Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Ruth Hunt is leaving Stonewall

411 replies

Whatisthisfuckery · 21/02/2019 16:21

Just seen this on Twitter.

twitter.com/ruth_hunt/status/1098604129394585601?s=21

I’d like to think her successor will be less homophobic. We shall see, although I’m not holding out much hope.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
25
LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 26/02/2019 10:39

It’s not ‘vital’. How can such a minority have such power? Why not the physically disabled, the blind, the deaf, people with ‘everyday’ mental issues (ie depression). Why are these men so bloody influential?

Equality for all yes - but why moreso for men?

Lumene · 26/02/2019 10:34

We will educate and upskill the new Government to understand why trans equality is vital, and we will put in place the right mechanisms to reform the Gender Recognition Act.

This is an organisation directly setting out to lobby the government and others to remove female rights.

It should not be receiving govt or public sector money.

RedToothBrush · 26/02/2019 09:41

It was mentioned in that article a while ago detailing how disaffected grassroots groups were with Stonewall.

How long before a split and another grouping comes together?

FeedMeBooks · 26/02/2019 09:34

^^ EatCashews hits nail on head IMO. Once you've got a public sector organisation signed up they'll renew and renew because who's brave enough to say we'll ditch our diversity & inclusion badge? Much less fickle and hard work than chasing individual donors.

EatCashews · 26/02/2019 09:17

Organisational logic: this many NHS trusts & public sector orgs can net us this much money in fees, with the aim of signing up every single public sector org in the UK. Would love to see the business plan.

EatCashews · 26/02/2019 09:15

Keep talking, women, and don't get distracted by Ruth Hunt because the real story is Stonewall itself.

The third sector does not seem to be a friend to women, from Save the Children to Amnesty to Stonewall.

And yes, Stonewall is desperate to have friends in high places. (But then many charities that went down were - see Kids Company and its links to David Cameron's circle.)

FeedMeBooks · 26/02/2019 09:08

£5 million in 'fees' just seems like a huge amount of money.

The programme’s 800 members in the UK and 150 members around the world, come from all sectors, including banks, law firms, local authorities, NHS Trusts and the armed forces.

Looks like it's £2,500 per organisation to be a diversity champion in the UK (from another website as on Stonewall no obvious pricing info?).

What leaps out is how much the tax payer is contributing to funds. Because if a local authority, NHS trust, police force, school, university, armed forces etc are paying we all know where that money actually comes from. How many of the 800 are public sector? There are are more NHS trusts than banks out there.

Add to that £655k of £872k grant income in 2017 came from UK govs/offices.

It's no wonder they are desperate to have friends in Westminster. Without them they're likely to go belly up.

FeedMeBooks · 26/02/2019 08:31

Charity or out and out lobbying organisation? The brazen arrogance of this

We will educate and upskill the new Government to understand why trans equality is vital, and we will put in place the right mechanisms to reform the Gender Recognition Act.

From the Trustees annual report 2016.

MsJeminaPuddleduck · 26/02/2019 08:18

Cos nothing dismisses conspiracy rumours more than putting out a 'press release' to deny them.

TimeLady · 26/02/2019 07:50

Stonewall CEO dismisses ‘conspiracy theories’ about her departure

www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/02/24/stonewall-ceo-ruth-hunt-departure/

EmpressAdultHumanFemale · 26/02/2019 06:14

But I also wonder, with all this focus on Stonewall, are other organisations such as Pride any better?

Not in the slightest. But at least they’re not providing training into schools & workplaces.

EatCashews · 26/02/2019 01:14

Do you have a link to that article? £5 million in 'fees' just seems like a huge amount of money.

terfsandwich · 26/02/2019 00:36

I recall vaguely that "fees" were the tithes that local Pride groups paid to Stonewall to get their official stamp, or to pay for stalls, or something like that? It was mentioned in that article a while ago detailing how disaffected grassroots groups were with Stonewall.

BoomBoomsCousin · 26/02/2019 00:12

But if the financial theory is correct, then they HAVE to listen to that whether they like it or not, even if they are corporate bastards. Or they are going to have a bloody huge problem on their hands in just a few years time.

