Thread: Felbrigg Hall lanyards Board: Dead Horses / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000715

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
As reported by the BBC (with link to source) some staff at a National Trust property have been asked to wear rainbow badges & lanyards to support a campaign of sexual equality. A handful have chosen not to do so.

Was it then right that they have been taken away from public duties?

It strikes me as having parallels with the bakery case, where freedom of expression is being played off against equality. I can understand and support the gesture of encouraging staff to support the campaign, but it seems a bit heavy-handed. If someone chooses not to wear a rainbow, who is harmed?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Not really. It is a privilege to volunteer for a charity, not a right. If the charity tell you to do something, you do it. If you can't do it, then they can decide that you may not be able to volunteer in the way that you want to - it is as simple as that.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The volunteers are representing the Trust, not themselves. They were justifyiable removed for not supporting the campaign. It is hilarious to me that they are working at an estate that wouldn't likely be part of the National Trust were its last owner not gay. And yet they won't wear ribbons. Hmmm.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I cannot see why anyone should not want to support equality of opportunity for all people - whether or not they personally endorse their lifestyles.

On the other hand, it's hardly the sort of thing that NT members would have expected to be asked to do when they signed up.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
On a slightly different, but maybe related note, I understand that members of the Celestial Church of Christ are not permitted to wear red items of clothing, unless required to at work e.g. as part of a uniform. I guess the reasoning is that, at work, they are their employer's representative, and not their own.

IJ
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
"feeling uncomfortable"

That is never enough. Feeling uncomfortable is an opportunity for growth.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

You can't out a dead person.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
John Holding:
quote:
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.
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.

I note that the 'long-term volunteer' interviewed by the BBC here has not actually seen the film herself, only heard that it was 'distasteful'. Also that only 10 of the 350-odd volunteers felt strongly enough over the issue to refuse the lanyards.

Oh, and what Pomona said. Mr Wyndham Ketton-Cremer is beyond earthly cares now. Should historians conceal the truth about him because some people will find it uncomfortable?
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
I always feel rather uncomfortable when big institutions - companies or third sector ones- suddenly decide that they're very publicly going to embrace a cause, and ask their staff or volunteers to display an alignment with it, even when the cause is- as is this one- one which I generally support. I always suspect that this is at least as much to do with a keen eye for public image as it is with any genuine conviction,
One of the reasons I gave up my National Trust membership, admittedly over 10 years ago, was what I saw as the the Pravda-like tone of many of its membership publications. It is I suspect a deeply authoritarian and conformist organisation.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
Here in Caprica City, many straight people celebrate Pride the same way non-Wiccans celebrate Hallowe'en and atheists celebrate Christmas. Par-tay! However, there's always voices reminding us that Pride is supposed to be a protest, not a commercialized celebration, kind of like how some folks are "Jesus is the reason for the season" folks.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, the National Trust has now changed its mind.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
In my organisation, we have the option of wearing rainbow lanyards to show solidarity with LBGT issues. The theory is that if a gay person joins the team then they can know their colleagues are supportive and they can Be Themselves.

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.

IOW: I agree that the National Trust has the right to expect volunteers to wear rainbow lanyards, but I'm not convinced that doing so achieves what they want it to achieve.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Ricardus:
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
It's noticeable that the people not happy who are quoted in the various stories are all (so far as I can see) over 70.

quote:
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.

The Independent

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.

Also one of the challenges of public heritage work is reaching out beyond the usual suspects to minorities who might think a historical site or event is not for them (see also the Chalke Valley History Festival which managed to have more speakers who had served in the Wehrmacht than non-white speakers)

If a National Trust property wanted to celebrate Black History month and talk about a stately home owner who kept his family with a black woman secret because of taboos against interracial marriage at the time, I don't think anyone would support people who opted out of the marketing because they thought that ought to be covered up or the role of the black family members not celebrated. Public history which seeks to address the erasure of persecuted groups and to make public properties welcoming to people who are not straight white well-off older middle-class folks is an important matter.

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... so it probably undoes all the effort the National Trust have made to be welcoming and inclusive. If you were black would you want to visit a stately home with black history when you knew a bunch of the guides were racists who thought the black history should be kept in the closet?

I've come across cases where marketeers have urged stupid trendy things on older well-informed volunteer guides and where the marketeers should have been told where to go, but in this case the guides who have refused to be welcoming to LGBT visitors about the LGBT history of the place are sadly in the wrong.

[ 05. August 2017, 18:31: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
crossposted - But I think there is a difference between front-of-house public service jobs and being 'part of a team' internally and getting to know who is supportive. Visitors are coming to a stately home for a few hours - the job of front of house staff is to make them feel welcome for that period and to subsume their own views on the public for their stint of duty and to project the welcoming image their company wants to give while imparting historical information.

I've done similar public-facing heritage jobs. You meet the company's standards of customer care when you are up front on duty and if that means showing the company is LGBT inclusive with a lanyard, or friendly to visitors who want information in Gaelic by giving bilingual greetings/wearing a badge, or promoting accessibility for people with disabilities by pointing out what facilities are available in your opening spiel, then that's what you do. It's not about your own personal prejudices when you're on duty, it's about the company values you're meant to be embodying and projecting or you shouldn't be working in front-of-house duties for that company.

[ 05. August 2017, 18:18: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Perfect, Louise. Both posts.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!

Does the application form make every volunteer sign up to an agreed set of values? This would sort the wheat from the chaff.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

What would this consultation entail?
Were the troubled volunteers going to change their minds? Was the trust?
How about an optional lanyard?

I don't think homosexuality is at all right, despite the obvious irony of where I am volunteering

I object to the lanyard, not homosexuality. Why, some of my best friends are homosexual
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

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.

[ 05. August 2017, 19:35: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

It isn't about the volunteers values. Their values are not on display. They are representatives of the trust.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

The predominate demographic or NT volunteers is old, white people. How many do you think are amenable to inclusivity?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

The the objectors wanted, and were granted, an exemption. Bad form, bad precedent.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

The predominate demographic or NT volunteers is old, white people. How many do you think are amenable to inclusivity?
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)

( And Svetlana, that is a bad faith reading of my post - charities dealing with a demographic divide on an issue have to be willing to challenge attitudes which hurt the public they are there to serve, and which endanger the future health of the organisation, even when that means the current membership have to come out of their comfort zone)

I'm also, in general, not a fan of making people work cheap or for free and then expecting exactly the same of them as paid employees however perhaps if volunteer training about core values had been done properly then people would have learned earlier in the process that they needed to support inclusive outreach to volunteer there .

And now they've backed down from that and have given a very bad message - apparently it is fine to volunteer there and not to be inclusive because the National Trust is scared to challenge the kind of homophobia which wants to keep LGBT history in the closet.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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?

[ 05. August 2017, 20:42: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

It isn't about the volunteers values. Their values are not on display. They are representatives of the trust.
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.

[ 05. August 2017, 20:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I would be very surprised if the volunteers do not sign forms saying they follow the policies of the National Trust. It's a very formalised volunteering process with trained volunteer managers and a lot of guidance and clarity.

The National Trust are very transparent about their employment requirements even for quite low level jobs (I've used their vacancies and job application forms to build teaching materials before now)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Late to this, but I agree with Ricardus.

quote:
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...

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
if your charity has been upfront that inclusion/equality is a core value

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.

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.

[ 06. August 2017, 06:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Edith:
quote:
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?
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.

Being Catholic in England has been legal for considerably longer than being a gay man has.

Svitlana, you obviously missed CK's post on the subject of volunteers being required to abide by the NT's policies. However the problem doesn't seem to have been with the new volunteers, but with a group of older people who'd been volunteering there for years. I am reminded of the situation with the York Minster bellringers... though refusing to wear a lanyard is not as serious an issue as safeguarding.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Jane R

I did read CK's post. From what you've added it sounds as though the problem stems from volunteers who'd been there for a long time and hadn't signed the new document. So it does seem that the NT needs to weed out the old-times.

In the past, the NT has had a bit of an old-fashioned, slightly posh image, and I suppose it needs to modernise. This cloud could have a silver lining for them; it does show that they're making efforts to leave the past behind, in a manner of speaking.

[ 06. August 2017, 10:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
* old-timers.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Being Catholic in England has been legal for considerably longer than being a gay man has.

And this - since when homosexuality has been legal in England - is relevant to Felbrigg Hall how?

[ 06. August 2017, 12:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There was a Radio 4 programme on last night looking at the The Myth of Homosexual Decriminalisation that pointed out quite how recent decriminalisation has really been - 6 years ago in Northern Ireland, 2003 in England and Wales. Section 28 enacted in 1988 definitely made it harder to be homosexual until 2003; the original 1967 act was hedged with conditions - privacy and age of consent, being two of them.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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".

Absent any quotes, it is the obvious and most likely reason.
quote:

There were excellent reasons for not doing so in this instance other than homophobia.

Alright, list them.

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".

Kinda the whole point of any campaign is to make a special effort.
quote:

If I have a "core value" I shouldn't need to wear a special badge to prove it; I should embody it.

If you actually have that core value, you likely wouldn't object to the lanyard.
quote:

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?

So, you would dismiss the volunteers instead of reassigning them for the duration of the campaign?
quote:

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").

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.
quote:

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).

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.

[ 06. August 2017, 13:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Late to this, but I agree with Ricardus.

quote:
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...

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
if your charity has been upfront that inclusion/equality is a core value

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.

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.

Ah if you've not seen the quotes or heard the interview on Radio 4, you're missing quite a bit.

Yes there are quotes, one of them was on Radio 4 doing the full 'I'm not homophobic but'


For example: national trust ordered volunteers to wear gay pride badges. As the Regius Professor of Law at the University of Glasgow James Chalmers put it (who'd earlier been talking about the law and decriminalisation)

quote:
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?

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

quote:
“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.”

It's put in anti-marketing terms but they are refusing to incorporate new research on minority history into how the property is presented.

They're not just objecting to the lanyard: if they were saying we wont wear the lanyard - it's marketeering and next thing they will be making us all wear poppies or whatever, but we will support the history and will do our damnednest to give great tours sensitively putting forward this history - as they are volunteers and not paid professionals, I'd have some sympathy but that's clearly not what it's all about. They want to erase the history and not wearing the lanyard (which is the 'I'm wearing this - ask me why/ or if you know what it is, feel free to ask about LGBT' symbol) is part of that.

When you are putting forward previously erased history, then yes you do have to make a special effort to exhibit "inclusion/equality".

I think you missed the context to my Gaelic example - which I picked for a reason (and not French or German etc.) there are people in Scotland who still attack the use of Gaelic, presenting heritage in it, and any attempt to make provision in it - in fact there was a public stushie about this in the context of National Museum's Jacobite exhibition recently. Where minority histories are contested, then yes, it's good practice to make an effort and to draw attention to it so (1) people from that groups feel included, visible and able to attend your exhibition and know they wont be attacked or have their history erased (2) everyone has their attention drawn to and learns about a previously hidden history they might not have been aware of.


quote:
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?
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.

I don't even know where to start with the false dichotomy between preservation and presentation - everyone front-of-house is part of the presentation and we're talking about volunteer guides here who do the interpretation - of course they have to be on board with the history being put forward, especially on sensitive sites where particular new interpretations may have to be highlighted.

Refusing to market minority histories or to do outreach to minorities is not apolitical and value-free - it's a value judgement - favouring a prejudiced status quo ante* - which was that these histories were not worth telling or worse that they should be hushed up or considered shameful and not celebrated. It's taking the side of those with privilege and prejudice and agreeing that they should not be in any way discomfited in the service of promoting minority history, or then it will be pejoratively labelled 'political'. Meanwhile the worrying political ramifications are ignored of the stance that minority histories should not be promoted or only somehow 'passively' shown on an interpretation board or a label somewhere while the guides refuse to speak about it because they think it's icky and not the sort of thing 'people like us' talk about. And of course, that makes sure only 'people like us' feel welcome at that establishment.

What you are suggesting (or saying) you want to see is also political - but it's political not only in a way which disadvantages minorities but also in a bad way where new research-based historical interpretations which challenge myths could also be side-lined by being deemed 'political' as a means of silencing them, and therefore not to be promoted and marketed as outreach.

To take an example, National Trust for Scotland has done an excellent job of the interpretation of the Culloden Battlefield which draws on excellent historical research to show that this really was part of a British civil war and not Scotland versus England for Scottish Independence. That was in the days before marketing using lanyards was much of a thing - but if they'd publicised the new interpretations with a lanyard showing a rose and thistle intertwined and Mike McTourGuide of the NTS volunteers commented 'Everyone knows it was Scotland versus England for our independence - whatever happened to tradition? It's a Unionist conspiracy.' and refused the lanyard to show he would be refusing to tell his tour groups the new research-based interpretation, you're saying that's fine and tour groups should get told the old fashioned stuff, even if it's both wrong and promotes bad feeling against English people because it would be 'political' or 'politically correct' to contradict Mr McTourguide, the lanyard rebel, or ask him to get on board with the new historical findings?

What if Mr McT hates Gaelic and thinks it ought to die and all Scots history worth relating can be done from English language sources and thus refuses to mention the new exhibits on Gaelic poetry about the battle?** Oh dear there's an arty ribbon with a line from McMhaighstir Alasdair as part of the new campaign - but it's 'political' to stop McTourguide both refusing to wear it and insisting on ignoring any Gaelic literature connected to the battle to his tour groups, if people ask he will tell them that it's irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned... how will Gaelic speakers feel to get this treatment from McT at a site where Gaels fought on both sides and the battle left important impacts on their culture?

Saying 'let them read the interpretation boards. I don't want to hear any 'politics'' is basically saying you're fine with letting folk like the fictional Mr McTourguide rule the roost where they are entrenched and with not promoting or marketing the new more accurate, more inclusive interpretations of history which upset the McTs, but which are key to the public understanding of controversial history and to making minority groups whose history is deemed to be trivia or shameful by the McTs of this world feel welcome.


*the previously existing state of affairs.
** You may think I'm kidding but there is an extremely famous and eminent Scottish History professor who takes exactly this attitude and who attacked a friend of mine, a native Gaelic speaker, for having written his Phd in Gaelic!

[ 06. August 2017, 17:42: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Of course all presentation of history is political, and yes the quotes add context. 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.

The poppy example is a good one: I don't like them either!

The issue of how to manage volunteer staff, and what can be imposed on them, is another question entirely.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

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?
"Funny he never married"
"Yes, funny that."
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
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.
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.

Here is the video.

If those accounts don't exist and don't explicitly say what he says they do, that's a massive and scandalous failure by a heritage professional. I don't have access to a footnoted account of this either but there's nothing in that video which sounds off or historically wrong to me, in fact the account of the problems of research which they have grappled with sounds spot on. That the research is difficult doesn't mean it can't be done and Sandell has gone on record in a very public way as saying they did find explicit evidence.

I know very well how much behind-the-scenes primary source work a curator would put into researching statements like that in a high profile video with a very famous presenter. To put one line like that in a video you might read several books or spend days in a archive. He could be wrong about those 'many accounts that openly acknowledge' but it's a big claim to make that he has really messed up on the scale you and Albertus are implying and you'd need at the least very good secondary work from other historians familiar with the primary sources to do it or to know the primary sources yourselves.

Find me other historians who've worked on the sources saying 'This is terrible, he's really messed up' and we'll have something to talk about - but you'll notice not one of these often quite hostile articles on the subject has got another scholar saying anything like 'Sandell is wrong about saying he has sources which state this openly. The sources do not support what he has said and he is interpreting what he has read quite wrongly.' Historians are not slow to speak up when they see big mistakes by other historians/curators.

Ketton-Cremer's sexuality appears to be relevant to the subjects he worked on as a historian and the way he handled them. It was probably relevant to his decision to leave Felbrigg to the public and to some of the contents of his library and perhaps also to his poetry. He was one of hundreds of thousands of people affected in one way or another by the anti-gay climate of the UK in the 20th century, to say that shouldn't be mentioned at a venue where he is a key part of the story is just part of continuing to erase gay history. More than lanyards are at issue here.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
As far as Mr Ketton-Cremer's sexuality goes,one could ask whether it's relevant or not. Clearly it's relevant to his life, and to the reason he gave Felbrigg Hall to the NT, but is that interesting?

Basically, why is Felbrigg Hall interesting? Why does the NT want it? I notice that it claims to be an unaltered 17th century house with noticeable Jacobean architecture and a Georgian interior.

Its most recent owner isn't relevant to that at all.

But Mr. Ketton-Cremer is of minor interest in his own right. He had some modest reputation as a biographer and historian, and so it makes sense to have an exhibit about him in his home. And that puts the details of his life, including his sexuality, firmly in play.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't follow this logic.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't follow this logic.

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.

But now we have the house preserved by the NT, because the architecture is interesting. If he was some complete nonentity - perhaps the local GP - then he'd rank a footnote or a short paragraph in the brochure acknowledging his generous donation of this fine house to the NT.

He's more interesting than that. He's not sufficiently interesting to be a draw in himself - very few people are going to travel to see a Robert Ketton-Cremer museum - but he's more interesting than a footnote.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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'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.

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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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'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.

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.

'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.

But you're apparently happy to erase the history of all LGBT persons connected with historic buildings living in times of persecution except for Alan Turing. 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?

Sorry Eutychus, but 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.

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. So talking about his life is an excellent way of doing public LGBT history and reminding people that it's not just Alan Turing - many hundreds of thousands of people were affected by those laws and the climate they engendered in many different ways.

People from institutions which still don't practice equality in same sex relationships (does your church carry out same sex marriages?) 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.'

It smacks too much of not wanting the historical dirty linen being washed in public of people having to lead closeted lives, because of anti-gay attitudes which were promoted by, among others, churches.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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.

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.

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?

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.

Historical properties carry social and political historical importance too, they're not just there for building history and art history. The National Trust explicitly does social history. To take an example off that page, I doubt Nancy Astor left the walls of her house covered in election posters and put up ballot boxes in the dining room but her history as the first female MP to take her seat is still worth mentioning when you have her portrait and a house she lived in.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, but I think the balance of "this building is important because of who lived here" and "this building is important because of its architectural merit" varies from property to property. John Lennon's house in Liverpool is at one end of the spectrum, St. Paul's Cathedral at the other, Blenheim Palace probably at both!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
But you're apparently happy to erase the history of all LGBT persons connected with historic buildings

This is exaggeration and you know it. I could quote from my own posts above to disprove it.

The issue to my mind is whether Ketton-Cremer's sexuality is anything but tangential to the history of the place, and whether drawing attention to it in the way the lanyards - not the video - sought to do is an appropriate way of promoting issues of discrimination. It may be a fair assumption that Ketton-Cremer kept quiet about his sexuality for fear of persecution, but it is an assumption. Some people just keep quiet about their sexuality full stop.

To recognise K-C's sexuality is one thing. To attempt to make the NT volunteers at Felbrigg Hall literal standard-bearers for the contemporary LGBTQ movement by invoking his person is another entirely.

There's a difference between the NT having a broadly pro-diversity policy and espousing and highlighting a specific diversity concern and to my eyes at least, it is not what I expect the brand to do. I perceive the NT as custodians not as an advocacy group.

quote:
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?
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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
does your church carry out same sex marriages?
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.
quote:
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.'
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It seems to me that seeking to focus on gay heritage at Felbrigg is very different to focussing on it at Charleston, where it is absolutely central to the place.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Refusing to promote the history of someone who's not in the category of being the 'Mary Queen of Scots at Holyrood' or 'Henry VIII at Hampton Court' of LGBT history (like Turing/Bletchley) is not looking 'dispassionately' at the heritage.

I've already explained a bit about how there is no such things as 'dispassionately looking at the heritage' - whoever you choose to put in or leave out is a choice. If you put such a high bar on LGBT history, that's not being dispassionate, that's saying that this area of previously suppressed history should not get the kind of promotion even a one off exhibition at a good museum gets - Videos! Promotions! Exhibition themed lanyard!

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.

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).

Trying to put these kinds of strictures on LGBT history promotion is not a good approach.

[ 06. August 2017, 22:48: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
There's more info about the film with quotes from Professor Sandell in this article and I would urge people to watch the film which is very good.

I remember a conversation with someone older who went to my school before I did in a very anti-gay era. She had thought she was alone in the world and the only thing she heard from a teacher about homosexuality was something along the lines of 'people like that can be cured nowadays'. She tried to kill herself and was lucky to survive. Coming across books about classical history which mentioned people with same sex relationships, both fiction and non fiction, was one of the few things that sustained her until she reached less anti-gay environments. History in which excluded people can see themselves is very powerful.

Remember the picture of the little boy who wanted to touch President Obama's hair to see if it was just like his? Not history but something similar. When people come up with quibbles as to why an LGBT story isn't good enough or important enough to be promoted, it's in a sense covering up the mirror of history for people who don't normally get much of a view in it of people like them. And taking away things like the lanyards that give people confidence to ask about history like this - history that is harder to find because so much of it had to be kept secret, so you're not going to find it in every stately house, even it was there - is also a way of helping to hide that history.

