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.
quote:This doesn't address what I said, but slides around it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Probably because Buscott is rarely open for visitors (one afternoon a week, IIRC).
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote: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.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
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.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
quote:I don't sense it is that simple, any more than Brexit is simple.
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
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:
Mike Holmes, who has served at Felbrigg Hall for 13 years, said 75 people are no longer working for at his National Trust
quote: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.
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.