Not necessarily. If a new CEO comes along who can get people who support the current agenda to donate more, then they will be able to continue with the current approach with a new CEO. But it may be that it isn't just about financials but that the board and most of Stonewall's old supporters, while fully behind Trans rights, is not fully behind ignoring LGB rights while they pursue Trans ones and that all that's needed is to ensure LGB programs are also loudly talked about. Or it may be that the board think it's gone too far. The board will need to judge the potential and decide which way to go.

RedToothBrush · 25/02/2019 23:14

If it is financials and its down to 'tone' then whilst you might see a public doubling down on the approach they have been taking by saying 'we support trans rights still', you would then expect a different tone to come into force with the new Chief Executive. They won't admit how badly wrong they got it. If it is put down to PR then a subtule toning down would occur. Of course they could decide to go completely the other way too, and say they aren't trying hard enough to ram this down everyone's throats too.

But if the financial theory is correct, then they HAVE to listen to that whether they like it or not, even if they are corporate bastards. Or they are going to have a bloody huge problem on their hands in just a few years time.

We will get a good idea of this soon enough and whether its at least part of the reason she quit. Will be interesting to see.

Melroses · 25/02/2019 23:13

What is remarkable is the number of 'Secretaries' they got through in 2018

2018 seems to have been a busy year.

FlyingOink · 25/02/2019 22:04

Hunt would also, most likely, be entirely responsible for the tone of Stonewall's communications.
I assumed that. I don't believe she was "just following orders" I was just unclear on that theory.
Hunt should be ashamed. She's very personally responsible here.

EatCashews · 25/02/2019 21:46

So in 2017, donations and grants only made up £2 million of £7 million income, the rest coming from fees, presumably from training and also from organisations being allowed to use the Stonewall 'brand' on letterheads and so on. That's really what this is all about, isn't it, brand-building as the go-to LGBT organisation. So companies can outsource difficult HR issues.

So if the brand gets damaged, fewer fees, less income?

At the moment, Stonewall are an organisation that denies the reality of sex and same-sex attraction, participates in twitter pile-ons, relies on dodgy data and gives advice that seems to contradict the law (e.g. about sex-segregated toilets in schools).

But I also wonder, with all this focus on Stonewall, are other organisations such as Pride any better?

BoomBoomsCousin · 25/02/2019 21:40

I don't understand the financial theory. If Hunt was "just following orders" from the board, but those orders have led to a possible financial deficit, surely board members should be resigning?

A CEO isn't just a lackey. Hunt will have gone to the board with a strategy that they would discuss, maybe tweak, and approve. That strategy would have included revenue - which is critical for a charity to be able to actually do anything. Hunt would also, most likely, be entirely responsible for the tone of Stonewall's communications. She seems to have failed to convince donors to support the new agenda and she has failed to head off the last year of uprising by both everyday women and by the many LGBT people who have begun to speak out against the organization - both of which are her responsibility as CEO.

In many ways she has been incredibly effective - it is astonishing how quickly and thoroughly the trans agenda, as relayed by Stonewall, has been accepted by so many institutions. But if that action has come at the expense of supporters who donate, that's always going to be hugely problematic for a charity.

R0wantrees · 25/02/2019 19:24

There seem to have been 4 Directors appointed 5 February 2019

TimeLady · 25/02/2019 19:15

The trustees are registered as directors with Companies House.

beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02412299/officers

What is remarkable is the number of 'Secretaries' they got through in 2018:

WRIGHT, Cathryn

Role Resigned Secretary
Appointed on 24 July 2012
Resigned on 28 February 2018

DRAPER, Maxine Moss

Role Resigned Secretary
Appointed on 19 December 2017
Resigned on 28 February 2018

HARPER-PENMAN, Carli

Role Resigned Secretary
Appointed on 31 March 2018
Resigned on 9 August 2018

MOULINOS, Helen

Role Resigned Secretary
Appointed on 9 August 2018
Resigned on 30 October 2018

WEHRLY, Mark Anthony

Role Resigned Secretary
Appointed on 1 October 2018
Resigned on 30 October 2018

DIXON, Catherine

Role Active Secretary
Appointed on 30 October 2018

R0wantrees · 25/02/2019 18:57

And isn't it interesting that Jan Gooding tries to spin a spat on Twitter as a "research poll"?