If you're going to Felbrigg because you love 17th century houses that's great - but there are lots of 17th century houses, new research which recovers gay lives from the era of criminalisation and links those lives with a building like Felbrigg is much rarer and people whose lives are informed and reflected by it deserve better than to be told to stick to Bletchley Park, if they want to know about people like them in history.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

And this statement isn't? It is a naked threat. "Be nice or I'll be a bigot again"
How is that embodying acceptance? Or even Christianity?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I've been to Felbrigg Hall. I would not describe it as a notable building at all.

Fair enough.

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?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
By the way I've been talking about erasing/erasure in history and it occurred to me that has a technical sense that might be misconstrued

quote:
‘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.

Fighting ‘Erasure’

'Whose stories are taught and told? Whose suffering is recognized? Whose dead are mourned?' this is what I'm talking about and why I'm so uncomfortable with posters producing all kinds of quibbles and tests of relevance, 'centrality' and 'dispassion' about when and where they think LGBT history might be allowed to be made visible and promoted and exactly how visible they think it should be allowed to be.

It's really problematic stuff.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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).

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".

I am far from sure this is actually the case, and I certainly don't find this attitude ("agree to adopt LGBTQ advocacy wholesale or be branded a homophobe") conducive to constructively progressing the cause of LGBTQ rights.

quote:
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.
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.

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.

We can agree, I think, that erasure is a complicated thing. I have been involved in museum displays for Fontevraud Abbey, at one point in its history a prison, where the last inmates were put to work removing all trace of its history as such. I once feared I was about to be physically removed from the Guernsey War Museum when I had the temerity to ask the bookstore if they stocked the then-recently-published The Model Occupation which I understand features excellent scholarship and which tells a rather different story of the German occupation of the Channel Islands to the one the Museum does. And I used to live near Oradour-sur-Glane and recall similar questions about just what happened there, why, and how the site should be dealt with - and allegedly, deliberate suppression by the authorities of some inconvenient facts.

I still don't think rainbow lanyards were a good move. Not least because the issues are indeed more complicated than the binary "lanyard-wearer = gay-friendly; 'uncomfortable' = homophobe" line you've taken.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

And this statement isn't? It is a naked threat. "Be nice or I'll be a bigot again"
How is that embodying acceptance? Or even Christianity?

[Roll Eyes] 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".

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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
On a pragmatic* basis:

Why not just put rainbow streamers and bunting up? And maybe have little rainbow ribbons that *anyone* can take, for free?

IMHO, that would honor LGBT folks; allow the staff to choose; and bring visitors into the celebration, via the ribbons.

*I.e., a way to work through the situation relatively peacefully. But keeping all the original details might be more important for some people.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm not clear why that is the same thing. If it was a baptist church, presumably members have a say over policy.

We're talking about volunteers of a charity not members of a church.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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?
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.

Oh, and what Louise said. Some of our ancestors were gay (even the rich ones). Some of the heroes of Dunkirk were not white. Some of the Romans were from North Africa (including at least one emperor). 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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

On the face of it I have no quarrel with this statement.

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.

(Sometimes it seems that everyone's father or grandfather in France was a Resistance fighter. More rarely is it admitted that they were an eleventh-hour recruit to the cause, if that. Visit Normandy and you'll find resentment not against the occupying German forces but the Allies who flattened local towns and cities to oust them).

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:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We're talking about volunteers of a charity not members of a church.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I've also had stick in the past for swimming against the tide with the poppies.

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...
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Eutychus:
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
[with apologies for the double post, time to edit message elapsed]

Also:
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
We're talking about volunteers of a charity not members of a church.

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.


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.

To be fair, it is usually health and safety that volunteers object to in my experience, however I'm pretty tired of hearing about volunteers who think that they have some kind of right or say over how the charity is run.

They don't. Volunteering is a privilege not a right, if one doesn't like the rules then the door is there to use.

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.

It is weird behaviour, that is not seen in buildings owned by English Heritage, Cadw or the National Trust for Scotland, in my experience.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Eutychus:
quote:
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.
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.
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.

I am somewhat more dubious that the facts support the argument for using the venue as a basis to portray "life as a gay man in the days of persecution" because I've seen no evidence he was actively persecuted, but I'm not going to die on a hill disputing that. My primary reason for joining the thread was the lanyards, as explained above.

The germane question here to my mind is whether it is legitimate or equitable for you to be entitled to feel "deeply uncomfortable" regarding an issue of your choice without further insinuations being made against you, whilst those opting out of lanyard-wearing because they were similarly "uncomfortable" are summarily branded homophobes and those questioning this are accused of trying to write homosexuality out of the local history books.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't really care about lanyards. I suspect if it hadn't been the lanyards it would have been about a display room talking positively about the man or that the NT decided to have a rainbow or pride day or something.

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.

The NT should have shut them up asap, but as it is they've allowed it to roll into the national media. There are obviously ways the NT can and should have managed this better, but it is likely that the media-connected volunteers would have made this an issue whatever happened.

The fact is that this kind of shit is happening all the time. Most charities can keep a lid on it, the problem is developed from volunteers with a personal grievance which can never be satisfied by the charity.

I know of a major unreported charity volunteer bungle which developed when a charity wanted to close a charity shop which was losing money* - vocal volunteers were trying to keep the thing open so they had something to do in the afternoon. Somehow the charity managed to keep a lid on it, I'm still not entirely sure how given the volunteer anger.

*which unfortunately happens more often than most people suspect
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Eutychus:
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

So the dissenting old fogeys should just suck it up? Is that not ageism? Persecution? Minority oppression? If not, what is it?

I don't have a fish on my car and I am averse to wearing designer or branded clothes. I'm sitting here wearing a T-shirt I bought in Portsmouth Primark on Saturday precisely because it had no logo on it (of course I can fully expect to be blasted now for supporting child exploitation in Bangladesh).

But we're not talking about "someone". We're talking about people "acting in a capacity". What I opt to exhibit support for as a private individual is worlds apart from an organisation pressing its members into displaying support for a distinct cause.

quote:
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.

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]

[ 07. August 2017, 08:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm out of time for the minute, but do you have evidence of which side took the story to the media?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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]

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.

But that's not what it is happening here. 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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

In that context of Daily Mail coverage, why would NT take the story to the media? What possible gain would there be from announcing that volunteers would be wearing lanyards?

I suspect that there was some kind of link between the Mail and the outraged volunteers before there was public knowledge about the lanyards.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

Fair enough, but were there any local meetings between Felbrigg managers and volunteers before this specific policy was imposed?

quote:
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.
I quite agree, and I've seen similar behaviour in churches. But this may not have too much bearing on his particular instance.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Fair enough, but were there any local meetings between Felbrigg managers and volunteers before this specific policy was imposed?

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.

Volunteers object to many things all the time, in the NT volunteers regularly object to things at a drop of a hat. It would be nice to think that managers discussed things with volunteers, but given that such a small number objected to this incidence, it seems likely that either they only voiced their objections to the Daily Mail rather than the management or that the NT attempted to offer them some other way to resolve the difference and they decided they'd rather blow it up in the media.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Imagine we take the issue away from lanyards for the moment.

The NT regularly have specific uniforms for staff and volunteers for particular properties.

Let's imagine that there is a property which has a statue in the drive of a water nymph and has thus decided to put it on the uniform.

Out of 500 people who volunteer at the property, 10 say that they won't wear a uniform with a picture of a naked woman.

Well tough, says the NT property manager, I've ordered the uniform and that's what everyone is going to wear.

Well we won't say the rebel volunteers.

Fine says the NT property manager, don't volunteer at this property then. Nobody is forcing you to.

Ultimately this is the real question - why should 10 volunteers get to object to something decided corporately by the NT property manager for their site and why should they get special dibs on the uniform that nobody else is worried about?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.

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.

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!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm not sure why that's relevant.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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!
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.

One can't please everyone all the time. As the management of a NT property, of course one has to consider volunteer welfare, but there are clearly more important things to be worrying about than whether a small number of volunteers feel that they can derail the uniform choosing process.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Eutychus:
quote:
So the dissenting old fogeys should just suck it up? Is that not ageism? Persecution? Minority oppression? If not, what is it?
Social change? And it's not a new problem.

'Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?' - said by Sir Toby Belch in Twelfth Night to Malvolio, who despite being a pompous idiot was (a) doing his job and (b) had a point, that they were making an unseemly racket when everyone else was trying to sleep.

As older people outnumber young people in all the rich countries of the West and have a disproportionate amount of wealth and political power (in the UK) it is rather stretching things to characterize them all as an oppressed minority, although many old people also belong to minority groups.

Oh, and what mr cheesy said.

[ 07. August 2017, 10:21: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Eutychus:
quote:
So the dissenting old fogeys should just suck it up? Is that not ageism? Persecution? Minority oppression? If not, what is it?
Social change? And it's not a new problem.
My tongue was somewhat in my cheek there, but you give a fair answer.

Social change? For sure. The debate to my mind is how it is to be best implemented. Making volunteers wear lanyards designed to send a clear advocacy message [which a local mermaid statue would not be, in and of itself] that is distinct from the organisation's main goals or face sanctions as a result is hamfisted. Branding those that fail to comply homophobes and/or anti-gay is not the best way of implementing social change with minimal conflict. It looks more like a zero-sum game to me.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It is a six week event.

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. I don't tend to wear it around my neck because I also have keys on my lanyard and if I wear them around my neck, rather than tucked away in a pocket, some of the kids I work with will grab them so they can abscond or get through the door keeping them apart from their current sworn enemy.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It is a six week event

From your link:
quote:
the rainbow is an internationally accepted symbol of welcome
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.

quote:
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.
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.

In this case I would say it incontrovertibly does, and that - along with the epithets reserved for non-wearers - is the problem.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
One of the things we've had a discussion about at work is how can make sure that we make everyone feel welcome and what we can include in wall displays to make young people not feel that they have to keep quiet about their sexuality - and we are expected to include rainbow symbols. We also have LGBT+ weeks to encourage discussions about LGBT+. This followed a member of staff taking a rainbow badge off coming into work after an event because they felt it wasn't appropriate.

As an aside the problem with my lanyard is that it has a catch that pulls apart if yanked, so no strangulation risk, but one or two of our lovelies have found they can grab and take keys so we have been discouraging lanyard use for keys, although we should still wear them for ID badges.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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?

It's a fairly obvious pattern of manufactured outrage aided and abetted by the Daily Moan
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

British local journalists these days rarely leave their desks and only ever write articles when someone phones them up and gives them a story.

Hence the very recent discussions about the number of times articles have been published in a local newspaper about a national chain of bakers. The paper claims that they're not getting paid for this free publicity, so the only explanation can be that the journalists are writing drivel based on press releases because they've got no other way to write articles that generates views.

TL;DR version: local news is shite. The chance that a local journalist would have written this without a nudge is non-existent.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
mr cheesy - true, but I can imagine a NT volunteer being more likely to contact someone on a local newspaper than a national one.

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:
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.

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.

But having a lot of influence isn't the same as being homophobic, and homophobia doesn't correlate with being white. You wouldn't avoid the problem if the Trust's volunteers were mostly black and Asian. Bringing race into this strikes me as unnecessary and divisive.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The earliest story I can find was from 21 July, in the Daily Telegraph, slanted at outing Robert Ketton-Cremer with the publication of the film for starting to be shown in the house from 25 July 2017. The next stories were based around three of the godchildren, including a letter from Tristram Powell in the Torygraph in 26 July, which is behind a paywall, but mentioned in various stories - this was picked up in stories in the Daily Mail, Pink News and the Daily Telegraph.

The rainbow lanyard story seems to have come a local journalist looking for outrage. (And I'm with mr cheesy, I'm horrified by local coverage of something I'm involved in - real muck-scraping, unnecessary slime-throwing, outrage-building reporting.)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I suspect that someone got cross reading the stories in the Mail and the Telegraph and decided to spread some muck via a local journalist with nothing much else to write about.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

There's a big difference between whether "alternative duties" were presented as a compromise solution before the event or as a "punishment" after the fact.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[Roll Eyes] it's not a "naked threat". It's a frank admission of how I feel.

There is naught, in the definition of either, that is mutually exclusive.[/QB][/QUOTE]

quote:

And there is nothing non-Christian about pointing out misrepresentation, since we are supposed to "rejoice in the truth".

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:

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.

No. It is an example of confronting a tactic. It is the same call I would make regardless of the topic.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
quote:
No. It is an example of confronting a tactic. It is the same call I would make regardless of the topic.
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".
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The other story that came up when I was looking that according to the Daily Telegraph, which has been publishing many of the stories, if not orchestrating this whole affair, that National Trust members are leaving in protest over the outing of Robert Ketton-Cremer and making volunteers the gay pride symbol.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
On sources: the Eastern Daily Press (centre of all Norfolk news!) reported on the film about Ketton-Cremer on July 24th, and on the lanyard debate on August 2nd (presumably in print the following day).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps Buddhists don't understand the meaning, or limits, of "tempted".

Buddhism was teaching this before Christianity existed. But don't worry about copyright infringement, that is not the Buddhist way.

quote:
What I don't like is misrepresentation or gratuitous escalation.

I think I represented what your post says accurately.

quote:
You essentially challenged my adherence to Christianity on the basis of what I wrote.
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.

quote:

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".

Again, I did not call your faith into question. I called into question the face value of your statement.

If you had said that it hurt to be so represented after your journey, that would be a more sympathetic statement. Even so, whilst I will be glad of every person who has turned from intolerance to acceptance, don't expect a biscuit every time it is mentioned.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that what you wrote isn't in line with what Jesus taught.

Which bit of his teaching?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Ye gods, this is pathetic.

If a county seat of some minor aristocrat who gained money from slavery or some other colonial enterprise was being highlighted by the National Trust, would there really be this uproar?

If you don't like it, don't go. If you normally volunteer and don't like the idea of the 6-week exhibition, then don't volunteer for that time.

But for heavens sake, stop making this about something it isn't about - particularly if your only interaction with the National Trust is irregularly visiting.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Having looked at where this story came from, I'm now more irritated about what looks like orchestrated outrage by the media, specifically the Daily Telegraph.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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, 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.

[ 07. August 2017, 17:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

I was referring to the use of this term here on this thread, not by the NT. My charge against them is disingenuousness.

Mrs Eutychus works regularly with the manager of Stonehenge. Perhaps I should see what English Heritage thinks about all this... [Two face]

[ 07. August 2017, 18:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
The National Trust has many problems. Its environmental record is patchy, its opposition to wind farms problematic, its accountability as one of the UK's largest land-owners dubious, and yes, its approach to the ownership and curation of symbols of our imperialist, colonialist, slave-owning, exploitative past is, to say the least, a bit of a mixed bag. (Not to mention its recent foray into trademarking disputes).

It's possible that the managers of the property were naive and just a little short-sighted. It's possible that the volunteers have genuine concerns about 'outing' a dead gay man. I'm pretty certain that far more people know Felbrigg Hall for that one fact now than ever heard of it before.

There is, however, a whiff of martyrdom that hangs over this whole debacle. A small number of people chose to die on a very small hill. Well done them. I hope they feel it was worth it.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Perhaps they did feel stressed out and beleaguered. In their situation, I imagine that I'd probably get as far as slightly bemused and possibly a touch miffed.

I've worked for employers who repeatedly did things that were head-slappingly stupid. You have to pick your battles.

I'm not going to tell them they can't feel aggrieved, but I'd certainly suggest a degree of introspection as to why they felt *this* was the place they were going to make their last stand, considering a compromise had already been offered and the whole affair was a temporary summer event.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
Doc Tor - yep, agreed.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am saying that what you wrote isn't in line with what Jesus taught.

Which bit of his teaching?
I'm not sure I can find a specific quote in which Jesus condemns passive-aggressive threats.
However, 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.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
This situation has some parallels with why I refused a National Merit Scholarship to Biola and went to another school instead. Biola required all applicants to sign a paper swearing they wouldn't dance during the full four years at school. I had no intention of dancing--I have two left feet--but being ORDERED to sign a paper, as if it were some sort of loyalty test--nope. nope, nope, nope.

Mind you, if they'd simply said "here's our code of conduct, no dancing allowed," I would have kept the code, ridiculous though I thought it was. But being made to sign a subscription to their views--nope.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
Were this a literacy campaign, I sincerely doubt there would have been any objections.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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,

They are pretending no such thing.
quote:
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
As this is on the page about the Pride campaign, the obvious reasoning is that it is welcoming LGBT+.

quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
I thought of applying to Oral Roberts University. Then I found out that female and male students had different curfews. The idea was that keeping the girls on campus would encourage the boys to stay on campus, and not run around town getting into trouble.

ISTM that was sexist and stupid. And why not just give the same curfew to both??

So I didn't apply there.

(And I think students had to sign some sort of agreement there, too.)
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
My last post was in response to Lamb Chopped.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

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.
Were this a literacy campaign, I sincerely doubt there would have been any objections.

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.

What I'm getting at is not the content of the campaign, but the irrelevance of it. 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)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

What I'm getting at is not the content of the campaign, but the irrelevance of it.

History is part of the Trust's mission. How is this campaign irrelevant?
quote:

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)

Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.

Where do you get this idea from?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.

Where do you get this idea from?
IME. it is common to have a visible item from a campaign worn by volunteers and staff.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
quote:
The wearing of lanyards or other promotional items is a common thing for volunteers.
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.

I went to one of the national marches in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks (one of the rare occasions I have taken to the streets). Unlike many I chose not to take a "je suis Charlie" ('I am Charlie') sign, because I was there not in support of the editorial line of the publication but in defence of the constitutional freedoms of the country, including the freedom of the press. If someone had told me I had to carry such a sign, I would not have participated.

quote:
the obvious reasoning is that it is welcoming LGBT+.
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".

This caption gives the lie to the argument you're putting forward here. The caption is disingenuous and to my mind can only be deliberately so. It's there so any objections can be met with the argument "oh, we were just trying to be welcoming" and imply that anybody not sporting the lanyard is being somehow "unwelcoming". If there were no deliberate ambiguity about the symbol the caption would say "The rainbow is an internationally recognised symbol of the LGBT+ rights movement".

(I might actually have less sympathy for the dissenters if that were stated unequivocally).

quote:
quote:
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.

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.

It's not rhetoric. It's what Louise said and it's why I joined this thread.

Don't get me wrong. I am in favour of gay rights and I seek to progress them as and where I feel I can. What I am not in favour of is replacing one oppressive system with another repressive system. I am not going to sign up to anything, whatever the cause, where I get the impression of a gun to my head saying "you buy into the way we do this or be branded anti-x/y/z". I do not accept the argument that because this treatment has been meted out to minorities the way forward is for them to mete some of it out themselves.

Note I said "I" here. I have come to accept that there is a legitimate role for militants, activists, and so on - but that other roles are important too. I am committed in some small way to an advocacy role in an unrelated field at the UN in my capacity as a member of the international steering committee of a worldwide organisation recognised by ECOSOC. But I do not try to foist my advocacy on unrelated parties, or expect everyone who is broadly in support of the concerns I hold dear to be an activist, or try to stage events at which I can portray people not really adhering to my cause as activists.

The fact is that like most peoplen in most of my many and varied roles I am not an activist and, I would say, would not have achieved as much as I have (whatever that may be worth) had I been acting as one. I'm not denying activists their role, but I'm asserting the need to respect those who aren't activists.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.

Where do you get this idea from?
IME. it is common to have a visible item from a campaign worn by volunteers and staff.
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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
In refusing to wear the lanyards, in dropping membership and donations, people are becoming activists.
The volunteers wearing lanyards would not be considered activists by anyone. 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.
That they might not feel comfortable with the campaign is exactly why the campaign is needed.
They could have helped behind the scenes, they chose not to. They chose to make an issue.
You mentioned excellent reasons other than homophobia* to not wear lanyards. I'd like to heat them.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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,

But he does not use that against against anyone.
quote:

and several more where he upbraids people for gross misrepresentation of what is said, which is what happened upthread.

Again, I do not think what you actually wrote was misrepresented.

quote:

It's not rhetoric. It's what Louise said and it's why I joined this thread.

Where did Louise say
quote:
anything short of unflinching support for the way the initiative was implemented is cast as homophobia
quote:
What I am not in favour of is replacing one oppressive system with another repressive system.

Wearing a lanyard is a repressive system?
Seriously?

quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
So where does the idea that volunteers are billboards come from?

Both are adverts.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You mentioned excellent reasons other than homophobia* to not wear lanyards. I'd like to heat them.

I never wear them. IK just don't like having stuff hang round my neck. Reason enough.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
So where does the idea that volunteers are billboards come from?

Both are adverts.
Where do you get the idea that volunteers are adverts from?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
In refusing to wear the lanyards, in dropping membership and donations, people are becoming activists.

That is bullshit. Opting out is not the exact opposite of actively opting in.

This is gun-to-the-head reasoning again. It's saying "if you don't sign up to this in every respect you are anti x-y-z". It fuels the activism by casting everyone who doesn't join in as the enemy of their specific cause, when in fact this opting out can be for a range of legitimate reasons - not just the activists' pet hates.

(If it helps to move the debate from LGBT+ issues, I face exactly this kind of argument from christians approaching the church I lead wanting us to sign up to all manner of causes and events, and I resist it with similar vigour).

quote:
The volunteers wearing lanyards would not be considered activists by anyone.
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.
quote:
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.
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" [Roll Eyes] 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:
You mentioned excellent reasons other than homophobia to not wear lanyards. I'd like to heat them.
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.

==

*This reminds me of the time at my grammar school when some wag suggested all the pupils wear black (the colour of the school uniform) on the anniversary of Franco's death, and gleefully reported the next day on the massive response...
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
Was the NT's intention to attract more LGBT+ people to their houses?
In this case, I don't see the lanyards as being the draw.

Was the NT's intention to give a bit more information about a past owner?
In this case, I don't see the lanyards as being the draw

Was the NT's intention to show solidarity with Pride, LGBT+?
In this case, the lanyard might have had some significance if only to "brand" the event. Are LGBT+ supporters happy to be "branded" in that way?

Why only Felbrigg? Why not Sissinghurst or Knole etc?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But he does not use that against against anyone.

Neither did I.
quote:
quote:

and several more where he upbraids people for gross misrepresentation of what is said, which is what happened upthread.

Again, I do not think what you actually wrote was misrepresented.
The exchange in question is at the bottom of this post. I'll leave readers to make up their own minds.

quote:
Where did Louise say
quote:
anything short of unflinching support for the way the initiative was implemented is cast as homophobia

She said
quote:
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...
I cannot make this mean anything other than what I said it means. Can you?

Elsewhere it has been argued, indeed you are continuing to insinuate, that the only reason for not wearing the lanyard is homophobia. Which means that "Nothing less than unflinching support will do".
quote:
Wearing a lanyard is a repressive system?
Seriously?

Not wearing a lanyard can only be "anti-gay" and a way of denoting homophobes? Seriously?

Either lanyard-wearing is significant in this context or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
As a note, this Prejudice and Pride campaign by the National Trust is nationwide with a number of properties taking part, featuring houses linked to the Bloomsbury set and also Kingston Lacy as well as others, including Felbrigg Hall. I cannot find any negative stories in the local press for Kingston Lacy. I can find one positive article from a family with two mothers about how helpful the exhibition has been for helping them feel more involved with the house. (I didn't bother looking for articles about a house linked to the Bloomsbury Set.) That article was illustrated with the same badges and lanyards used at Felbrigg Hall.

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. For Cancer Research I had to wear their t-shirt over my Guide uniform the first couple of times we volunteered at the local Race for Life. I still have both t-shirts, but I don't wear them unless I am volunteering for the charities.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Presumably a Crisis and Cancer Research t-shirt. Which is what you signed up for.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Why only Felbrigg? Why not Sissinghurst or Knole etc?

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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
PS The Daily Moan says that "Staff have been told to wear the badges for a six-week period at most properties taking part in the 50th anniversary celebrations" but I don't know if that's truth or hearsay.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

Presumably a Crisis and Cancer Research t-shirt. Which is what you signed up for.
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.

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[ETA responding to Baptist Trainfan]

I don't know that it makes a difference. The big difference with CK's example is that she was (AIUI) a short-term volunteer for a short-term initiative.

Part of the problem here is a conflict between long-term volonteer motivations and the goals of the short-term campaign and, potentially, mismanagement of that disconnect.

To my mind if the NT sought volunteers just for their Prejudice and Pride campaign and asked them to wear the l***yards they would have a much stronger case.

[ 08. August 2017, 06:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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".

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.

quote:
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?
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.

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.

[ 08. August 2017, 06:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes, I'd go along with that.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I don't know if brands have given staff rainbow coloured badges during Pride events, but I don't think it would be particularly surprising if they had.

I'm not sure that this branding is really much different to that one might see in Sainsburys. If there is a message that is being given, it is about the fact that NT properties are diverse and represent a diverse, if often hidden, British history.

Now, if the issue had been that people don't like being billboards, don't like wearing lanyards, don't like the way that the NT is following the commercial practices of Sainsburys - that might be fair comment.

But that isn't what this was about. The lanyards have just become a convenient silly promotional item upon which the Mail/Telegraph has effectively stirred up conflict amongst volunteers on a wider issue.

And that real issue could and should have been handled out of the glare of national publicity. That's the real story here, not the lanyards.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

Presumably a Crisis and Cancer Research t-shirt. Which is what you signed up for.
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.

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?

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.

Secondly it seems from some of the press that the person concerned was "outed" in his life but chose to remain secretive about it. Very different from Virginia Woolf, Ellen Terry's daughter et al who trumpeted their sexuality.

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.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
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.

I would still be interested to read lilBuddha’s view on where this idea comes from.

Are you saying that the staff in supermarkets are seen as billboards by the consumers who see them wearing branded t-shirts? Or by their bosses who make them wear the t-shirts? Do you think they see themselves as billboards?

It seems to me that treating people as billboards is treating them as less than human beings.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems to me that there are two issues here: the one that the Mail/Telegraph say this is about; and the thing that this is actually about.

I suspect it is unlikely that volunteers at a particular NT property are this bothered about the "outing" of a dead person. I can't really see why they would be, even with the shouting from the Mail.

I can totally believe that a minority of volunteers will not wear lanyards that they somehow think is promoting gay marriage. And I can totally believe that people out there in middle-class NT membership-land are quitting in protest at the horrible way that the NT are treating people who object to liberal values on marriage and who are standing up for traditional marriage.

If anyone is making this whole thing into a billboard it is the shrill voices who are turning this into something it isn't.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
I would still be interested to read lilBuddha’s view on where this idea comes from.

OK. Sorry for answering a question you weren't directly asking me.

quote:
Are you saying that the staff in supermarkets are seen as billboards by the consumers who see them wearing branded t-shirts?
Yes. How do you see staff who are wearing promotional clothing?

quote:
Or by their bosses who make them wear the t-shirts?
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.

Consumers must be aware that staff are doing other stuff, but in one sense must notice them as billboards more often than they notice what they're doing (which can't be the same for bosses).

quote:
Do you think they see themselves as billboards?
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.

quote:
It seems to me that treating people as billboards is treating them as less than human beings.
Possibly, but that's a different conversation than this one. This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

OK. Sorry for answering a question you weren't directly asking me.

No problem with you giving your opinion on it.

quote:

Yes. How do you see staff who are wearing promotional clothing?

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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
I thought that was exactly what it was about.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Right, and part of that function is to wear the clothing directed by the management in order to function as a billboard.

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.
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.

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.
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.

quote:
quote:
This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
I thought that was exactly what it was about.
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.

Although of course it actually wasn't.
 
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on :
 
quote:
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 experience of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Michael Pitt-Rivers, and Peter Wildeblood suggests otherwise.

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.

[ 08. August 2017, 08:19: Message edited by: Cottontail ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gracie:
quote:
This isn't about the fact that volunteers had to wear lanyards.
I thought that was exactly what it was about.
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.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, but some people way upthread were talking about the wearing of lanyards in general - which isn't IMO germane to this discussion.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes and that's an interesting discussion to have.

But it isn't the one which is an issue at this NT property.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Indeed. The volunteers had already conceded the point.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
I don't really see how agreeing to wear a lanyard in general means you have conceded that you are a billboard.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm not sure why "conceding you are a billboard" is important in this context.

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.

[ 08. August 2017, 09:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure why "conceding you are a billboard" is important in this context.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

Surely in most professional situations people wear lanyards because the management has decided that people must wear lanyards - in particular this lanyard/.

Further, if you work in a supermarket and the management tell you to wear this promotional lanyard, it doesn't matter if you don't like the idea of being a billboard, the important thing is that the management is telling you to wear it.

quote:
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.
OK, so why are we talking about whether can be considered to be a billboard?

[ 08. August 2017, 10:13: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
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 experience of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, Michael Pitt-Rivers, and Peter Wildeblood suggests otherwise.

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.

It's a matter of class. Had they kept their relationships between themselves then it's possible or probable that nothing would have happened.

Becoming involved with Gay Servicemen, presumably from a different social "class" changed things in the eyes of a lot of people. It was all ok for many people from similar backgrounds provided you didn't frighten the horses or involve the servants.

[ 08. August 2017, 10:34: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's more of an issue with the small mindedness of the Police rather than anything else. You could multiply that approach elsewhere.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, so why are we talking about whether can be considered to be a billboard?

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It's enough of a billboard to say that, were you to behave in an unseemly way while wearing the hi-vis tabard (eg swearing, fighting,) the organisation whose logo it bears would take issue with you for bringing it into disrepute.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I'd be a billboard if someone paid me to carry their logo (professional sportspeople being the obvious example). Otherwise I'm just wearing, albeit temporarily, a company uniform. If you want to complain that your postbeing is a 'billboard', then okay, but that's not a word I'd ever use in that context.

Wearing a company-mandated lanyard is not being a billboard.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yep.

I volunteer for Guide Dogs and wear their t shirts, sweat shirts and coats -'uniform', and I'm proud of it.

Yes, we represent the organisation while wearing their gear, of course. Advertising? In a way, yes - but happy to do so.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.

I see lots of Domino's Pizza human billboards like this one.
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

FFS, I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement for my last volunteer gig. What planet is everyone else volunteering on?

Anyway, excuse me. I have to put on my billboard and go to work. [Roll Eyes]


*Or volunteer, yadda yadda yadda
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

You'd better take that up with lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.

Also:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
an employee* (...)

*Or volunteer, yadda yadda yadda

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).

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.

The relationship between volunteers and beneficiary organisations is much fuzzier, but it's one in which the consideration of the volunteer's motivations and values are even more important than in an employment relationship.

[ 08. August 2017, 14:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I volunteer for two charities and for Church. For one I do a 24/7 and time consuming 'job', which I love. The only place I sometimes feel like an employee is Church (I'm AV person) - and I don't like it! Making sure I'm not always available cures the minister from her wont to treat us as paid employees, I find.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In the UK volunteers are usually simply people who do things without a salary. There is no obligation to give a contract (although it is good practice to draw up a volunteer contract) and I'm pretty sure there is nothing which can be taken to court under employment legislation.

I'm fairly sure that British volunteers can have their positions removed at any time - for no reason - and basically are indeed "indentured labour", at least in the sense that they can be expected to do almost anything and not expect payment.

On the other hand a British volunteer usually has no legal obligation to the charitable organisation who they are working for, and so there is nothing to stop them leaving without notice.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
British government on volunteer rights - basically you don't really have any.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
In France the definition relates more to what constitutes an employer-employee relationship.

The three pillars are: compensation, subordination, and obligations. If all three of these are present then a de facto contract of employment exists, the individual benefits from labour law, and most importantly social security contributions are applied. A lot of religious organisations fall foul of this.

A volunteer certainly has less rights in law, but since they have less enforceable rights and no direct compensation, the organisation has a moral obligation in my view to show them greater respect. If it doesn't, it will suffer and may even collapse due to high volunteer turnover.

We don't know the whole story at Felbrigg Hall, but on the face of it I would say the NT did not treat these volunteers well.

ETA in response to your post: not having any actual rights does not in my view make anyone expendable or usable at will.

[ 08. August 2017, 15:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But he does not use that against against anyone.

Neither did I.

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:

I'll leave readers to make up their own minds.

hah

quote:
She said
quote:
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...
I cannot make this mean anything other than what I said it means. Can you?

Certainly. It means some of those who refuse to wear the lanyards will be homophobes.

Again, I cannot read minds, but you appear to be using the escalate and denigrate tactic often used by people to avoid taking an obvious, negative position. If you mean your posts differently, it would help if you did not attribute absolutes to statements that are not,
quote:

Elsewhere it has been argued, indeed you are continuing to insinuate, that the only reason for not wearing the lanyard is homophobia.

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.*

quote:
Not wearing a lanyard can only be "anti-gay" and a way of denoting homophobes? Seriously?

There are other reasons, I am waiting for any good ones.
And I am waiting for any reason why lanyard wearing hasn't been a major problem until this campaign.


*Homophobia covers the range from slight discomfort to hate. It is the word we have, get over it. Or develop your own words for the spaces between.
Homo-uncomfortable?

REGARDING BILLBOARDS:
Here is how it started.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
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)

Volunteers are billboards, to the extent of lanyards and buttons and such.
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.
Conflating this to taking away the volunteers humanity is silly.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In the US the picture is very different and seems to depend which state you're in. I don't have much of a clue about US law but during my search I found an article which scratches very much where I'm itching on this. It's from the American Prospect which does not appear to be a bastion of hidebound conservativism: it aims "to advance liberal and progressive goals".

The article is entitled Employer Political Coercion: A Growing Threat. It is clearly mostly up in arms about political enlistment of employees by Republicans in a way I find not only alarming but also mind-boggling from this side of the pond, but by way of balance also refers, as an introductory example of what they're talking about, to a case that is perhaps more analagous to the one in hand:
quote:
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.
The following two paragraphs from towards the end of the piece express my discomfort here pretty well:

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.


 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Just because I feel tempted to do something does not mean I have actually done it, or that I'm going to.
quote:
It means some of those who refuse to wear the lanyards will be homophobes.
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.

quote:
If you mean your posts differently, it would help if you did not attribute absolutes to statements that are not,

That statement by Louise was absolute, and so far she hasn't been back to qualify it.
quote:
I will, right now, go on record to say I think that is the most prevalent reason.
Good. That is more than Louise has conceded.

quote:
There are other reasons, I am waiting for any good ones
For now I can't put it much better than the article I've just quoted.

quote:
And I am waiting for any reason why lanyard wearing hasn't been a major problem until this campaign.
*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.

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.

(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).

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. It is honest enough to want to resist organisational coercion from right across the political spectrum.

[ 08. August 2017, 15:47: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't know anything much about volunteering in France, but I had heard that roles which are typically unpaid in the UK would be expected to be paid something in France. Whether or not that is relevant to what you're saying I have no idea.

But I do know a few things about volunteering in the UK, and I do know that there are various efforts to tighten up the relationship between the charity and the volunteer - including having regular appraisals with managers, having a written (and updated) volunteering contract and so on.

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.

Interestingly, the one area in law where volunteers are considered to be employees is Health and Safety.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And it is hardly unusual for the NT to highlight a former owner of their property or to link their activities to current TV or films.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
(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).
This is what annoys me. I think this is utter bilge.

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.

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.

But somehow because this symbol is associated with LGBT+ rights - whatever that actually means today - then it is suddenly something to object to.

Are you saying that you'd object to wearing a lanyard with chains to highlight a slavery season or some symbol associated with black history? Because those things might be vaguely political?

quote:
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.
There might be, but I highly doubt it. If one objected to lanyards then they could have done it at any time before.

quote:
It is honest enough to want to resist organisational coercion from right across the political spectrum.
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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)".

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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)".
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.

quote:
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.
You're basically comparing totally different things for effect. Not cool.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Great. No problem. So why are they saying the rainbow flag is "a widely accepted symbol of welcome".

Why deceive about its intent, which is to show support for LGBT+? 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:
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.
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:
But somehow because this symbol is associated with LGBT+ rights - whatever that actually means today - then it is suddenly something to object to.
Yes, because it is a politically charged subject which is not part of the NT's usual mission.

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
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:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The charity is not (usually) there to give volunteers something to do.

No; it's there to organise activities the volunteers are keen to engage in. Take away the volunteers and you have no charity.
quote:
quote:
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.
Tough titty.
I can only hope you've never been on the managing end of a charity.
quote:
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?
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:
If a volunteer is being bullied or abused during their volunteering, that's a completely different thing.
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.

[ 08. August 2017, 16:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Great. No problem. So why are they saying the rainbow flag is "a widely accepted symbol of welcome".

You really think the rainbow flag isn't a symbol of welcome? It seems to me that is exactly what it is.

quote:
Why deceive about its intent, which is to show support for LGBT+?
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 can't the rainbow flag just be a sign to a particular group that they're welcome?

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:
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.
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.

Which, to be quite frank, is more than I would have done.

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.
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:
quote:
But somehow because this symbol is associated with LGBT+ rights - whatever that actually means today - then it is suddenly something to object to.
Yes, because it is a politically charged subject which is not part of the NT's usual mission.
Oh right. So including people from under-represented groups in history projects at the NT is not part of their mission? News to me.

This is only being seen as a political statement because a small number of volunteers decided to make it a political statement and because people outside decided to make it a scapegoat for their political views.

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?
Do give it a rest. A rainbow flag is nothing like supporting Trump.

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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's not the case for a very large number of charities.


quote:
I can only hope you've never been on the managing end of a charity.
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.

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:
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.
Well again, that's not how volunteering works in any organisation I've worked in.

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.
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.

No. Drivel.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Great. No problem. So why are they saying the rainbow flag is "a widely accepted symbol of welcome".

You really think the rainbow flag isn't a symbol of welcome? It seems to me that is exactly what it is.
<citation needed>


quote:
Why can't the rainbow flag just be a sign to a particular group that they're welcome?
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".

quote:
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.
I think it's open to misinterpretation, yes.

quote:
what is dishonest is continuing to claim that this is about something that it isn't.
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.

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.
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!


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.
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.

quote:
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?
Do give it a rest. A rainbow flag is nothing like supporting Trump.
It is organisational coercion in both cases.
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
<citation needed>

https://thewelcomingproject.org


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.
<snipped a load of boring waffle>

quote:
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.
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. It must be - you just said so. Gottit.

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.
The Telegraph says this:

quote:
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.”
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.

Nothing to see at all, no. Just another total misquote and taking out of context something that someone has said.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Do you think wanting new research that a historical figure was gay to be withheld, and for historical research which reveals gay lives not to be undertaken at NTS venues are homophobic attitudes in the modern sense of the word (which is the one I use), or not?

Because the anti-lanyard spokesman is on record as saying these were the reasons for not wanting the lanyard and he's yet to be contradicted by any of the others, so they either share his reasons or don't mind people thinking those are the prevalent reasons. He expressed those sentiments to the press (previously linked and quoted in my posts) and on Radio 4 where I heard them.

People keep saying it's just about lanyards, yet keep coming back to swipe at the curatorial work without citing any historical research to show the professionals who did the research are wrong in their contextualisation. It's clearly not all about lanyards.


I've talked a bit about erasure of LGBT history - which goes all the way from people destroying LGBT relatives’ papers because they think it's all disgusting, to people who don't want those stories to be researched/told because they feel uncomfortable with them, to people suddenly becoming keen on tests of historical 'relevance' when an LGBT historical topic is raised and setting very high bars for this topic but not others.

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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
[ I am a super slooow poster and have missed many cross posts]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

OK well I'd suggest even that is unusual and specific to the kind of volunteering you are doing.

Having worked in various capacities in organisations like the National Trust, it is highly unlikely that they have the staff time to go around asking volunteers for their opinions on temporary uniform.

Maybe the Guide Dogs do that.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, they are very intelligent animals.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
<citation needed>

https://thewelcomingproject.org

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.

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.

quote:
quote:
Which I've discovered is called organisational coercion.
Oh right. It must be - you just said so. Gottit.
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:
The Telegraph says this:
Oh, so the media, including the Telegraph, are suddenly a reliable source now? [Two face]

quote:
quote:
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.”
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.
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

Just because I feel tempted to do something does not mean I have actually done it, or that I'm going to.
Mentioning it in a discussion in the way you did implies this. You know, in normal, conversational English.


quote:
That statement by Louise was absolute, and so far she hasn't been back to qualify it.
Which does not justify you inferring anything about my statements.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are other reasons, I am waiting for any good ones

For now I can't put it much better than the article I've just quoted.
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:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I am waiting for any reason why lanyard wearing hasn't been a major problem until this campaign.

*sigh* I think we have established that the issue isn't whether you wear a lanyard, a bonnet, a boob tube, or garters.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh, so the media, including the Telegraph, are suddenly a reliable source now? [Two face]

One would assume that they can be trusted to quote sources accurately.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
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)...

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.

I think it is *that* idea of Pride that would make an elderly person feel uncomfortable, even though, in my mum's case, she thinks people should be able to marry who they want.

I'm not endorsing discomfort with Pride as a point of view - but I think it's a bit unfair to go from a pensioner not wanting to wear a rainbow lanyard to them opposing same-sex marriage. Maybe they do - maybe they don't.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If one reads the whole press statement issued by the National Trust, it is fairly clear to whom the "international symbol of welcome" is directed.

In fact given the similarity of the quote in various publications, it is highly likely that the Press office sent this to all media enquiries:

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.


 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's clearly not all about lanyards.

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.

quote:
because they feel uncomfortable with them
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.
quote:
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.
I note the use of the word "discomforts" there again [Two face] You've lost me somewhat in the very last bit but thank you for your frankness and evident humility in the first bit.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Mentioning it in a discussion in the way you did implies this. You know, in normal, conversational English.

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:
quote:
That statement by Louise was absolute, and so far she hasn't been back to qualify it.
Which does not justify you inferring anything about my statements.
If you think I've unjustly inferred anything in what you posted from what she said, spell it out and I'll apologise.

quote:
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.

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. 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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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?

This isn't about emotions. This is about how phrased them. The sentence you wrote:
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.
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.


quote:
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.