January 2018 Jan Gooding interview
'Why did we put up with it? Aviva’s Jan Gooding on her early days in advertising
Story of my CV: Jan Gooding gives a frank account of her career, including her “noticeably slower” progression compared to male colleagues and the fact she was edged out of one agency after having her first child, all of which has led to her current role championing diversity and inclusion.
(extracts)
"Despite becoming the first woman to get to board level at Burkitt Weinreich Bryant during her stint at the agency in the 1980s, Gooding says her career progress has been “noticeably slower” than her male counterparts.

“I was very shocked about that,” she says. “When I was in advertising I was told not to let anyone know I could type or they’d think I was a PA. I’ve never felt anti-men – I would not have done as well without the feminist men that saw the potential in me – but I don’t think the pace of change has been fast enough,” she argues.

so getting to board level around my 30th birthday is something I’m very proud of, particularly as I was the only woman on the board.

“There was no maternity policy when I went on the board so I was the person who had to write it. I remember the managing director coming to see me and saying ‘why are you writing the maternity policy – are you pregnant?’ They were outrageous times.

“After having my first child I had planned to come back to the agency as the new business director as I thought that would be the best way to have a more flexible working arrangement. But the agency thought – in a well-intentioned way – she’s got post-natal depression, if we sack her [it would look bad, so] we’ll give her a lump sum and she’ll recover. She’s married to the chair so maybe she’ll be better off working in a different agency anyway. My objection was that no one asked me.

“I look back on it now as all of us women do and think: why did we put up with it?”

“When I was at British Gas I met a very important man called Chris Jansen. He was the managing director of British Gas Energy and he was the man I first told I was gay.

“My marriage was in crisis and I’d fallen in love with a woman, and I simply went to tell my line manager I was having a difficult time at home so if I seemed a bit off in meetings or a little distracted he’d know why. Full marks to him; there was a slight raise of the eyebrow but he was absolutely solid and didn’t bat an eyelid. He asked me what he could do, whether I needed time off and said I could talk to him at any time, which was a huge support.

“He subsequently helped me when I moved to Aviva. He encouraged me to go for it and even helped to negotiate my package.”

Becoming an inclusion champion
Aviva, global inclusion director, group brand director, marketing operations director (2008-present)

“Amanda Mackenzie gave me a second chance to go and work client side when she moved to Aviva. She left very soon after I joined BT, so we had this sense of unfinished business.

“It was Chris Wei, who took over marketing when Amanda left and I became the brand director, who suggested I become global inclusion director. [Wei is now executive chairman of Aviva Asia.]

“It’s a role that arguably I was completely unqualified for – being the chair of Stonewall doesn’t qualify you to work in HR and be a diversity specialist – so when he called me to talk about the opportunity I asked for 24 hours to think about it. But I realised my marketing skills are entirely transferable. It’s about understanding people’s attitudes and behaviour and how to change them." (continues)
www.marketingweek.com/2018/01/26/aviva-jan-gooding-early-days-advertising/

Popchyk · 25/02/2019 18:37

And isn't it interesting that Jan Gooding tries to spin a spat on Twitter as a "research poll"?

Which reveals all about Stonewall's approach to research. Fake suicide statistics and Twitter spats which were instigated by the trans lobby.

This "research" will be used as evidence of hostility to LGBT and therefore can Stonewall have £1 million from the government please?

WeAreGerbil · 25/02/2019 18:35

Still can't find the name of the md of Stonewall though.

They'll have a paid senior management team and an unpaid board of directors if they are like most charities. It's unusual for paid staff to be company directors.

R0wantrees · 25/02/2019 18:11

Edward Lord is a Stonewall Ambassador & Role Model.
They is also involved with Pride London I think.

(Lord's compelled preferred pronouns are they/them)