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.
It isn't activism to have NT volunteers discuss campaigns, it is what they signed on for.
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".
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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. LGBT people aren't an abstract issue to be disagreed with or not, we're people and we shouldn't need Brenda from King's Lynn to approve of us to be acknowledged and celebrated. Maybe some of the disapproving volunteers should bear in mind that they will have peers - people they went to school with, former work colleagues, siblings and cousins - who were prosecuted before decriminalisation.

Eutychus - I feel like there's a perception of LGBT people, particularly by many cishet Christians, as a model minority. Like the similar stereotypes for racial groups, this is both untrue and incredibly harmful. I appreciate that you are not coming from a place of malice, but as an LGBT Christian your posts are incredibly difficult to read. Our humanity being recognised, acknowledged, and celebrated shouldn't be dependent on how 'nice' we are, as it is an issue of justice. In the UK our rights are still being denied, particularly in NI and for trans people across the UK (eg the spousal veto). 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. LGBT teenagers have committed suicide because of their 'traditional' Christian encounters - conservative Christians feeling uncomfortable is just not equal to having to bury children in churches that ultimately caused their deaths. I'm sure conservative discomfort feels horrible but it's not really the same as being targets of actual violence. Maybe that discomfort should make conservatives realise that hey, this feels bad so maybe we should work a bit harder at not being homophobic?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Granted, you didn't say you would backtrack, but implication is the same.

No deal then [Waterworks]

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It isn't activism to have NT volunteers discuss campaigns, it is what they signed on for.

They might have signed on for an NT campaign, but not for something that could be percieved as an LGBT campaign.

quote:
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".

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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
I also find the talk of 'promoting' LGBT rights a bit odd. Would lanyards commemorating the anniversary of the Equal Pay Act be considered to be 'promoting' women's rights in a political way? If not, why is it different to decriminalisation?

LGBT people already have rights, they are just not legally recognised in many places. Campaigning on something isn't the same as promoting something - a store loyalty card is promoted, people's humanity is not a product one can like or dislike.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Granted, you didn't say you would backtrack, but implication is the same.

No deal then [Waterworks]
Cannot have a deal if you insist on misrepresenting the point.

quote:
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.

They sign on to the NT which has various campaigns.


quote:
And I still think there is an element of coercion, because I think volunteers are more than billboards.
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.
Part* of their job is to advertise.

*part
pärt/
noun
1. a piece or segment of something such as an object, activity, or period of time, which combined with other pieces makes up the whole.
"divide the circle into three equal parts"
synonyms: bit, slice, chunk, lump, hunk, wedge, fragment, scrap, piece; More
portion, proportion, percentage, fraction
"the last part of the cake"
antonyms: whole

2. some but not all of something.
"the painting tells only part of the story"
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Eutychus, I'm going to say that you're making some fair points. If, in the course of work, I'd been told "You must wear a poppy", I'd have said, "Actually, I think the poppy has become a symbol of military celebration rather than national remembrance, and I'd rather not." (Which is, indeed, what I think, and why I don't wear a red poppy any more).

The problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing any thought-through reason for not wearing a rainbow lanyard. There is - being charitable - "this is disrespectful of the last owner of this property who was an intensely private man". But I'm not feeling that. What I'm getting is "I don't want to be seen to promote equal rights and recognition for homosexuals".

I won't deny the power of symbols to represent both equality and oppression. 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.

I have no problems with an actual campaign for freedom of/from expression at both workplaces and charities. But this, with the best will in the world, is not really an example of that.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

There's that "discomfort" word again.

Taking my cue from Louise, to the best of my ability to keep myself honest my discomfort is not related to the LGBT element but to the issue of organisational coercion, for want of a better word. I'd like to know what people think of the article I quoted from, and specifically this:
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.
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.

As far as this dissenting protestant is concerned that's New Covenant 101.

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.

I find Paul's words in 2 Cor 4:2 inspirational:

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
LGBT people aren't an abstract issue to be disagreed with or not
My issue is a) with organisational coercion b) branding all those who disagree with a particular action homophobes. That is all.

quote:
Eutychus - I feel like there's a perception of LGBT people, particularly by many cishet Christians, as a model minority
WTF? That certainly doesn't correspond to anyone in the LGBT (real) world I know.

quote:
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
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.

Personally, I think the tactic employed at Felbrigg Hall is overly aggressive and may put off potential sympathisers. I would also be willing to bet that there are other pro-LGBT people reading this who feel the same way but who do not feel up to posting because they don't feel they have a thick enough skin. Activism is a heady brew and aggressive behaviour can easily be seen as the ends justifying the means, but in my view it also has the unfortunate attendant danger of seeing everybody who does not join in wholeheartedly as an enemy - which, again, is where I joined this conversation.

Again, off the Ship, I think I can fairly claim to be in the leadership of one of the most diverse churches in the region in any sense of the word, including sexual orientation. We haven't come this far by being aggressive.

quote:
I'm sure conservative discomfort feels horrible but it's not really the same as being targets of actual violence.
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cannot have a deal if you insist on misrepresenting the point.

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.

quote:
quote:
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.

They sign on to the NT which has various campaigns.
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:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I joined in because of how the opters-out were at one point indiscriminately labelled as homophobes. Perhaps they were all homophobes but I took exception to that indiscriminate designation and all the more so as it applies to the general case, because I find this kind of attitude - on either side of any debate - abhorrent.

I'm not seeking to justify the actions of those actually involved in this actual case because I don't know their real motivations, but I think the issue raises more general questions about the respective roles of activism, discussion, mediation, and the complex reasons why each of us may feel "uncomfortable".

I love the Ship for its ability to dig a bit deeper than what passes for journalism out there these days, and to hear what people with vastly different stories and histories have to say, and I'd like to nurture that.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.

I'm also pretty certain that the same people who've hitched their wagon to this protest will be on the opposite side of the argument come November 11th.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
I think there is something else to consider here. It's had a bit of an airing, but is in danger of disappearing.

The National Trust is a registered charity. That means, according to UK charity law AIUI that they can only run campaigns and otherwise spend money in pursuit of the charity's aims. These are registered with the Charity Commission, and do not include any particular social or similar positions.

As such, I do find myself wondering how a reasonable person might feel about volunteering to support the NT in pursuing its aims only to find themselves apparently supporting a campaign in favour of the local Pride march.

This is not to say I don't support Pride - I'm a gay man, and I would agree with the proposition that there is a widespread assumption that only straight people have ever contributed to history, aside from Alexander the Great. It is, however, to say that all organisations are emphatically not the same, and charities can only act in pursuit of their own aims. For my part I would far rather see the NT work with local LGBT organisations to investigate and promote the part of people within their spectrum of interest in the history of the property, rather than have them turn into generic corporations, leaping on bandwagons as they pass.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Funny, aggressiveness is exactly what it took to start the modern gay rights movement.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Cannot have a deal if you insist on misrepresenting the point.

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
"Hehp, help! I'm being gaypressed!"
quote:

(and whatever you say, that was my sincere intent)

I'm not questioning what your meant as much as what you said.

quote:

while you, not being the above, get a free pass to provoke my emotions any way you damn please, then no.

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.

quote:
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.
They did. "If you do not like the lanyard, you can work in another part of the facility for the duration".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

We have no way of knowing if this happened or not at this point, in this case.

Again to my mind, if, and only if, their issue of conscience was gently and respectfully dealt with and they then went on to effectively portray themselves as victims of a "gay agenda" then they would themselves be adopting an activist position and it's open season.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Note also that that page contains a photo of a National Trust group at Birmingham Pride, wearing the same rainbow NT logos that the NT volunteers were asked to wear.

[ 08. August 2017, 21:16: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
My reference to 'model minorities' was to suggest that there is a feeling amongst some churches/Christians that LGBT people somehow benefit institutionally from being LGBT. It exists in the secular world too - eg accusations that LGBT people get bumped up the social housing waiting list specifically for being LGBT (I have heard this with my own ears - we don't!) - but I think particularly intensely in Christian circles. There's an idea that LGBT people are celebrated while Christians are seen with suspicion (of course that someone could be both is impossible....). The reality in the UK especially - obviously France is very very different - Christianity still enjoys many institutional privileges while homophobia and transphobia are still a real reality for LGBT people, including in some legal areas (mostly in NI). I feel like this is partly what fuels this kind of conservative discomfort, the idea that LGBT people have the societal upper hand and are just doing this to rub it in Christians' faces. I don't think many people would think in those exact terms or at that level, but I think it's a background thought to a lot of this.

I don't think the lanyards should even be compulsory, what bothers me is the really rubbish justification for not wanting to wear them. It's not about the right to refuse to wear one, but people's unexamined prejudices and biases meaning they don't want to. I haven't seen any evidence that people are taking their stance because of a Jon Snow and poppies stance on freedom of expression. I know that doesn't mean those reasons don't exist, but I do feel that perhaps your very noble stance is rather loftier than that of those actually involved. I am for the record a non-wearer of red poppies (not brave enough to wear a white one), so I do understand that way of framing it. Much like many Brexiteers talking about how for them it was about Democracy And Definitely Not Racism, whereas in reality hate crime spiked and EU nationals were attacked in broad daylight.

I do get why you feel as you do, but I just think your sympathies are rather misplaced.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Funny, aggressiveness is exactly what it took to start the modern gay rights movement.

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.

quote:
"Hehp, help! I'm being gaypressed!"

Seems I got the proposed terms of the arrangement clear, anyway.
quote:
What I am trying to provoke is your ability to reason.
Then engage with the reasoning I put forward and ignore all the rest. That's how I manage to answer you, anyway.

quote:
"If you do not like the lanyard, you can work in another part of the facility for the duration".
There are a million ways that could be put forward and discussed. We just don't know how it went down.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Pomona: thanks for your kind words. I think I've said more than enough for one day and I need to go and put my head in a bucket of water or lie down or something now.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's clearly not all about lanyards.

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.

quote:
because they feel uncomfortable with them
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.
quote:
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.
I note the use of the word "discomforts" there again [Two face] You've lost me somewhat in the very last bit but thank you for your frankness and evident humility in the first bit.

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.

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.


I can go to just about any stately home in Scotland and see my history reflected. I very much doubt I could go anywhere that would leave out all the stories connected to the building or site about the women, even though there is still sexism in the world. I don't run risks that if I go to a National Trust for Scotland site and ask about Scottish history that they will turn on me and start telling me about how that history shouldn't even be researched let alone promoted, or possibly even look at me like I've got two heads for asking. I can see the stories of people like me reflected in the history quite frequently. If I start saying other people who have been discriminated against for centuries cannot have what I have because I feel uncomfortable with doing the things needed to make that happen or I have lots of excuses why not, then I'm saying my ego and privilege as an already-privileged person takes precedence over justice and equality for them. I would say I have a responsibility and a duty to address historic discrimination that my group has enforced/profited from even when I feel uncomfortable with that. I'm sure I fall short all the time but it's what I aim for.

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. If we were all angels that could happen, but simply by virtue of being the sinful souls we are or by habits of upbringing, people will find excuses not to give up those privileges or not to give other people what they are due or will feel resentful or hurt when they are asked to think of others who - and this is a key part of being privileged - they have never had to think about or take into account before or give representation or visibility to.

Asking someone to give up their privilege of being able to ignore or marginalise LGBT history while hearing plenty about their own history is asking someone to treat LGBT people equally and has to take precedence over hurt feelings, just as I'm sure there were lots of angry and hurt feelings when women were allowed to train as medical students and men had to share their classrooms and get over their aggrieved feelings.

You don't get those hurt feelings now but not because people gave male feelings precedence over justice for women. They gave justice and equality precedence over male feelings to begin with and the feelings changed and people got both justice and comfortable feelings for everyone as a result.

If you wait for all the privileged groups to feel happy and graceful about ceding their privileges, then you'll expect the people who are discriminated-against to suffer that for a very long time, if not indefinitely.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
[I have massively cross posted again - slooooow!!!]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Things that annoy me that are touched on this thread:


 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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. It's not easy to pick out of the outrage, but according to the Daily Mail the National Trust banned workers from meeting the public if they didn't wear the badges, which the Daily Telegraph explains as:
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)


[ 08. August 2017, 22:15: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
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.

You can see how the Daily Mail and Telegraph are stirring up trouble by the way they both describe these backroom jobs as "chores".

[ 08. August 2017, 23:09: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Funny, aggressiveness is exactly what it took to start the modern gay rights movement.

Do you see these boards as an extension of that same campaign on the same terms? Think carefully before answering.
Why?

quote:

And read what I said to Pomona.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

On discomfort:
I don't see anyone here arguing for no discomfort.

On the one hand, discomfort is an inevitable part of change. It is certainly misguided to resist change merely because it causes discomfort (I suspect we all do, though, in many trivial areas of our lives, let alone important ones), but the discomfort in and of itself is not wrong.

Discomfort may be due just to us being set in our ways, and it might be due to bigotry - but it may also be a valid warning sign that something's not right. Have you never looked back on a situation that turned out badly and said to yourself "I felt uncomfortable about it at the time...", only to have ignored your uncomfortable feeling and regretted it?

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.

(ThunderBunk appears, to me at least, to be feeling something similar, albeit using different words).

Of course we should strive to progress civil rights, but I don't think this will be achieved long term if in seeking to progress some civil rights we trample others in the process, starting with the individual right to freedom of conscience.

(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?)

TL;DR: discomfort is not in and of itself bad and the reasons for it deserve exploring.

On privilege:

My personal experience is that becoming meaningfully aware of one's own privilege is not the product of activism on behalf of the minority in question.

Activism has a role, and might possibly make a majority intellectually aware of its privilege. But if there's nothing but activism, it may well actually harden the stance of the privileged.

(The really perverse bit to my mind - having learned of the Useful Idiot concept here in DH thanks to Joesaphat - is that this may actually be the intent of some militants, because it legitimises increasingly aggressive action.*)

Speaking for myself, the instances which have made me meaningfully aware of my privileges (i.e. which have changed my thinking and behaviour, hopefully for the better) have been the result of interacting with people who have become close to me in one way or another and who, rather than acting as activists, behaved as ambassadors unawares. The result being that when they fell foul of a lack of privilege, my empathy has been for them as a person, not as a cause, and been an immediate epiphany.

==
*Actual example: organiser of an intersex conference I attended actively inviting participants to go and burn a few uncooperative doctors' cars (whilst carefully ruling out doing so himself).

[ 09. August 2017, 06:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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:
(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?)
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.)

These volunteers have been presented with two things they may have found challenging together:

I suspect that the National Trust did not think through that presenting the change in history along with a LGBT+ campaign might be too much of a challenge to volunteers.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think those are some very helpful points, and seem to fit in with the "evidence" we have.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Agreed.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

(ThunderBunk appears, to me at least, to be feeling something similar, albeit using different words).

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.

In this case, however, I think I may have been wrong. It's not a generic Pride rainbow wash; it's a re-examination of the history of that particular property, which is incorporating a specifically relevant element of its history.

The process by which an NT property came into the form now seen is consistently relevant across all NT properties; the trigger for discomfort is clearly in this case the incorporation of the last owner's sexuality into that story.

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. Secondly, it made repression of someone's sexuality a condition for legitimisation of their story. This is in stark contrast of a heterosexual person, whose history of marriage and children is entirely naturally incorporated into the history of the buildings they inhabit, particularly if those buildings are of interest to a wider public.

All that is happening is that this unjust silencing is being corrected, and the story is being told in the way it would otherwise always have been. I don't see any special pleading or invented activity/outrage, and therefore nothing in that sense to prompt discomfort.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

(ThunderBunk appears, to me at least, to be feeling something similar, albeit using different words).

Sort of, but not really.
In that case I apologise for co-opting you into my argument.

With regard to what you say and the volunteers' reaction, I think CK's analysis is really helpful.

[ 09. August 2017, 07:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It is documented that much of the collection at Kingston Lacy was acquired by William Bankes who fled overseas in the 1800s to avoid prosecution for his activities with other men.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
If I might bring this to the conversation?

This article resonated deeply with me, and has put into a single pithy phrase my somewhat wordy circumlocutions.
quote:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty.
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.

Because while only a dick would be against basic human rights for all, this doesn't mean there aren't dicks out there, even working at NT properties. If, as Eutychus charitably posits, there are questions of individual liberty here, then the classic liberal position would be to allow those who wish to promote the exhibition to do so, without compelling those who do not to do likewise. We cannot compel people not to be dicks. We can compel them not to do people harm.

As with all peace treaties, it's going to be a messy compromise. I have no truck with the argument that I'm 'intolerant' of Nazis and am therefore against free speech, because they actually want me and my family dead. That, in the terms of the article, indicates that they have already broken the treaty. I do not wish them dead. I wish them in a position where they cannot harm me or people I care about.

I'm going to have to have a long think about this, and the limits of my own tolerance.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.

I'm not sure about this.
Why is the NT allowed no benefit of doubt, but the volunteers must be?

There is no peace treaty here to be violated, unless it is the old one where society was allowed to pretend LGBT+ don't exist and LGBT+ are also allowed to pretend that LGBT+ don't exist.

Should the NT have understood that older people are more likely to be homophobic? Yes.
What, then, should they have done?

[ 09. August 2017, 19:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It was a new story in the sense that the National Trust are now going to be interpreting the house in the light of new research - so the volunteer guides would be expected to disseminate the information that the last owner was gay and the history of the house in those terms.

I suspect that if the research had been introduced to the house without the campaign, some of the volunteer guides who are now unhappy would have left because they were not comfortable with the new history of the house, but that would not have been a story that the media would have covered in the same way.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'm not sure about this.
Why is the NT allowed no benefit of doubt, but the volunteers must be?

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.

It comes down to, ultimately, how I would like to be treated. If my employer/charity boss told everyone that they had to wear a red poppy from the end of October to the middle of November, I would be trying to get that 'had' changed to 'could', or even 'are encouraged'. I appreciate the analogy isn't perfect - the situation at Felbrigg is different, but from the volunteers' point-of-view, they (rightly or wrongly) believe that the terms of engagement that they thought they had with their supervisors has changed with the new emphasis on the sexuality of the last owner of the property.

I'm not arguing that the NT are doing anything wrong in moving the emphasis. Far from it. But acknowledging that it has changed, and acknowledging that some would feel uncomfortable about it, appears to have been badly handled.

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, as the exhibition and change in emphasis is going ahead. But a new peace treaty with these people, and people like them, needs to be agreed if we can. 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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It seems to me that the poppy thing is different, to the extent that it is rarely about pressure to wear it because it is part of an organisation's uniform but because there is societal pressure or semi-official pressure from someone unnamed to get people - particularly TV newsreaders for no particular reason - to wear them.

If one was working for a museum hosting the poppy sculpture (currently touring the North of England) then it might be entirely appropriate for staff and/or volunteers to wear a poppy lanyard.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It is different. But unless I come up with a ludicrous example of something that'd never happen in real life, it's all I've got.

There was a principled boycott of the Newcastle United strip when Wonga became the main team sponsors. Fans were forced to choose between buying that year's shirt (something that normally happens) and wearing an older one (something that fans don't normally do - no, I don't understand it either, but it's still a thing). Again, the situation isn't analogous.

Having an exhibition sponsored by BAE, maybe? I don't know.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Really? I think this debacle shows a different power dynamic than you seem to.
quote:

It comes down to, ultimately, how I would like to be treated.

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.

quote:

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,

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.
And, old they might be, but they are also adults. Did they deal with this as adults? No. They whinged, created a fuss so they would not have to be seen wearing a symbol of tolerance.

The NT missed this as an opportunity for a teachable moment. Instead of immediately caving in, they could have created a dialogue as to why this was important.


quote:
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.

Funny, though. The day history gives for the end of a conflict often pre-dates the its last victim.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

Really? I think this debacle shows a different power dynamic than you seem to.
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.
quote:
But I do not want my comfort at the expense of other people being treated fairly.
What do you have to say to CK's analysis of the volonteers' discomfort here?

quote:
And that equality isn't quite equal for everyone.
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.

In other words, in your mind gay rights trump workers' rights, every time. If an initiative advances the cause of gay rights (as you suppose) there can be no admission of mistakes, no "it could have been handled better", no accommodation and no compromise. Anyone differing is merely "whingeing". You will accept no truce (such as the one Doc Tor's thought-provoking article makes the case for) anywhere.
quote:
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.
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.

[ 10. August 2017, 05:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
For what it us worth, this year has been a crash course in people management, often unpicking and resolving a situation that has not gone well. I have had a fair bit of practice in standing back and trying to work out what the problem is and then how to resolve it with as many people saving face as possible. It is often the case that those involved have brought their past experiences and preconceptions into a sensitive situation and been triggered into reacting in ways that may not have been the most appropriate.

The National Trust accepting that not all the volunteers were ready to wear rainbow lanyards at Felbrigg Hall doesn't seem disproportionate to me, as a way to resolve the immediate issue and allow the campaign to take place. I would imagine that there will also be work with the volunteers to support them in understanding the new research and the ways this will be incorporated into the story of Felbrigg Hall.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by asher (# 97) on :
 
I've read this thread in bits, and what has stayed with me is how successive generations have different upbringings, values and experiences.

My dads generation was raised to regard homosexuality as wrong( it was illegal), his generation knows the world has changed, but it remains hard to move beyond early established patterns of thought.

I hope that my children and grandchildren will judge me with gentleness and kindness when I 'dont get' how the world continues to change.

I don't think that this thread has always been gentle and kind to the elderly volunteers whose life experiences might be so different to that of many posters here,

Cheers

Asher
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Well said.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Seconded. It's too easy to condemn people for manifesting attitudes with which we disagree - whatever those may be - without trying to understand why they hold them.

[ 10. August 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
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.

Thank you. This is worthy to be written in diamonds surrounded in gold.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I wouldn't actually go that far. I've no real interest in why someone is a racist or a Nazi. What I'm more interested in how to best neutralise the harm caused by their opinions.

If they want to be racist over there, with all their racist mates, they can knock themselves out. It's when they put their racism in my face that my tolerance becomes stretched. You don't want to get treated by a black doctor? That's fine. No one's forcing you. The door's thataway, try not to bleed too much on your way out.

(in reply to Baptist Trainfan)

[ 10. August 2017, 12:32: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, but if we understand why they feel like that then perhaps we may be able to help them change.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
why should I be gentle with someone's unjustifiable prejudice against other human beings?

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.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

So people have started campaigns to get more women onto the organising committees of conferences, to have zero tolerance for unpleasant-but-common conference sexual abuse, to stop having all-male panels and to start organising things like crèches.

Anyway, the white men who dominated the billing for some of these conferences for however long have sometimes objected. Some seem to particularly object to the idea that there might be small children at a conference or that funds are being used to pay for them.

The thing is that there is only so much of their shit that one can possibly listen to. If white male professors are going to object to the possibility of seeing a mother breastfeeding in a conference hall, then there isn't very much listening that one can do.

What are you going to do? Nod carefully as someone says that they want their privilege protected so that a woman never really gets the chance because they're old and never had to face this change before? As if the idea that a mother's right to be an academic presenting at a conference is up for debate?

It seems to me that this is in no sense a "purity test", it is simply facing the reality that there are women who need help going to conferences.

As I said, this is tangential to the NT example - however the reality is that the NT wants to expand their welcome to people beyond their usual constituency of middle-class heterosexual families and there are people who don't want that to happen. Either overtly because they don't want to welcome people who are different or because they don't want the NT to reflect anything beyond the Dunning-style version of aristocratic history of England or perhaps because they don't like their cosy club to be broken.

What are you going to do? Capitulate every time that a small hardened core of OAPs decide that something is happening that they don't like?

Or finally say that you've heard enough, that these people can use their consciences and not participate if they can't bring themselves to - but that you're not backing down just because they happen to feel a bit offended at the idea of welcoming people who are different to "their" NT property. Because for one thing they're a minority, for another they've had their own way for long enough, for another this is a temporary exhibition and for another this is just the damn way it is going to be for now on.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What do you have to say to CK's analysis of the volonteers' discomfort here?

This.

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:
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.
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:

In other words, in your mind gay rights trump workers' rights, every time.

Gay rights are workers rights. They are human rights, both of them. Gay v. worker isn't what this is about.
quote:

If an initiative advances the cause of gay rights (as you suppose) there can be no admission of mistakes,

Inaccurate. Typical of your all or nothing responses, though.

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 appear to be pretending it is libertarianism and and nothing else.


quote:

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,

That is the word we have. I asked for alternates, whatcha got?

quote:
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.

Did you fall from a window as well?
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"
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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!)

[ 10. August 2017, 15:57: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@lilBuddha - How do you know that the National Trust are not using this debacle as an opportunity to teach?

This whole campaign is about teaching how much of our heritage has been changed by LGBT+ people. Felbrigg Hall is still part of the Prejudice and Pride exploration of "themes of gender and sexuality" and the film is still being shown.

The volunteers who have objected at Felbrigg Hall have either chosen not to be on the rota through this 6 week period (that's in one of the Telegraph or Mail stories), have chosen to take back room duties or have been allowed to continue being guides without wearing a rainbow-coloured lanyard or badge. That last was the only concession that the National Trust made in this situation.

Good personnel management would also suggest that the people who objected will be discussing their difficulties when they are supervised / managed and maybe asked to undergo some training on inclusion, which would also be an educational opportunity. But that sort of personnel management would be kept private.

[ 10. August 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't think you are wrong to suspect this and I'm sure that the NT does want to reach out to them.

quote:
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.
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.

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. There are some, just not many.

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.

How exactly is that fair?

quote:
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!)
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
And it isn't just the NT, it is a feature of middle class Englishness to want to blot out "nastiness" in the history of buildings.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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"

Well, that's not how you're coming across. 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.

Clearly you don't think so.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

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").

quote:
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.
Surely any pretence (if it indeed exists) comes from the Trust itself, not the volunteers?

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.
Fair comment, but I think you may be muddling two aspects of social history there: class and sexuality.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

Though I went to the old Bristol Industrial Museum about 15 years ago, and the slaver heritage was given a very high profile.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
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.

Though I went to the old Bristol Industrial Museum about 15 years ago, and the slaver heritage was given a very high profile.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Fair comment, but I think you may be muddling two aspects of social history there: class and sexuality.

Not really: there is a more complex history in all NT properties than the most obvious story about privilege.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What do you have to say to CK's analysis of the volonteers' discomfort here?

This.


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.
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.

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.
quote:
Gay rights are workers rights
Your redefinition of language never ceases to amaze me. They clearly aren't the same thing, and sometimes they might conflict¹.
quote:
They are human rights, both of them.
Yes, but the fact that they are elements in the same set does not make them identical.
quote:
Gay v. worker isn't what this is about.
No, it's about a whole load of overlapping and sometimes conflicting interests, including but not limited to:

- volunteer management
- LGBT rights
- history, its erasure and its interpretation
- power relations in organisations
- change management
- etc.

Living in society, or within an organisation, is about managing all these and other issues - not just rights. This is achieved not through militant activism but through compromise and truces². That does not mean there is no place for activism. But there needs to be more than just activism. There needs to be room for dialogue and compromise.
quote:

quote:
If an initiative advances the cause of gay rights (as you suppose) there can be no admission of mistakes,

Inaccurate. Typical of your all or nothing responses, though.
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.

It's you who are taking an all or nothing approach by saying that this is about gay rights and nothing else.

quote:
That is the word we have. I asked for alternates, whatcha got?
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.


==
¹ To give an example from a field familiar to me, and return to Doc Tor's "truce" concept: smoking in public buildings is prohibited in France. Prisons are public buildings - but prisoners have the right to smoke in their cells. An accommodation has been reached between two apparently irreconcilable positions, and for good reason. It's not perfect, but it works. (In the UK, smoking has recently been banned throughout prisons and I am told that the current phase of jail unrest there is due in no small part to this).

² I recently completed reviewing the diversity handbook for a major multinational in my capacity as both translator and Christian leader involved in multifaith issues. The handbook (written by a consultancy founded by someone YouTube tells me is a militant atheist, but a very nice man especially because he paid on time) leaves me in no doubt that your attitude to rights in all their diversity would be entirely useless, if not downright destructive, in an organisational context.

[ 10. August 2017, 18:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@lilBuddha - How do you know that the National Trust are not using this debacle as an opportunity to teach?

The NT had a national platform to talk about why these sort of campaigns are important. They didn't grasp it.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
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"

Well, that's not how you're coming across.
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.

quote:

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.

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.
Second, but more importantly; I don't want anyone crushed or shamed. I am arguing about how much accommodation there should be.
I don't think the original position of wear the lanyard or work behind the scenes for the duration is an outrageous position.
BTW, the reaction of the volunteers really denigrates those behind the scenes workers.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

That the NT backtrack could as easily be about fear of negative publicity.
For the record, I don't think the NT consulted the volunteers for the campaign.
The the research coordinated nicely as part of the Pride campaign. Things were discussed, as per usual, and a plan was made. The decision was then announced to the volunteers in general. Just like every other campaign or exhibition.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

[ 10. August 2017, 19:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, the reaction of the volunteers really denigrates those behind the scenes workers.

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.

Or a church, for that matter. No one gets the slightest bit upset when I snap on the marigolds and do an extra stint on the coffee rota, but get asked to do a quick turn in the drama group and it's all "why did you get asked and not me?" (literally last week, said to my face. They did apologise, later)

The older I get, the more enamoured I become to the doctrine of Original Sin. We have to work with that. Compromise, even with our enemies (and acknowledging we do have enemies, sometimes through the mere fact of existing), is sometimes necessary. The Felbrigg refuseniks have comprehensively lost. Granting them one concession isn't going to change that.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.

[Two face] It does rather depend on what you do behind the scenes in amateur dramatics.

The last time I was involved in the local AmDram panto I not only made quite a few of the children's costumes but spent the run in the scout hut out the back of the village hall, minding the children and getting them back stage on cue. This was slightly complicated by this being a run of Robin Hood with Babes in the Wood, so two of the principals were back with me.

The night I had off the other mothers in the hut continued with their gossip and chit chat whilst minding the kids, not realising the reason why I'd been sitting in the corner reading was that I was listening into the feed from the stage and reading the script. Apparently it did not go well and I was welcomed back with open arms by absolutely everyone the next night.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one think a Starbuck's shop is gay because it has a rainbow flag.

We've been here before.

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. Well you can, but...

The rainbow flag at Felbrigg was there because of new gay history, not because they were trying to mimic Starbucks.

quote:
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.
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.

Several people have argued on the basis of historic symbols for slavery or whatever. Twice now I've put forward a Black Lives Matter T-shirt as a similarly charged symbol today and nobody's discussed it.

I think a better strategy for the lanyards would have been an opt-in policy.

Meanwhile, perhaps the NT could learn something from Invictus. Yes there's an ultimatum, but what a way to win over uncomfortable staff. No requirement to wear an ANC lanyard either (and if you know the film, you'll know the next scens shows just how uncomfortable some of the black staff felt.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It does rather depend on what you do behind the scenes in amateur dramatics.

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).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, the reaction of the volunteers really denigrates those behind the scenes workers.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one think a Starbuck's shop is gay because it has a rainbow flag.

What would that mean? It likes other coffee shops? It doesn't get turned on by the greengrocer's shop?

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:

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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.


Well you can, but...

The rainbow flag at Felbrigg was there because of new gay history, not because they were trying to mimic Starbucks.

quote:
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.
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.

[ 10. August 2017, 20:39: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Apologies. I screwed up the post and the edit. everything after

No one assumes every worker supports every thing an organisation does.

Isn't supposed to be part of the post.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Has someone on this thread mentioned that most other movements for rights for historically marginalized groups do not have symbols as universally recognized as the LGBT+ rights symbols?

Rights for people of African heritage (and their history in general) can be represented by the pan-African flag colors of red, black, and green, but many people wouldn't necessarily recognize them. 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).

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one assumes every worker supports every thing an organisation does.

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.

And I hold this to be true however worthy I believe the cause to be, and in fact doubly so if I do think it's a worthy cause.

==
* Even if they are broadly sympathetic to it, they may not wish to be cast as advocates for it, still less without having reached that decision independently.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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).

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:
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.
I think that's one of the things that makes it a) so contentious b) hard to find good equivalent examples.

==

*Perhaps a lapel pin based on Brenda's Iron Ovary (Second Class) award?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't think this follows. Why would I care what Starbucks thinks about marriage equality?

The simplest explanation for having a rainbow flag is that the coffee shop in question is trying to signal that people from a particular minority of the population are welcome because they want to sell them expensive coffee. They're waving and saying "hi guys, please come in here and buy coffee, it's very nice and we're not going to let anyone hassle you".

I think it is actually quite easy as a capitalist business to separate any support for politics and rights causes from seeing particular communities as potential markets.

One can be a raving homophobe and simply put up the flag to sell gays coffee. Why not?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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*?

If I ever went to the Pankhurst residence, I'd hope any male volunteers were wearing this badge.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It would astound me if an employer compelled its employees to wear a cancer awareness ribbon symbol or similar. Once again, those campaigns are powerful to the extent that they are opt-in.

And start losing their lustre real fast (for me at least) once you get despised for not opting in (cf poppies).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd hope any male volunteers were wearing this badge.

If I were wearing that I'd be on the lookout for angry feminists accusing me of doing the equivalent of Rachel Dolezal.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
In fact that's a strange idea all over. Am I claiming to be gay by wearing a rainbow flag?

Can't I be celebrating that gay people exist? Honoring those that fought for rights?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

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.

[ 10. August 2017, 21:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:
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.
Black Lives Matter seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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?

Cultural appropriation?
quote:
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."
In my experience treading the line between support and appropriation is not easy.

I can immerse myself in Manouche (French Traveller group) culture well enough to be assimilated. They can genuinely forget I'm a gadjo.

I have however learned to temper the satisfaction I feel at being able to achieve this with the awareness that I can opt out any time it suits me to do so - in other words, assert my privilege. When I do, I can see the look of confusion on the faces of my Manouche friends.

I can be "all things to all men", but only up to a point, for by the grace of God, I am who I am and need to come to terms with that too (what poor Rachel Dolezal obviously can't manage to do).
quote:
Black Lives Matter seems pretty straightforward to me.
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

Or a hand-pressed pomegranate lemonade for that matter.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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?

Cultural appropriation?
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.

The raised fist is a black power symbol, not a Black Panther salute. Though they have used it. Walk around with thislLogo on your shirt, some might have an issue. Or the black power fist by itself. However, in context of BLM, not so much.


LGBT+ material is pretty inclusive, in general.

quote:
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.

With the understanding that BLM isn't a black power movement, would you still feel uncomfortable?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
a tangentially related site
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.

If it's about a lanyard then please stop continually swiping at the validity/relevance of LGBT history at this site. I heard the spokesman for rejecting this campaign on the radio explicitly advocating the continued erasure of gay history at this venue and so far there's not a single cheep from any of the other refuseniks to contradict his sentiments, just a lot of ingenious conjecture by various shipmates as to how this might not be about what was explicitly stated into my lugs by the man himself on the radio who was speaking for the others.

How would I feel about encouraging Gay or Lesbian friends to visit this venue for the history? I'll tell you. Worried. Worried that I would be letting my pals who have enough anti-gay prejudice to deal with in their everyday lives in for another dollop of prejudice by recommending it. Do people here think that LGBT people don't have enough prejudice to cope with in their lives without not being able to do a simple thing like visit a historic house without wondering if they're going to get some more?

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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would astound me if an employer compelled its employees to wear a cancer awareness ribbon symbol or similar.

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.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
During breast cancer awareness season whole NFL teams wear pink articles (socks, shoes, towels, jerseys, etc) in support.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Which is why it's important it's their own decision to do so.

quote:
With the understanding that BLM isn't a black power movement, would you still feel uncomfortable?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
a tangentially related site
Felbrigg Hall isn't 'tangentially related'. Its last owner who left it to the Trust was gay.
I'm sorry, I wasn't happy with that word when I posted it.

Firstly and most importantly here, as CK says it is newly related. That makes a difference, and it especially calls for a greater degree of accommodation of expectations (tolerance in the sense referred to by Doc Tor) than a site better-known for its gay past.

Secondly, even if the owner was gay and even if (as one gay person has argued here) the site's aesthetic value was enhanced by this being repressed, it is not and probably never will be associated with the history of the gay rights movement in the way, say, the Edmund Pettus Bridge is with the civil rights movement (in more ways than one, as I suddenly learn who it was named after!).

To this extent I think that having an exhibition on site that addresses the issue of the owner's homosexuality and relates to the wider topic of how minority sexual orientations were experienced at the time is entirely legitimate - but that making it a symbol for gay rights as a cause is not.

(As I said earlier, I wouldn't expect to be welcomed at every site relating to a black person by someone sporting a BLM T-shirt unless, as a minimum, their race was bound up with the history of the site, or more legitimately, the site epitomised the issues at the core of BLM today.)

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
I heard the spokesman for rejecting this campaign on the radio explicitly advocating the continued erasure of gay history at this venue
I didn't, but I'm sure he didn't put it that way!
quote:
and so far there's not a single cheep from any of the other refuseniks to contradict his sentiments
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.

I respect your struggle to combat erasure but if people expressing discomfort in the face of suddenly shifting history get met with nothing more than cries of "homophobe!", there's not much room for dialogue.

quote:
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.
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).

It's in danger of emptying the symbol of its power. I'm sure we could all tell stories of our customer experience at the hands of staff sporting badges saying "happy to help"...
quote:
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.

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:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
During breast cancer awareness season whole NFL teams wear pink articles (socks, shoes, towels, jerseys, etc) in support.

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.

Either way, I have to say that as far as I'm concerned, unless there is an event that concerns an entire sports team (such as a death of a player) I personally feel the authentic power of the symbol is diluted by it being obvious that nobody in the team has really had a choice in whether to wear it or not.

In fact I've just remembered I argued the case against the England football team wearing poppies in a FIFA game for not dissimilar reaons.

[ 11. August 2017, 05:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Which is why it's important it's their own decision to do so.

If an institution is doing a programme on BLM, no one is likely to be bothered at all for wearing BLM materials.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In fact that's a big steaming pile of nothing.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In fact that's a big steaming pile of nothing.

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?

It can't be both.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
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).

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.
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.

In much the same way that I can come home from my BLM demo and take off my t-shirt, while my friend and sister cannot go home and take off her skin.

[ 11. August 2017, 06:37: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Sorry, just to clarify, I meant "sister" in the non-familial sense. I don't have a black sister.

(Although Mrs Eutychus, who is whiter than white, has black friends who forget she is white to the extent of addressing epithets to her which would probably get me banned if I were to post them.)
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Just a thought. Would people expect volunteers at John Lennon's to be compelled to wear a "I l♥ve the Beatles" badge - or volunteers at Keir Hardie's house (which I very much doubt is in the NT collection!) to wear a Labour Party badge? I ask simply because the Beatles and the Labour movement are obviously germane to both places - neither of which would be visited for any architectural or aesthetic reason.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think you might expect enthusiastic wearers of both in both places because the places are important particularly, perhaps uniquely, because of the attendant history and so are unlikely to attract Stones fans or Tories to work there.

CK has argued why that's not the case at Felbrigg better than anyone, I think.

[ 11. August 2017, 06:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I did wonder that ...!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
You do have an easy time at work, don't you?

I have had to wear green for Macmillan when we've been (compulsorily) fundraising for Macmillan, spots and yellow for different years when ditto for Children in Need. It has been suggested that we wear jumpers for another fundraising event, that fortunately I have avoided. I've had to wear Jeans for Genes*, Christmas jumpers for another event, I'm sure there's more. And if I don't have the right stuff in my wardrobe I have to go and buy it.

* I'm allergic to nickel so that one is a total pain, literally.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
You do have an easy time at work, don't you?

Why do you think I'm self-employed? [Biased]

(actually I need seriously to get on with some gainful self-employment here [Help] )

[ 11. August 2017, 06:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I feel like I'm falling between two stools here.

I totally accept (because people suck) that the reason why a minority of the volunteers objected to wearing rainbow lanyards is because they were homophobic - anything from vague discomfort to full-on Daily Mail outrage.

The question is then, "what do we do about it?". From a management position, that 10% of your workforce is homophobic enough to want to signal that in public really only becomes a problem when you're trying to put on an exhibition about the last gay owner of the property. Notwithstanding that there may have been some problems beforehand, because not everyone who visits a NT is straight (or white or middle-class), but those issues could be safely dealt with out of the glaring spotlight of publicity and/or painted as a one-off.

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?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I would hope that the National Trust will be working with those who have objected to the new information about Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer and Felbrigg Hall being a part of the Prejudice and Pride exhibition. If they were employed, not volunteers, this would be an automatic part of managing their roles. Volunteers at the National Trust do have managers who help volunteers plan their involvement and training to meet the needs of the roles. (source).

I agree that those volunteers need to accept that if they are going to continue working in a public facing role they will need to move with changes in society that mean their role now involves welcoming everyone and meeting their needs.

However, I suspect that what we are seeing in the Press is to a degree manufactured outrage. The story started with the Daily Telegraph reporting the "outing of Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer" and then moved on from there. I can't find it, but my daughter said her local paper had letters from indignant volunteers at one of the NT properties in her area, annoyed that the Daily Mail had been asking them if they were upset about the rainbow lanyards - because they weren't - it was apparently a well-known story and no surprise that that property was a part of this campaign.
 
Posted by asher (# 97) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
why should I be gentle with someone's unjustifiable prejudice against other human beings?

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.

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?

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.

I meant to write earlier that I went to Norwich pride as part of Christians at pride. I saw the NT display about felbigg and spoke to the NT volunteers ( they were mainly young).


Cheers

Asher
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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

Yes, indeed.

Of course, the irony of the situation is that the controversy was allegedly started by relatives of Ketton-Cremer (and not, as far as I can see, the volunteers themselves) because he was 'intensely private' and would not have wanted to be 'outed'. Well, far more people know about him now than would have been the case otherwise!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The Daily Telegraph article headlined National Trust 'outs' Norfolk squire as gay 48 years after his death when the film was released doesn't mention relatives. This was publised on the 21 July. The letter from the godson in the same paper, was published on the 26 July (that one is behind a pay wall), and the article about the indignant godchildren was published on 29 July. I am not convinced this story came from relatives.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I swear this is my lunch break.

quote:
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?

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.

I've said before on this thread that I'd put odds on our church being the first in the region to bless a SSM. If and when that happens, my challenge as a leader would be to affirm a genuine welcome to the couple whilst also having a duty of care with regard to the emotional, financial, and other investment - and consciences - of some in the congregation who may be "uncomfortable" (sic) for a whole range of reasons.

I think a part of that is the kind of "truce" you mentioned and I think Paul's teaching on how we treat our brothers and sisters on matters of conscience is absolutely relevant here.

(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).

What I am never going to do is stand up in church one day and say "this church is now pro-SSM. Turn up cheering at the ceremony or GTFO".

As in the Invictus office scene linked to above, some people in our congregation might start packing their boxes as soon as any such announcement was made. I think far more would want a discussion. And I think the "silent majority" would, like de Klerk's former staff, stick around and see how things turned out. Again as in the film, there might be a few surprises on either side but I'd like to think that within a few years we'd have brought a sizeable chunk of people along with us.

TL;DR: some contexts are inevitably battlegrounds; others are supposed to be safe, learning environments.

I hope this makes some kind of sense.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
And looking at the Black Civil Rights struggle, being patient has lead to the stalling of progress and some regression.
And it isn't just gran. If you break down the approval ratings by age and strength of approval, it is mum as well. It is only when we get to the level of twin and older sister are the numbers more solid.
I don't wish to beat up old people or marginalise them. But I don't want them doing that to me either.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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).

You'd burn a cross in their garden, but only out of principled rejection of agenda, not hate?
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I don't want them doing to you either, or anyone else I care about. Or other people I don't know but abstractly care about.

They have to accept that social mores have changed. We have to accept that they don't think they've changed for the better. I don't think that there should be discrimination in the public sphere - the rules we agree on as a society are the rules by which we should all abide, whatever our actual opinions.

Now, what do we do about campaigning against those rules? How do we (a loose, fractious band of social progressives) want to be treated, and how do we treat others?

That is where both them and us have to agree on something.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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).

You'd burn a cross in their garden, but only out of principled rejection of agenda, not hate?
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.

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.

(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.)

[ 11. August 2017, 16:13: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The first sentence was hyperbole, of course. Angry hyperbole I will admit.
But if can not understand why his statement generated anger, I don't think there is much of a conversation to be had.

[ 11. August 2017, 16:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.)

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.

*Insert any minority here.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.)

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?

Under the assumption that a minority of the people living in the area are racists, perhaps the first family are more likely to agree to a truce with the racist next door than the provocateurs?

Essentially, I think "you either accept people or not" isn't the binary statement you make it out to be. There's quite a spectrum between a warm welcome and a burning cross, and Doc Tor's peace treaty lives somewhere in the middle.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@lilBuddha - How do you know that the National Trust are not using this debacle as an opportunity to teach?

The NT had a national platform to talk about why these sort of campaigns are important. They didn't grasp it.
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.

In fact The Guardian coverage describes a "concerted pressure in the rightwing press in support of those who refused to wear the badges".

I missed this earlier, but in the 29 July story in the Daily Telegraph, National Trust criticised for "outing" country squire, the goddaughter, Mrs Spencer, 78, is quoted as saying:
quote:
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.
And in answer to a query about sublimation of sexuality, in the Daily Telegraph article of 21 July,
quote:
Mr Wyndham Ketton-Cremer, ... <snip> ... spent many years restoring Felbrigg before bequeathing it to the nation.


[ 11. August 2017, 17:17: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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?

[ 11. August 2017, 17:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[big x-post]

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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).

You'd burn a cross in their garden, but only out of principled rejection of agenda, not hate?
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.

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.

Did anyone see Loving? It tells the (true) story of how a US ban on interracial marriage got overturned through a test case.

In it you see not only the bigotry of the people opposed to interracial mariage, but also the hell the Lovings go through by allowing their marriage to become a test case - and their hesitation in doing so.

In that case their marriage was entirely innocent, in the sense that they didn't enter into it because they were trying to prove a point; they were simply in love. It was quite a while before they agreed to become a test case.

When it comes to a (hypothetical) local first in a church blessing a SSM, I can imagine gay rights activists being on the lookout for a good forum in which to establish a precedent and doing so, not primarily in the interests of the couple, still less that of the church involved, but solely in the interest of a good and media-optimised test case. I would see that as a complete abuse of what a church community is all about.

If were to get the impression that a same-sex couple arrived in our church with that primary aim in mind, I would find it very difficult to call the shots appropriately.

Not least because as a pastor I would be considering the impact not just on the couple but also on the gathered community, as part of my duty of care. There may be a cause and it may be just, but there are other important factors that should not be ignored.

[ETA just skimmed CK's thoughtful post. If there's going to be outrage, I'd like to be sure everyone has had a full and unpressured opportunity to think things through for themselves (cf the Lovings) before entering the fray. Like the NT volunteers.]

[ 11. August 2017, 17:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are still putting conditions on acceptance of a group.
How is this not fucked up and prejudiced?

Because it depends what you mean by acceptance.

By acceptance do you mean "invoke and apply your legal rights", or do you mean "actually being recognised as a friend and neighbour like everyone else"?

You can force people to accept the exercise of your legal rights, but you can't force them to come to terms with it.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

Of course it's fucking prejudiced. People are prejudiced.

From Doc Tor's earlier post,
quote:
We cannot compel people not to be dicks. We can compel them not to do people harm.
If the racist neigbour grumbles in his soup about living next to n-words, but otherwise ignores them, is he actually doing any harm?

And if the grumpy old racist muttering to himself isn't really doing anyone any harm, isn't repeatedly poking him being a bit of a dick?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Response to Eutychus
Does SOF have a garden? Because we could have a prize winner with all the fertilizer be dumped here.
Straight, white people simply get to be. Everyone else must dance to their tune.
That is what your words say.

[ 11. August 2017, 17:45: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm sorry you feel that way and sad about the deep sense of rejection that your post communicates.

I'm not going to apologise for being a straight white male because as I said earlier, I find solace in Paul's words that "By the grace of God I am who I am". I think that can apply to everyone no matter what their sex, race, age, and everything else. As someone with a pastoral calling my heart is to see that diversity embodied in a community of believers.

If you're ever this way I invite you to come and take a look. I promise we'll do our best to minimise your discomfort.

As I've said, I've come to terms with the need for activism and I respect your right to be an activist. I'm sad, however, that you can't seem to find it in you to come to terms with the need for some peacemakers.

[ 11. August 2017, 17:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
In the incredibly unlikely event this happened near me, my reaction would depend on whether or not the black family knew what was happening.

If they knew, I'd be wary of them because they sound like extremist ideologues; if they didn't know, I'd feel concerned for them for being manipulated by extremist ideologues. Either way it'd change my attitude towards them, but I don't think it'd reveal anything interesting about race.

The whole scenario sounds bizarre. I suspect the disagreement here might just be because the analogy has become too stretched.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.

And not impugning the motives of the hypothetical black family, which I take in very poor heart.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sorry. It was my fault for carrying on down that road and taking the analogy in a different direction.

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.

That applies all ways round, incidentally. If the oppponents at Feltrigg Hall were the pawns of an orchestrated anti Prejudice and Pride campaign, it changes the game too.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
With a bit of experience, and generalising wildly here, the actions usually reveal something about the motives before too long.

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).

[ 11. August 2017, 19:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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).

But they could also be from the local Mormons. They do that.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
They could be gay dudes, checking out the hot pastor... [Razz]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the Mormons, even sans badges, would be easier to spot.

(I was in a meeting a few years ago at the Préfecture about chaplaincy services at which two guys from Intelligence were actually introduced. They sat away from the table, said nothing, and took notes. It felt like being in the Eastern bloc.)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
They could be gay dudes, checking out the hot pastor... [Razz]

No, they hit on me directly.
 
Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :
 
quote:
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.

This is a probably a dumb question, but what did they want?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Intelligence. They go round seeing what the local churches get up to.

A pastor friend from the UK applied for French nationality in the 1990s. You get an interview with the intelligence services for this too (although a lot of people don't realise that's who the interview is with, they think it's the police). They pulled out a tract his church had given out over ten years previously. The adult niece of another black friend was asked in the same type of interview whether she had ever been in a demonstration. She replied (truthfully as she recalled) "no". Whereupon they pulled out a photo of her at a demo when she was, if memory serves, about 15 and in junior high school.

In the chaplaincy meeting I think they were mostly interested in the inner politics of one of the faith groups represented.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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).

Might be true. Does your suspicion alter the way you treat them?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Good call. No. We're like the National Trust: for ever, for everyone [Two face] (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).

Your question also reminded me of a phonecall I had a few months ago which keeps us off DH topics but is relevant in response. It went something like this (excuse the length):

Caller: Hello, I worship with X church down the road, I'd like to come and worship with you on Sunday, is that OK?

Me: Fine! Of course you're welcome.

Caller: There's just one thing. I fall over.

Me: Oh?

Caller: Yes, the Spirit comes on me, I can't help it, I'd much rather it didn't happen, but it's so powerful, I thought I'd better let you know... would that bother your folk?

Me: Well, it's not something we're used to, but we're a pretty relaxed bunch. As long as it isn't really disrupting the meeting you'll be ok. If we find it's bothering people we'll just let you enjoy the presence of God in an adjacent room until it wears off, OK?

Caller: Good. Oh, I get signs, too.

Me: Oh?

Caller: Yes, signs of the cross appear on me.

Me: Really! How interesting etc.

Caller: Nobody else can see them. But it really bothers me. I wish God would deliver me from them but there it is, he wants me to have these prophetic signs. But I never tell anyone about them.

Me: Oh.

(we continue in similar vein for an age)

Caller: There was this lady who saw the sign of the cross on my forehead.

Me: Really? I thought you said nobody but you could see it?

Caller: Indeed. But when I pointed it out to her, she could definitely see it.

Me, as politely as I know how: You've spent the last quarter of an hour telling me about how you don't want to draw attention to yourself and don't tell anybody about these miraculous signs, but you've just admitted you actually do tell people about them...

<Caller hangs up and is never seen in church>
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Good call. No. We're like the National Trust: for ever, for everyone [Two face] (seriously, we really do try hard to be this.

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.

Which is rather why I'm asking.

To go back to your earlier example, you said that you hadn't blessed a same-sex marriage, but you didn't see any real reason why you wouldn't, and then you started talking about activists and test cases.

So hypothetically, imagine a gay couple shows up at your place wanting their marriage blessed. Do you really do anything different based on whether you suspect them to be a normal couple, or whether you suspect them to be seeking some kind of propaganda?

If they are aiming for some kind of propaganda stunt, what do you lose by sitting them down, explaining your church's requirements for marriage blessings (membership? marriage prep classes?) and discussing the things that you will and won't let them do in the ceremony, just as you would with a "genuine" couple?

I understand that you might have suspicions about their motives, but I'm not sure what you think you gain by treating them differently.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

A brief scrolling back suggests I never actually said I would treat them differently, at least at the outset.

With my pastor hat on, I would take basically the same approach with anyone, and much as in my example above, hope that the kind of discussion we had allowed the real motivations to emerge (my surprise at the disclosure I got from the caller whose story I told was surpassed only by his subsequent abrupt hanging up, by the way). We'd have to see how that discussion developed.

For any marriage blessing (or other BMD event), especially in the (rare) case of complete strangers, part of that conversation for me is about the ceremony being meaningful for everyone there, which will raise a number of questions about what kind of a profile the couple (or faimily, or whoever) want to have for the event and why they want it with us.

In the hope of not adding fuel to another fire, I see a parallel with people who barge in virtually demanding you remarry them (I have already told of the pastor I know who divorced his wife to marry his mistress and proclaimed their child the "lock" on their union invoking David and Bathsheba) compared to those who creep in weighed down with guilt and angst wondering if the could possibly still have admission to the Kingdom of God after a stupid screwup, possibly at the hands of some church or other, in early adulthood, and needing affirmation and reassurance more than anything else.

[ 11. August 2017, 20:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I must be getting old, I'm into my anecdotage.

Back in my not-so-pro-gay days I did a funeral of a gay guy whose mother was in our church. His partner doorstepped me about 10 minutes before the funeral and asked to read something out. I was ... you guessed it, uncomfortable, but he assured me it was "nothing polemic" so I gave him the go-ahead.

That funeral was a big step towards me accepting civil partnerships by the way, because I realised that in its absence the deceased's legal next of kin could, if they had so wished, have frozen the surviving partner out of the ceremony and of the estate, great or merely sentimental in value (to say nothing of the lack of reversion rights, but I only found out about that later).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm sorry you feel that way and sad about the deep sense of rejection that your post communicates.

It is annoyance, not rejection.
quote:

I'm not going to apologise for being a straight white male

Nor should you. If apologies you owe, it is for your words.

For straight, white males power is normative. Because of this, it is more difficult to understand the dynamics of that power.


quote:

As I've said, I've come to terms with the need for activism and I respect your right to be an activist.

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.
Part of the problem, I think, is that you sympathise, but do not yet empathise.
Not your fault, completely. You would have little reference to do so.

quote:

I'm sad, however, that you can't seem to find it in you to come to terms with the need for some peacemakers.

Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Going back to double check that the new film about Felbrigg Hall wasn't reported earlier than in the Daily Telegraph, I found this opinion piece in the Guardian, entitled The National Trust has become an easy target for conservative hysteria and the suggestion that what the National Trust is facing an attitude of:
quote:
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.
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).

The comment piece covers many of the issues discussed on this thread including that the National Trust is making "baby steps" to change and could do much more but "the conservative commentariat is determined the National Trust" is to be challenged for changing anything. Shades of the same right wing press on Brexit.

It suggests that the problem becomes: if the British public is willing to change (witness the 7000 people who joined the National Trust in the middle of this furore), how can we make the right wing press reflect this?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If apologies you owe, it is for your words.

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?

quote:
For straight, white males power is normative.
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.

It does not absolve you from addressing the argument.

quote:
Part of the problem, I think, is that you sympathise, but do not yet empathise.

I recently gave a presentation at an international academic research symposium on the topic of empathy, and I think you have that exactly wrong.

As I understand it, I cannot express sympathy for experiencing minority oppression as it relates to this discussion because I am not actually in that position. I am however doing my best to practice empathy, i.e. understand what you are feeling from within your frame of reference.

And if I might say so, what's coming across here to me from your posts is a lack of empathy, the capacity to place oneself in another's position, and that's what's making this discussion difficult.

(Example: characterising my expression of how I feel about my position as "Hehp, help! I'm being gaypressed!").

quote:
Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.

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.

(I would argue that the (fragile) peace in Northern Ireland was achieved by that route, same for the end of apartheid, and I think that any resolution to ISIS, North Korea, etc., will begin along these lines.

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.

I reflected back to you 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? If so, show me".

I've had no answer (you completely ignored that entire post). That offer is still on the table.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Curiosity killed:

quote:
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).
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, and in any case there's a big difference between being a member and getting active as a volunteer. Those tourists mentioned by NEQ aren't going to know or care about the current kerfuffle or the points raised in the Guardian article.

My wife and I are members of Cadw. Why? Largely because we like visiting their places and it gives us entry for a year. And, whenever one goes to a National Trust or English Heritage etc. property, one is actively encouraged to become a member for that very reason.

[ 12. August 2017, 08:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Membership is actually 2.22 million according to the National Trust Annual Report 2015/16 (pdf) page 7 so yes, from their figures they'd be expecting roughly 6000 members joining a week in annual membership (rough ball park figures), with the around 85% retention of members.

240 members is 0.01% of members.

Apparently the Trust has 60,000 volunteers giving 3.1 million hours, equivalent to 1,590 full time staff.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
//continuing tangent

Googling "membership of the NT" gave me this.

If membership has fallen from 4 million in 2011 to 2.2 million now, something is clearly amiss.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.

[ 12. August 2017, 09:51: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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

[ 12. August 2017, 15:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which words, exactly?

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.
You also have tied to minimise the importance and scope of the campaign and tried to characterise it as activism. So, most of your words, not exactly particular words.
quote:

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)

Yes, some statement have been made angrily to you. In legitimate response, IMO.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by lilBuddha:For straight, white males power is normative.

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.

I do not play it every time. It is, however, the basis of much of the inequity in our society.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Part of the problem, I think, is that you sympathise, but do not yet empathise.

I recently gave a presentation at an international academic research symposium on the topic of empathy, and I think you have that exactly wrong.

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:

quote:
Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.

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.

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:

(I would argue that the (fragile) peace in Northern Ireland was achieved by that route, same for the end of apartheid,

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.
A better example on your part would have been Mandela not seeking the retribution that would have been understandable had he done so.

quote:
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.

Nor I, you. Oh your good with make nice, pretty pretty words, but then you make statements and analogies which contradict understanding.

quote:

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?

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.

[ 12. August 2017, 16:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I have said innumerable times that there is an issue re: homosexuality and its recognition here, but also that it is not the only issue. The fact that it is an important and worthy issue does not make the other issue trivial, if anything it makes the other issue gain in importance for me.

quote:
You also have tied to minimise the importance and scope of the campaign and tried to characterise it as activism.
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.
quote:
Yes, some statement have been made angrily to you. In legitimate response, IMO.
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.
quote:
It is, however, the basis of much of the inequity in our society.
OK. Well perhaps we can take that as read now and move on.

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.
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?

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.
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.

quote:
Ending Aperthied, and any that began in oppression, was made possible by confrontation.
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.

And besides, even if there is still a role for confrontation, I really don't think this forum is it. We're not a bunch of protestors and counter-protestors here. We're trying to have a discussion (or at least I am).

quote:
Nor I, you. Oh your good with make nice, pretty pretty words
Can you explain how statements like that are supposed to help constructive dialogue? How is that respect? What do they add?
quote:
but then you make statements and analogies which contradict understanding.
Then the adult thing to do is either to ignore them or seek clarification, not cast around for insults.

quote:
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.

Fine. Thanks for the clarification; that's helpful.

It's particularly helpful to me because the part of the conversation I'm interested in is the less likely explanations, whether real in this situation (which we'll never know) or more broadly, in other situations in which people are unwilling to be enlisted in a cause by the organisation they are working or volunteering for.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


Originally posted by lilBuddha

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.
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?
You apologised for going down the wrong road, but you didn't retract what you said. There is a massive difference.
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 12. August 2017, 19:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
That you chose to impugn the motives of the black family before addressing the racist behaviour of the whites.

That.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have no idea if that's what LB has against what I said, but let's take that pending her answer. There might be a genuine misunderstanding here.

I said:
quote:
did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?
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?"

Which is what I tried to clarify here:
quote:
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.

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.

Does that help?

[ETA I didn't say anything about the whites' prejudice at all. My thought was that how the ensuing dynamic played out would be very different if the scenario I imagined for the new arrivals was true]

[ 12. August 2017, 20:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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:
(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).
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.

I believe you're better than that.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

I wasn't considering the bellicose racist teachers at all. That's why it was stupid of me to try and pursue the analogy.

I was considering how catering for a newly-arrived oppressed minority in my church would go down differently depending on whether that oppressed minority came spontaneously or with an agenda, and that is why I picked up only on that half of your analogy. Which, again, was dumb of me.

Can I look you in the eye and say my initial assumptions about anybody and their motives are never impacted by my prejudices? No. Who can? But so help me God my next mental move is to struggle to overcome my prejudices in assessing the situation. That said, in responsibilities in which I have a duty of care towards a community, I would be a fool if I were not to take steps to discern newcomers' motives.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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:
(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).
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.

Pretty much. Establishing a condition on acceptance isn't acceptance. It is just more subtle expression of "know your place".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

They are not separable. As the ongoing racial inequities and LGBT+ struggles demonstrate.
Without acceptance you have people legally being allowed to live anywhere, but being barred in practical application. AKA, redlining.
Intolerance will always be with us, the best we can hope for is reduction. Excusing it does nothing to reduce it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Establishing a condition on acceptance isn't acceptance. It is just more subtle expression of "know your place".

Ok, so we're back to where my last attempt to discuss acceptance with you ended here.

Some years ago a friend of one of my kids inadvertently parked her car so that it blocked our next-door neighbours' garage (where we live it's actually quite easy to do this unwittingly). So what did my neighbour do? Did she ask round the street whose car it was to ask them to move it? No. Not even next door. She got the car towed.

No question, she was absolutely within her rights (indeed I marvel at her ability to get them enforced so fast). You could say that now, on the street, we "accept" her parking "rights". Did it encourage us to accept her as a good neighbour? No. Could our oppression of her garage rights have been better resolved for all of us? Certainly. (Fortunately we get on OK now. We have her keys while she's away).

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Intolerance will always be with us

No doubt.
quote:
the best we can hope for is reduction.
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.

Not everyone on the other side is an extremist. And some people who could be won over will be turned off if they feel they are being co-opted against their will.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
But you've already accepted that your kid's friend's car was illegally parked. So would the driver, I expect.

What we have at Felbrigg is a bunch of people parking in the newly-painted disabled bays (because they've always parked there) and raising their middle fingers at those who might object.

Now, obviously, there needs to be some compromise. "You can park over there, we've extended the car park, we've made part of the car park staff-only". But the people who are parking their cars need to acknowledge that they can't park where they used to, because the rules have changed regarding disabled access.

I regret introducing analogies. We can talk about the thing instead of talking around the thing.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I regret introducing analogies. We can talk about the thing instead of talking around the thing.

That sounds like a great idea to me.

I don't think I'd be infringing LGBT+ rights by opting not to wear a rainbow lanyard.

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.

If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe", it's not likely to make even the least bigoted very welcoming to those concerns. It will fuel prejudice, on both sides, not foster tolerance.

I also think the way the NT is using the rainbow flag is inconsistent and confusing.

It has been claimed they are trying to promote their universal LGBT+-friendliness (as suggested by this photo, from here. I can't help wondering, incidentally, whether the people in the picture were picked on an opt-in basis or not).

However, this campaign is not about that; it's about promoting specific sites, not as especially LGBT+-friendly, but as specially relevant to LGBT+ history.

That seems a mis-application of the rainbow flag to me, as it is a contemporary symbol, not a historic one.

Not only that, the same page and campaign lumps LGBT+ history in with a ménage à trois (admittedly of three women) at Smallhythe Place. I'm not quite sure what that says. Is the campaign, and the rainbow flag, advancing the cause of three-way relationships too?

[ 12. August 2017, 22:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

One membership, four members. I was going to make the same point.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

We've been over this. The lanyards are symbols of the campaign, they were not intended to communicate the wearers position.
quote:

If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe",

There is nothing to show this was implied by the NT or that the objectors felt this.


quote:

That seems a mis-application of the rainbow flag to me, as it is a contemporary symbol, not a historic one.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Not everyone on the other side is an extremist.

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.
 
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :
 
quote:
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.

The may also be separating life memberships from annual memberships.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The lanyards are symbols of the campaign, they were not intended to communicate the wearers position.

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.

Failure to recongise this demonstrates poor management by the NT in my view. To me it looks like they failed "diversity in the workplace 101".
quote:
quote:

If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe",

There is nothing to show this was implied by the NT or that the objectors felt this.
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).

And again, whether or not the original volunteers did experience it that way, I still think the NT handled a diversity issue badly.

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, 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.

(I know some people here think this episode is an example of bigotry backfiring by serving to raise awareness of the campaign, but I think that's over-optimistic. I think it's a way of the media cynically fuelling culture wars for their own gain. You can see this in how the Telegraph and the Guardian have used the NT membership figures to bolster the perceived prejudices of their respective readerships instead of examining the different possible explanations as has been very thoroughly and objectively discussed by some here).

quote:
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.
You speak in mysteries here (at least as far as I'm concerned).

quote:
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.

How do you see that applying here?

[ 13. August 2017, 06:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Sorry, that last quote is lilbuddha's, not mine obviously.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It strikes me that, had the NT produced a little badge, complete with rainbow symbol, but quite clearly specific to this exhibition and asked volunteers to wear it, none of this kerfuffle would have happened.

Or else it would have confined the debate to the premise debated at the start: that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" and would never have agreed to such an emphasis being made at Felbrigg.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Yes, I don't disagree - although we must always be wary of predicating on historic figures how we think they would have behaved under different circumstances. Anyway, we've had this bit of debate before and it wasn't the primary point I was wanting to make.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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]

1. Again, what are the people in this photo supposed to be communicating?

Are they supposed to be communicating "each of us has been made aware of LGBT+ issues and are willingly demonstrating our support for them by wearing the rainbow flag", or "my boss told me to wear this t-shirt and smile?"

2. Is there no point at which you personally can imagine yourself balking at a symbol your boss asked you to wear, either because you fundamentally disagreed with what it signified or because you felt your employer had overstepped their prerogatives?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Looking at the age range of the participants in that photograph, I suspect they are likely to be happy to support an LGBT+ promotional campaign. I find it interesting that they have managed to gather a group of younger volunteers, which isn't the profile I imagine when I think of National Trust volunteers (from those I see at the places and shops I visit, although the volunteers on Inner Farne were young).

I haven't been asked, so far, to support a campaign I'm not prepared to endorse (Macmillan, Children in Need, Save the Children, GOSH, a small international charity providing health care and education in Namibia). As an adult in education we are expected to set a good example and that includes by endorsing different initiatives.

[ 13. August 2017, 11:49: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

[Confused]

1. Again, what are the people in this photo supposed to be communicating?

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
CK: Thanks, but that doesn't really answer either of my questions.

1. If one takes the view that volunteers and employees simply wear whatever symbol they are given to wear and no questions asked, it can hardly be taken as a meaningful display of corresponding acceptance on their part. Which to me would imply poor management, worse volunteer management, and terrible diversity management.

(Also I note you seem to have assumed they got a choice about appearing in the photo - ie you think it was on an opt-in basis. Why?).

2. My question was not about your past experience but about whether you could imagine a situation in which it might pose a problem for you.

Interestingly, the fact that you used the word "endorse" suggests to me that in fact you don't simply see yourself as a clothes-horse for your organisation.

[ 13. August 2017, 12:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
In my current role working with young people, I do have to endorse the organisations we, as a company, are supporting. Those young people will be asked to take part in fundraising or voluntary efforts towards whichever charity it is and I have to explain and encourage that involvement. I do read up on the charities and make sure I agree with them. In this current company I can't really see that I would be asked to endorse something I don't agree with, because the charities the company supports are pretty much related to the company's aims.

But I have argued against Operation Christmas Child and refused to support it in church. In contrast I backed and ran Fairtrade initiatives, mostly as an opt in, although we did agree, as a church, to move to serving fairtrade tea and coffee.

In answer to the question about the photograph, I assume the National Trust are using it to show that they have support from their volunteers for LGBT+ issues. I suspect from the demographics of those in that picture that it is an opt in. 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).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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).

It's Hurst Street, so in the heart of Birmingham's Gay Village.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

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".

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.

[ 13. August 2017, 13:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

No, you're making that whole apples-are-oranges argument again. The NT asked for volunteers to represent them at another event.

In an event in their own properties the NT expected volunteers to do what they were asked.

Surely that's fairly normal practice.

quote:
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".
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.

And yet you keep insisting it must be the thing you say it is.

quote:
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.
It seems like you think good organisational management involves people banging on about minor issues and getting themselves in the national press.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.

Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.

They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Definitely Birmingham Gay Pride from this page*.

I do keep coming back to that out of the 11 properties involved in Prejudice and Pride, Felbrigg Hall is the only one that has objected¹. And that the original 10 who refused to wear the lanyards in the Daily Telegraph article of 4 August and Eastern Daily Press story of 2 August increased to 75 in the Daily Mail on 4 August, updated on 5 August. Further down that article the Daily Mail gives the number of volunteers unwilling to be involved numbered by the National Trust as 30.

In addition, the original story on 21 July was in the Daily Telegraph. The story didn't originate with the family and friends of Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer, the first stories that involve them are a letter from 26 July and a story from 29 July, or from the volunteers, when the first story originates from 2 August in the Eastern Daily Press and is picked up by the national press on 4 and 5 August.

The National Trust, managing these volunteers, started with 10 people unwilling to wear lanyards and badges out of a team of 350 and offered alternative opportunities. Then the National Trust was caught up in a media storm - with stories in the national press on 21 July, 26 July, 29 July, 2 August, 4 August and 5 August, At the same time the number of those opting out at Felbrigg Hall rose from 10 to 30 and possibly higher. I am not sure the National Trust were mismanaging this situation originally. To deal with an orchestrated reaction, the National Trust chose to relax the requirement to wear these lanyards at this property, which again seems proportionate as a way of dealing with a situation that was spiralling out of control.

* I was looking for the list of properties when I found that article
¹ The Daily Mail article of 4 August also says
quote:
The trust said it was unaware of complaints by volunteers at other properties.
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.

[ 13. August 2017, 14:46: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, you're making that whole apples-are-oranges argument again.

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:
In an event in their own properties the NT expected volunteers to do what they were asked.

Surely that's fairly normal practice.

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:
It isn't being used as a symbol of advocacy in the context it was used.
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
quote:
It seems like you think good organisational management involves people banging on about minor issues and getting themselves in the national press.
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 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.

[ 13. August 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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,

That is exactly what happened. The way you phrase it implies they didn't.

quote:

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.

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:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
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.

You speak in mysteries here (at least as far as I'm concerned).
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?

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
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.

How do you see that applying here?
What do you mean by here?


quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.

That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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,

That is exactly what happened. The way you phrase it implies they didn't.
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.
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.
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.

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.
You want a period appropriate symbol? Perhaps this?

I'm trying really hard to keep the snark out of my posts. Could you do the same?

The problem to my mind is not that the rainbow symbol isn't sufficiently demeaning or hostile [Roll Eyes] , it's that it's an anachronism that is too bound up with a current advocacy cause to be imposed on wearers.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

How do you see that applying here?
What do you mean by here?
Felbrigg Hall.
quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.

That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.

Exhibit 1 (I'm sure there are others, this is just the most recent):
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.



[ 13. August 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.

Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.

They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.

Quite. If you want an example connected with another NT property, just look at the second Lord Faringdon at Buscot Park, who seems to have been a very ripe (and ISTM rather wonderful- I like his politics and I warm instantly to anybody who can absentmindedly address the House of Lords not as 'My Lords', but as 'My Dears' ) example of a comparatively flamboyant mid-C20 gay man. Curiously enough Buscot seems not to be part of the Prejudice & Pride thing: I don't know why, but I can only guess that this may be because the current Lord Faringdon, who administers it, didn't want it to be.

[ 13. August 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I have a dress code for work and I had to sign I would accept this when I signed up for the job. We ask all staff to do this, even temporary staff. It's actually not brilliant for the work required in some aspects, e.g. we are not allowed to wear trainers, but we have to be able to run after absconding students.

The National Trust says:
quote:
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.”

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm trying really hard to keep the snark out of my posts. Could you do the same?

The snark helps me keep this here in DH.

quote:

The problem to my mind is not that the rainbow symbol isn't sufficiently demeaning or hostile [Roll Eyes] , it's that it's an anachronism that is too bound up with a current advocacy cause to be imposed on wearers.

Way to miss the point. There is no symbol appropriate to Ketton-Cremer's time. Anachronism is a blind, intentional or not.


quote:
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.

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.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.

That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.

Exhibit 1 (I'm sure there are others, this is just the most recent):
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.


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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
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.

If you can't see that this has nothing to do with it, I can't help you.

quote:
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
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.

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:
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.
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.

The reality is that a small number of volunteers got their knickers in a twist, supposedly about something else altogether. And then the keyboard warriors are somehow uniting to say that their rights are being abused, which is clearly nonsense. And then when challenged on this point, they pivot and claim it is about the use of a fucking flag.

I mean really.

quote:
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.
I don't really care any more.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I think, on reflection and much reading around, that I've come to a settled conclusion.

The NT have mostly done entirely the right thing throughout. If they've done anything wrong, it was assuming that they didn't have a small bunch of asshats volunteering at Felbrigg Hall. When confronted with the asshats, they may have panicked a bit, because the NT is actually a genteel and nice organisation, and local managers are probably more used to complaints about scones and loose dogs than they are reactionary socio-political arguments about LGBT issues, of which they may be only tangentially aware of.

I appreciate the importance of getting people on board with new initiatives, especially volunteers who can reasonably withhold their labour without suffering the economic consequences of a full-blown labour dispute. Perhaps earlier communication could have helped, but it may also have exacerbate the problem. We don't know that.

It's also reasonably clear that the small group of volunteers who objected to the rainbow lanyards were doing so because they didn't want to be associated with a symbol of LGBT emancipation. They may have various reasons for that, but I'm also reasonably certain that for many of them, it's because they believe that gay people should have fewer rights than straight people.

That, in and of itself, presents a management issue, because there is absolutely zero doubt that gay people will have visited Felbrigg before this current furore, and undoubtedly have encountered these volunteers in their professional capacity. There may have been some unpleasant behaviour from the volunteers to these people. There may be some in future, because of the exhibition. Knowing that some of your volunteers may well discriminate against some of your visitors isn't an enviable position.

So, I'll be interested to see where the NT takes this next. I suspect that they'll try and simply ignore the problem until the next time, adopting a fire-fighting strategy rather than explicitly requiring all volunteers to re-dedicated themselves to welcoming visitors regardless of their race, age, sexuality etc.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think one this is for certain: they're not going to be asking volunteers for their comments on uniform.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
some of us don't really give a shit what people who aren't involved think of the flag.

What's your involvement? Just curious.

quote:
Oh god, you really just used the Milgram experiment as some kind of argument about your perception of a flag.
Yes, because it was, albeit in an extreme way, as I conceded, devoted to
quote:
focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
If you can't see that this has nothing to do with that, I can't help you.

quote:
quote:
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
I'm not sure why you are asking me to explain other people's reactions
Because you brought it up again.

quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.

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:
when challenged on this point, they pivot and claim it is about the use of a fucking flag.
What is this flag supposed to communicate about the occupants of Smallhythe Place?
quote:
I don't really care any more.
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

It suggests to me that they were surprised by the bigotry they encountered and nonplussed by the reaction.


quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Orginally posted by mr cheesyI don't really care any more.
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
Perhaps he communicating how what you post makes him feel. I'm told that is a valid thing.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think, on reflection and much reading around, that I've come to a settled conclusion.

Very solid and reasonable conclusion.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because it was, albeit in an extreme way, as I conceded, devoted to
quote:
focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
If you can't see that this has nothing to do with that, I can't help you.
But as I've told you several times now, this isn't how this thing went down.

1. There is a programme promoted by people from within the community to encourage businesses and others to use the flag to show that LGBT+ people are welcome

2. This is exactly how the NT said they were using the flag.

3. Volunteers who objected to the flag - for whatever reason - were given the opportunity to volunteer in other ways or even not volunteer at all during the programme period.

4. A small number of disgruntled volunteers moaned via the local media in a really pathetic way to pretend that this was all about the dead owner and nothing about not-wanting-to-give-a-welcome to the gays.

5. As a result a bunch of other people started some kind of campaign.

6. In order to kill the story, the NT changed the policy, in the process highlighting that there were volunteers at this property who did not want to show that people from a particular community were welcome.

7. As a result of this, keyboard warriors somehow think this is an example of bad management, bad volunteer management, bad PR and bad whatever-else-you-think-of-today.

8. Using the most disingenuous argument possible, you say this is like Milgram.

9. No doubt you are now going to try to pretend that the reaction means something-something-something-something about you and gays because

10. This is really all about you.


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.
There is nothing to compromise. The NT is going to welcome LGBT+ people. If the volunteers don't like it, don't volunteer.

If you don't like it, don't go to NT properties. Perfectly simple.

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.
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.

quote:
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.
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.

Just that gay and trans people are going to be recognised, welcomed and hopefully not feel threatened whilst coming to a NT property at this time when their hidden history is being explored.

quote:
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
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.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
Having been away for the weekend, I now contribute my blinding revelation. This is pure Downton Abbey syndrome: the NT is now completely hostage ot a weak, poorly thought out, Daily Mail version of our history. This matters because history tells the story of the present.

God help us all to get a clue from somewhere.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.

Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.

Firstly from the Daily Telegraph article that started this debacle:
quote:
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.”
And in the Daily Telegraph article of 29 July:
quote:
[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.
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.

There was no mention of Lord Mountbatten's homosexuality in the 1985 Philip Ziegler official biography. Anything that has been generally know now is from later publications, and since his death.

The Bloomsbury set are all long dead and have been mythologised since their deaths. Again it's questionable what was public in their lifetimes.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
the NT is now completely hostage ot a weak, poorly thought out, Daily Mail version of our history.

I agree, with the proviso that I think that this version is fuelling extreme positions on both sides.

I do however think there are underlying issues worth discussing beyond the unknowable facts of how things went down at Felbrigg Hall.

For instance: Compromise, even with our enemies (and acknowledging we do have enemies, sometimes through the mere fact of existing), is sometimes necessary.

And to my mind there is a valid discussion to be had about organisational coercion and how it sits with the balance between individual conscience and authority, especially when it comes to improving the enjoyment of minority rights and everyday acceptance of minorities.

I persist in thinking the NT's message in this respect is inconsistent and that there are lessons to be learned about volunteer management and diversity management.

However...

quote:
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

(That's just a sample from your most recent post).

I have had enough of being the butt of offensive language like this here.

Earlier on I said that discussion
quote:
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)

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.

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).

If you choose to see that as a victory, I think it's a pretty Pyrrhic one.

[ 13. August 2017, 19:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It suggests to me that they were surprised by the bigotry they encountered and nonplussed by the reaction.

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.

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.

[ 13. August 2017, 19:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

You've taken the wishes of other people to have a flag to recognise a welcome as a personal insult and you've bundled that up with other grievances to make it sound like this is enough to change your mind on equal marriage.

Because somehow the attitude of other people is more important to you than the issue. Can't you see the problem there?

quote:
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).
Nobody said you had to answer, that's all on you.

What is making me very cross is your refusal to actually engage in anything that I've said and instead to insist that your understanding of the rainbow flag is somehow like the milgram experiment.

You said that, not me. You lowered this discussion to that level, not me.

quote:
If you choose to see that as a victory, I think it's a pretty Pyrrhic one.
[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

There was no reason to make this an opt-in, it has worked well in other NT properties and was not seen as any kind of problem by 80% of volunteers at this property. If the other volunteers had either quietly got on with doing other things, given volunteering a rest for a few weeks or just gone off in a huff, this wouldn't have been an issue at this NT either.

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?

What if somehow a majority of volunteers had been shamed into not wearing the lanyards? Is that acceptable?

[ 13. August 2017, 19:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

We're in danger of going back to square one.

Lanyard wearing is not optional. We are literally arguing about the coloured pattern on the lanyard. And arguing about the rights of people who refused to wear the new lanyard rather than the old one.

I'm not going to suggest that symbols are not important. They are. I've already said that I would be uncomfortable about being made to wear a poppy, due to a principled stand against what I see as it being co-opted, with the connivance of the RBL, as a celebration of war, rather than as an act of remembering the fallen.

But be in no doubt, if that was to happen, my employers/managers would be in absolutely no doubt as to why I was taking a stand. Neither would anyone who asked me.

Now, what is the Felbrigg volunteers principled stand about? Denying gay people's place in history, denying them their human rights, not seeing them as equal citizens, not wanting to welcome them to 'their' property? Pretty much all that?

The only reason my defence of the NT is not absolute is because there is a marginal issue of how the change between one lanyard and another was managed. It doesn't stop the refuseniks from being utter asshats.

And as their manager, I'd be absolutely seeking written guarantees from them that they were going to behave with utmost courtesy and respect to all visitors, even if they turned up in full RuPaul drag and quoting Round the Horne.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[x-post]

quote:
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 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.

I.support.equal.marriage.

Specifically, I am in favour of France's Mariage pour Tous, I have a few unanswered questions about surrogacy. I am also in favour of churches having the option, in principle, to bless SSM. I'm not going to spend time detailing my positions on various other LGBTQI issues.

That does not however mean I have to grant unconditional support to any and every policy depicted as LGBT+-friendly¹, or the tactics employed². I dissassociate myself entirely from any form of absolutism, and that includes absolutism on behalf of causes I generally favour. When reasoned discussion gives way to invective, my tendency is to conclude the presence of absolutism.

quote:
You've taken the wishes of other people to have a flag to recognise a welcome as a personal insult
That is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation on your part.

quote:
Because somehow the attitude of other people is more important to you than the issue. Can't you see the problem there?
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 I believe that if one loses sight of the fact that one's enemy is also another person, one has lost sight of one's own humanity.

That does not imply kow-towing to their every whim, but it means engaging with them on an adult basis unless they absolutely refuse to comply, and even then they should be dealt with in as humane and non-degrading a way as possible. That includes the language used about them.

quote:
What is making me very cross is your refusal to actually engage in anything that I've said
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.

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.
² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That is an entirely unsubstantiated allegation on your part.

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?

Why are you so bothered about the flag if you are not personally insulted by it?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
quote:
They instead choose to talk to the Daily Mail.
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].

quote:
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?
That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
quote:
What if somehow a majority of volunteers had been shamed into not wearing the lanyards? Is that acceptable?
No. No more than if a majority of volunteers had been shamed into wearing them.

[ 13. August 2017, 20:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships?

No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.

(In other words, the amount of adultery and fornication that took place upstairs at most stately homes is also a matter of historical record. Why hide a threeway lesbian relationship as if it's somehow more shameful?)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[x-post]

quote:
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 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.

I.support.equal.marriage.

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.

My point is simply that you seem to have said several times, including recently, that your position on these topics is related to the behaviour of the activists pushing the agenda and/or those who are talking to you about it.

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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:

² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.

That you cannot see that this resembles an excuse to avoid engaging in acceptance is part of the reason why this discussion has been less than amicable.


ETA: Holy X=post, Batman!

[ 13. August 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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?

That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
Right. And once again with 300 volunteers that's not only impractical, that's impossible.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[ETA I think this answers Doc Tor's post above too].

I don't. I think it is an easy way out of addressing his post.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
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?

That is exactly what I would have done for an issue like this.
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If you are a volunteer or a employee of an organisation in a role charged with making visitors welcome and you do something that doesn't make a group welcome, then one might think it is you that has a bit of a problem not the organisation which has asked you to wear a minor bit of clothing.

I probably wouldn't wear a poppy if directed either, but then I wouldn't put myself in a situation where it looked like there would be a scenario where this would happen (I wouldn't work or the British Legion, Commonwealth Wargraves Commission etc) and if I was in a situation where this came up and I was in a massive minority then I'd walk away.

If I worked for a museum holding a poppy exhibition, then I'd have to think long and hard about whether a poppy lanyard was appropriate for the exhibition (which it may well be) and if it was whether I was an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there during that exhibition.

I can find much to agree with in your last two paragraphs.

As to your first paragraph, while the NT may have a general mission to make their sites welcome "for ever, to everyone" I think it's fair to say that making a positive stand for LGBTQ issues is a departure from their normal activity in a way that "celebrating" war dead at war graves is not. The rainbow lanyard is no more a "minor bit of clothing" than a poppy, and it is new, more specifically at Felbrigg Hall.

The question of considering whether one is (still) an appropriate person to work and/or volunteer there is legitimate, but if one has all one's volunteers' interests at heart people should not feel ostracised or forced out and wherever possible, leavers' investment in many ways over the years to a site should be recognised whatever differences there may have been.

I think it's quite possible the developments at Felbrigg meant some of these people felt disenfranchised, this was not handled sensitively, and that the gay issue may have been more of a hook to hang that on than the real underlying problem.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Does the rainbow flag mean support for three-way relationships?

No less than your support for heterosexual marriage means support for three-way relationships.

(In other words, the amount of adultery and fornication that took place upstairs at most stately homes is also a matter of historical record. Why hide a threeway lesbian relationship as if it's somehow more shameful?)

I'm genuinely confused, because of this example in particular, about whether the Prejudice and Pride exhibition is about rehabilitating the lifestyles it highlights and affirming them as legitimate or not.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is that correct or not? Are you or are you not tempted to "jack it all in" with regard to LGBT+ issues because you feel other people are not respectful enough?

This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it's fair to say that making a positive stand for LGBTQ issues is a departure from their normal activity in a way that "celebrating" war dead at war graves is not.

Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues".

It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is not the inquisition; I've said all I've got to say on this here.

OK, well I think most people understand that the rightness of a position about human or legal rights (or even common decency about welcoming people who are very different to oneself) is independent of the offense one feels at the way protagonists put their case.

Indeed, making decisions as to the rightness of a cause based at all on respectfulness and niceness seems a doomed project.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:

² e.g. less-than-optimum volunteer or diversity management. By the NT or anyone else.

That you cannot see that this resembles an excuse to avoid engaging in acceptance is part of the reason why this discussion has been less than amicable.
You're right, I can't see this. Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?

To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.

It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You'd run a site with a 350 person committee? This is insane. They wouldn't be able to decide what biscuits to have in the kitchen, much less anything of importance.

No, but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.

Yes. I'm having trouble understanding why this is a problem; the general air of many NT properties is about genteel but slightly balmy aristocratic families, clearly this is a slice of a different viewpoint but isn't the whole story either.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It clearly isn't. It is simply about making people from a particular community feel welcome.

Where are you getting this from? As I understand it this lanyard is tied in with the Prejudice and Pride initiative. It is not NT-wide. The scope of this initiative is here. The page mentions the NT's mission statement but nowhere on there that I can see does it suggest that this is about "making people from a particular community feel welcome".
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
There was acceptance amongst some at least of the volunteers at Felbrigg Hall before this exhibition was launched on 25 July. The film that was reviewed on 21 July and is part of the exhibition features volunteers from Felbrigg Hall for the live action.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.

I don't think the National Trust is a volunteer organisation. It is an organisation with a lot of staff supported by a lot of volunteers.

There is no sense that the National Trust exists to give things to do to volunteers. Some charities exist for this purpose, the NT isn't one of them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain to me how wearing a rainbow lanyard is "making a positive stand or LGBTQ+ issues"

Sorry, I missed the first part. What I mean by that is that it is identifying with a particular advocacy issue over and above the norm. This to me is made clear by the fact that the NT has associated it with the Prejudice and Pride initiative.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The National Trust give the reason for the LGBT+ campaign as:
quote:
"Some have asked why Prejudice & Pride is necessary – why the lives of people who challenged conventional ideas of gender and sexuality should be made public and celebrated in this way. The answer is quite simple – to do anything less is to suggest that same-sex love and gender diversity is somehow wrong, and keeping these stories hidden only lets prejudice – past and present - go unchallenged."

 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where are you getting this from?

<grinds teeth>

From the organisation set up to encourage businesses, museums and other organisations to use the rainbow flag to show that LGBTQ+ people were welcome and the press release from the NT explaining why they were wearing the rainbow flag. Both of which I linked to pages ago.

quote:
As I understand it this lanyard is tied in with the Prejudice and Pride initiative. It is not NT-wide. The scope of this initiative is here. The page mentions the NT's mission statement but nowhere on there that I can see does it suggest that this is about "making people from a particular community feel welcome".
NT press release

quote:
“All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our founding principles when they join us – we are an organisation that is for ever, for everyone. We are committed to developing and promoting equality of opportunity and inclusion in all that we do regardless of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

“Relating specifically to the Prejudice and Pride programme, we do recognise that some volunteers may have conflicting, personal opinions.

“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation. We encourage people with any concerns to chat to our teams. As part of Prejudice and Pride we have worked closely with Stonewall and the University of Leicester who have been providing training and support to help as many volunteers as possible feel confident to take part.”

As part of our ‘Prejudice and Pride’ programme our staff and volunteers are wearing rainbow badges and lanyards, as an international symbol of welcome.

Some volunteers at Felbrigg have said they feel uncomfortable wearing these and we have offered them the opportunity to take a break from front facing duties if that’s what they would prefer.

They were wearing the lanyards to make LGBTQ+ people feel welcome at the exhibition.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm genuinely confused, because of this example in particular, about whether the Prejudice and Pride exhibition is about rehabilitating the lifestyles it highlights and affirming them as legitimate or not.

I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.

I thought the exhibition was simply about stating that these things happened, had been erased from history, and that reinstating them gave us a more full view of the past. (The squick factor for some arrives because they think gays are modern invention.)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.

It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
No. It is broadening the account.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
but I think that for a volunteer organisation to engage in a broad consultation of its committed volunteer base before engaging in a significant change of direction in its implementation of diversity issues would avoid a whole lot of problems.

Like Doc Tor said, we cannot know things would have been different, but odds are they would not have been.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?

No one said it was
quote:

To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.

This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
mr cheesy:

As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.

It makes no sense to me to argue that the rainbow is being used in the rollout of an organisation-wide acceptance of LGBTQI and at the same time explain it is being used to highlight specific historic exhibitions at a limited number of sites or welcome LGBTQI people specifically to those exhibitions. I can make either of those make sense, but not both.

[ 13. August 2017, 20:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sorry, I missed the first part. What I mean by that is that it is identifying with a particular advocacy issue over and above the norm. This to me is made clear by the fact that the NT has associated it with the Prejudice and Pride initiative.

I don't think it is really fair to say that the NT itself is advocating anything as part of the Prejudice and Pride exhibition.

If they are, it is simply that there should be space for an unheard community to talk about the hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in their properties.

I don't think one normally suggests that an organisation putting on an exhibition is campaigning or advocating for that position, are they? The NT isn't lobbying parliament or sending boat-loads of volunteers to wave banners outside court.

At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


As far as I'm concerned that's their ex-post attempt at justification, not a before the fact explanation.

Oh right. How do you know that then?

quote:
It makes no sense to me to argue that the rainbow is being used in the rollout of an organisation-wide acceptance of LGBTQI and at the same time explain it is being used to highlight specific historic exhibitions at a limited number of sites or welcome LGBTQI people specifically to those exhibitions. I can make either of those make sense, but not both.
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm confused that you're confused. That's like saying an exhibition on Richard III affirms regicide.

Well if the words "accepting", "celebrating", or "welcoming" were attached...? I'm not best-placed to comment, but it to me it could look from this inclusion as if LGBTI+ values encompassed three-way relationships. Do they? Amidst all this discussion of acceptance, I'm wondering whether the message is that these should be accepted too. At least one gay Shipmate spent some time on one occasion explaining why three-way relationships were a whole different kettle of fish to SSM.

(I've almost started a thread on 3-way relationships in DH as I've seen the subject come up a couple of times in the news lately).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I think this is an entirely red herring, and one that is unfortunately right on the script for conservative Christians opposing gay relationships: if we let them do this, then it'll be bestiality and pederasty next.

So I'm not even going to go there, and I'm going to suggest that you don't either.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

A person can be gay and be in a monogamous lifelong relationship or have regular casual sex with many people.

Accepting a person as gay means accepting that this is as much part of their nature as a person's skin colour is part of them. It isn't necessarily accepting or promoting the messy relationships that they're into - any more than the NT has been supporting various forms of adultery down the years by talking about the messiness of aristocratic families.

[ 13. August 2017, 21:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?

No one said it was

Then what did you mean by this?
quote:
quote:
To me, engaging in acceptance on the sole terms of one of the parties is not acceptance at all.
This is basically "tolerate my intolerance".
You keep pushing the least likely scenario for the problem, and ignoring that it still leads to the dissenting volunteers being less than accepting.

It's not "tolerate my intolerance". It's a balancing act. I pushed back against the (to my mind, intolerant) scenario that "all non-lanyard wearers are homophobes". You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
One might say that the NT is supporting two person monogamous relationships by allowing weddings in some of their properties and isn't supporting other things by not allowing people to marry their dog, campervan or favourite rock - but I'd suggest this is more do to with the law of the land and economics than because they as an organisation feel particularly strongly about it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
At most they're allowing others who do want to advocate for that position space to do so.

I would be fine with that. Exactly the same policy should have been applied for their volunteers (opt-in).

Note that your scenario above is utterly different from trying to send a corporate message about the values of the entire organisation.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh right. How do you know that then?

Can you find anything from before the fuss supporting your position? I think the statement is confused.

quote:
Both seem consistent to me, what's the problem?
See my above post. How can the same organisation use the same symbol both to be creating space for some special advocacy and simultaneously argue it's deploying an organisation-wide value? It's certainly confusing for me.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


Note that your scenario above is utterly different from trying to send a corporate message about the values of the entire organisation.

I'm sorry I must be getting old because I simply cannot understand what you are talking about.

The facts are that there is a hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in NT properties. It is also a fact that the NT has a longstanding interest in encouraging more people from more minority groups to visit and engage in the history of their properties.

In a general way they want the NT to be a more welcoming place for LGBTQ+ people.

In a specific way, they've put on this exhibition and they're trying to ensure that any LGBTQ+ people who want to visit are made to feel welcome as per their general policy of inclusion.

Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Why is good volunteer management and diversity management antithetical to engaging in acceptance?

No one said it was

Then what did you mean by this?
Just so you know, working backwards through that is a bit confusing. Basically, I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.


quote:
You may well be right about what actually happened at Felbrigg Hall but I think there's a more general discussion to be had.
The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Where is the contradiction? I'm not seeing it.

I don't think I've said it's a contradiction. But it's not the same thing in terms of what it says about the organisation's commitment (or otherwise) to specific advocacy. The latter is firmly within the realm of diversity management and organisational change.

If the NT is trying to rebrand itself as an overtly LGBT+-friendly organisation then I don't think these lanyards are going to be the last we hear about it.

[ 13. August 2017, 21:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.

It isn't.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.

I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.

quote:
The discussion is being had. On one side; the logical, reasonable and most likely interpretation and on the other; yours.
Personally I think that if the prevailing mood is that this is just to highlight another example of minorities being oppressed, it should have been a rant thread and it should have been in Hell.

Which seems like a good place for me to stop for now.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please explain how welcoming LGBTQ+ people is advocacy.

It isn't.

No, it isn't. It doesn't require a rainbow either. But making a visible, explicit commitment to it in the form of a symbol synonymous with an advocacy movement is, to my mind, a form of advocacy.

And with that I'm really stopping (at least for now).
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I don't think the exhibition aims to either legitimise or rehabilitate anyone. It is aiming to explain the influences on the houses and properties as part of their histories. The National Trust seems to be trying to move from the sanitised country house histories to telling some of the hidden stories, without making any moral judgements that would be required to legitimise or rehabilitate.

It's moving from one selective account to another. Well, that's probably inevitable. History is always as much about the teller as it is about the subject of the telling.
No. It is broadening the account.
Broader, perhaps. But nonetheless selective, in the story which is told and in the emphasis applied to and the interpretation placed on different parts of it. As I say, I see no way that it could not be so.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I was saying your using of "proper volunteer management" looks like a red herring.

I quite understand that's not your primary concern. But it is one of mine.
This doesn't address what I said, but slides around it.

quote:
Personally I think that if the prevailing mood is that this is just to highlight another example of minorities being oppressed, it should have been a rant thread and it should have been in Hell.

The prevailing discussion is on the true dynamics of the situation. Most of the contributions to this tread have been measured and reasoned, nowhere near a Hell thread.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

If they are, it is simply that there should be space for an unheard community to talk about the hidden history of LGBTQ+ people in their properties.

The NT talks about comparatively mundane history associated with its buildings. It's not something I particularly care about - if I go and look at an old building, it's because I want to look at the building, and I'm supremely uninterested in who the 13th Earl was shagging or why. It's really not something I care about - so I tend to skip past that kind of stuff.

What I'm looking for at a historic property are technical details about how the building was built, how the ornamentation on the ballroom ceiling was done, and so on.

But apparently lots of people don't care about that stuff, but do care about the 13th Earl's sex life, and the NT should tell the stories of the gay aristocrats just as much as it should tell the stories of the bed-hopping adulterous ones, the happily-married ones, and whoever else.

Historically, the gay stories haven't been told as much, and we all know why. So making a bit of a song and dance about "now we're telling these stories" is eminently reasonable.

There seems to be some disagreement about whether the use of the rainbow flag means LGBT-welcoming, or LGBT-rights promotion and activism. At some level, it means both. Can you welcome gay people without explicitly supporting gay rights? Well, that depends on who you are. If you are, for example, a church, then "welcoming" gay people has to include blessing their relationships and treating them as equal brothers and sisters in Christ, and allowing them to serve in all your ministries on the same terms as straight people. That's basically the same as advocating for equal rights for gay people - it's hard to do one without the other.

If you are a coffee shop, on the other hand, then welcoming LGBT people merely requires you to offer friendly service to the two young ladies on their first date, and not to glare at them if they have the temerity to hold hands.

[ 14. August 2017, 04:02: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
There's a great deal in that last post which I welcome. However it does, I think, fall down at one point: there are some NT properties (eg John Lennon's house) which are only of interest because of the human interest attached to them, not their architectural merit. Granted, you may have no interest in going there (me neither) but it does mean that, at least for some properties, your argument doesn't work.

PS I like the church/coffee shop contrast.

[ 14. August 2017, 06:51: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.

Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.

They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.

Quite. If you want an example connected with another NT property, just look at the second Lord Faringdon at Buscot Park, who seems to have been a very ripe (and ISTM rather wonderful- I like his politics and I warm instantly to anybody who can absentmindedly address the House of Lords not as 'My Lords', but as 'My Dears' ) example of a comparatively flamboyant mid-C20 gay man. Curiously enough Buscot seems not to be part of the Prejudice & Pride thing: I don't know why, but I can only guess that this may be because the current Lord Faringdon, who administers it, didn't want it to be.
Probably because Buscott is rarely open for visitors (one afternoon a week, IIRC).

Buscott always raises another bog question for me - that of the ability to gift a property or estate to avoid tax, yet still retain use of it. HMRC wouldn't normally allow that sort of thing for us hoi polloi.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Before we go down that interesting tangent, here is an interesting and - shall we say - suggestive snippet by John Betjeman of his days at Oxford in the 1920s. (Do remember that he was something of a social climber though!)
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't it as simple as the rainbow lanyards are being used as a signal from the National Trust that this is a house with an exhibition and/or events about an LGBT+ connection

I don't sense it is that simple, any more than Brexit is simple.

I'm not about to rehash why, but take this opportunity to make a more general comment.

Most of my contributions to this thread have been me trying to thrash out in discussion why it is I sense it's not that simple. I've certainly made some mistakes along the way and drawn some erroneous, misleading, and sometimes hurtful comparisons: sorry about those.

Being pulled up on them, constructively, has helped me refine my thinking.

As an example of refining my thinking, Leorning Cniht's post above has provided a really helpful insight for me: I'm approaching this largely from a church leadership perspective and not a coffee shop perspective, because that's more my frame of reference, and as LC has so usefully pointed out, the implications of putting up a rainbow flag over each are not the same.

Differing frames of reference undoubtedly explain some of the heat generated by our respective contributions; they also demonstrate that when it comes to us discussing this case, all with our different contexts, this really isn't simple (this is, after all, page 10...).

Indeed, if DH issues were simple, we wouldn't need DH.

If we don't accept they aren't simple, we are unlikely to be able to engage constructively with each other here; it will indeed just become an extension of Hell (hence my recent plea on a tangent there for a tone that facilitates and invites discussion).

When I come to DH I'm sincerely trying to make the effort to dialogue here. I recognise that my posts don't convey the empathy I'd like them to. I'll try and work on that. I also welcome those who make similar efforts - not just for my own comfort but for the good of the discussion as a whole.

And that's all I have to say for now.

[ 14. August 2017, 07:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Isn't it as simple as the rainbow lanyards are being used as a signal from the National Trust that this is a house with an exhibition and/or events about an LGBT+ connection - and a chapter in the book they are selling. The intention being a visual shorthand for visitors.

Not according to what the NT said about the lanyards, no. It said that they were about expressing a welcome to the community as part of the exhibition.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Looking for something else, I found this article in Civil Society, discussing the press coverage and issues around the Felbrigg Hall film and exhibition.

Several points:
  1. The National Trust announced the Prejudice and Pride programme in December 2016;
  2. The film about Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer was made as part of this initiative (and volunteers from the Hall took part in the film);
  3. Ketton-Cremer was a biographer; he left his papers to the National Trust - which strongly he understood those papers would be used;
  4. that if this exhibition had been about women's rights, the volunteers who protested would not have had a hearing in the press
The piece concludes that the National Trust should have held firm about the requirement of front of house volunteers should wear the rainbow lanyards, which I don't agree with, as that would add to the management problems with the volunteers.

As an aside, the tone of 22 July story in the Eastern Press about the film is very different to that of the Daily Telegraph on 21 July.

There is a comment in the front page story in the Daily Mail of 4 August that suggest there were other issues at Felbrigg Hall:
quote:
Ukip MEP Gerard Batten said: 'This is politically correct nonsense gone mad. Who the hell do the National Trust think they are? 'Why should the people who volunteer to show people around be forced to wear a badge that's got nothing to do with their role? If half the staff have walked out it serves the trust right.'

Volunteers are also furious at an order issued in a meeting two months ago to stop approaching visitors and offering to answer questions. They claim they were told to keep a low-profile and avoid becoming distracted as visitors file past valuable artefacts.

which suggests there were additional problems with some of the volunteers and their perception of their role. If something had been stolen I can see why that memo was sent.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't like clicking on the Daily Mail links, but it was worth it for this photo caption

quote:
Mike Holmes, who has served at Felbrigg Hall for 13 years, said 75 people are no longer working for at his National Trust

 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Eutychus, Leorning Cniht's post was helpful to me too, as realising that's where you were coming from and why we were all talking past each other.

I wonder if part of this problem is that the rainbow lanyard is seen differently by different groups. I do not see it as a campaigning symbol, but as a shorthand for "LGBT+ welcome here", because that is how I use it in my working life. But I work in education where we were struggling to support equal opportunities for LGBT+ in the years between 1988 (Section 28) and 2003 (the repeal of Section 28). For the last 14 years we have been steadily increasing inclusion for LGBT+. I know that the situation in many church circles is different and there the campaign is still live.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The Daily Heil goes pretty far to "suggest" a lot in that article. The blood fairly drips from their hatchet.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
That Daily Mail article was followed up by more coverage on the front page the next day, Saturday 5 August, (in concert with the Daily Telegraph) followed by the National Trust capitulating on the compulsory wearing of lanyards.

(so should have checked that coding)

[ 14. August 2017, 08:47: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However it does, I think, fall down at one point: there are some NT properties (eg John Lennon's house) which are only of interest because of the human interest attached to them, not their architectural merit.

True - and you're right, I have no interest at all in memorabilia like John Lennon's house, CS Lewis's pen, and so on, so I implicitly excluded that kind of thing before I even started thinking.

It could be that in John Lennon's house, there is what I would consider a serious historical study of his early life, rather than a big pile of tat that he happened to have owned, and if there was, I might go for that.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I bothered looking to find out what was the interest for the Beatles' family houses in Liverpool. The National Trust only owns a couple of the many options, and the ones they own are the houses where many of the first records were written, with the rooms as they were at the time. John Lennon's room apparently didn't need much work as it had been used as a store room in the intervening years.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0