To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

[lucydogz]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-norfolk-40825660&ved=0ahUKEwjXzYeYwb_VAhUDB8AKHfOABAsQiJQBCJcCMCU&usg=AFQjCNESdvsFPzoWQVu_7i8WHq_3mutfKA&ampcf=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link
I'm pro-inclusion of minority groups, but think the NT should stick to doing it's job - looking after old houses. As most of its volunteers are retired, who might not want to be representatives of whatever right-on case the Trust decide to espouse,it's also short sighted of them to treat volunteers this way.

We have no idea if he'd have liked to be seen as 'gay' even if he had lived to see it legalised. He might have found the term itself offensive and insulting. We've no right to put labels on people who can't speak back. Yes.
On here we read time and time again from posters who described themselves as a 'very private person'. The former owner of the hall did not seem to be an extrovert. Maybe he would have hated all this hooha. We don't know.

And you still haven't told us what you want to see done with the 'bigotted' volunteers. Public shaming?

No-one's asked me what I want done with the volunteers but anyway I think the issue is bigger than a few people refusing to wear badges and lanyards. They can wear them or not, people will draw their own conclusions based on who is wearing them and who isn't.

I'm not talking about the badges now anyway, I'm talking about the wider idea suggested on this thread that it's fine to not support gay rights.

They can wear them or not, people will draw their own conclusions based on who is wearing them and who isn't.
ObefoeB, can I ask what badges you are wearing at this precise moment?

I'm talking about the wider idea suggested on this thread that it's fine to not support gay rights.
Nobody has said that. That is your wilful misreading of the thread.

If you do not support gay rights, you are advocating discrimination

But in this scenario you are saying "if you don't support gay rights in the manner we say you have to, you are a bigot", which is outrageous.

I support gay rights fully, but if you told me I had to wear a badge saying so I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

Yes, yet - it's something I think is really disturbing. People are so keen to believe that someone from the past would love their modern enlightened terminology. But you have to think that, in 100 years time, there will be new people who will want to slap their labels on us!

:) I wonder what some of the suffragettes would think about third (or even second) wave feminism. :). I think I have always separated out the suffrage ribbon from the second wave women's symbol and seen them as two different things standing for two very differnt historical periods and belief systems.

I'm talking about the wider idea suggested on this thread that it's fine to not support gay rights

It is fine. Because people are allowed to have their own opinions no matter what we think about them.
And many people are simply fairly neutral, they don't care much about the issue either way. That's allowed too.

Not as simple as not supporting gay rights, as some have said some gay ppl don't think the LGBT rainbow represents them anymore and don't agree with extreme transgender activists views being rammed down our throats. Why should somebody wear a symbol of an ideology they don't agree with.

I have lots of sympathy for them and tbh it's put me right off the National Trust. It shouldn't be political.

I don't care what someone's sexuality is but I certainly wouldn't wear one of those badges. It's no-one's business what you personally agree with and certainly not when you are working or volunteering.

Some of the comments here seem a bit 1984 where we should all have group think about the matter, with no room for personal interpretation or dissent.

My parents are homophobic and fairly racist ( at least DF is). They are also fairly elderly. I don't share or condone them, but I'm not going to change their views, particularly as when they were younger, those views were considered acceptable.

It would be very sad if some NT volunteers with similar private views have stopped doing the thing that brings them joy and a sense of fulfillment in their later years. I hardly imagine that they're spouting anti-gay sentiment out loud whilst volunteering. We should just be pleased that we've grown up in a more enlightened era.

I have lots of sympathy for them and tbh it's put me right off the National Trust. It shouldn't be political.

I don't care what someone's sexuality is but I certainly wouldn't wear one of those badges. It's no-one's business what you personally agree with and certainly not when you are working or volunteering.

I think it's the NT behaving in a bigoted way here. So this house was owned by a man who was gay and hid it. Why suddenly do he and his house become all about that? No one thinks straight people and their lives and homes are defined by their sexuality. Why should gay people be?

That a good point.

That's just nonsense Karlos.

Lots of houses celebrate, in one way or another, heterosexuality. There are displays, etc. about heterosexual marriage and love affairs and how couples were matched in renaissance times. The homosexual affairs that went on are often hidden (partly because of bigotry by the organization in the past, not wanting to upset their members who disapproved of homosexual relationships and partly because of the secretive nature of such activity at the time). The NT are using this particular house to highlight this aspect of one of its residence, presumably in part because they actually have quite a lot of material they can use, which is often absent from other houses. But it isn't the only thing they talk about. There's plenty more history there.

*But in this scenario you are saying "if you don't support gay rights in the manner we say you have to, you are a bigot", which is outrageous.

I support gay rights fully, but if you told me I had to wear a badge saying so I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.*

I don't know how many more times I have to say I don't give a shit about the badges

But it isn't the only thing they talk about. There's plenty more history there.

Bet that message gets lost in amongst all this. There are going to be plenty who think "I want a nice day out, not to be harangued by the right-on brigade. I'll go somewhere else".
I'd love to see their visitor numbers a year from now.

I'd love to see their visitor numbers a year from now.

This will make no difference to visitor figures.

Well I'm just back from my local NT place so meh.

boom, I get where you're coming from, about celebrating heterosexuality by talking about things like marriage, but ... I think that's wrong too.

I'm under no illusion, when I read about an eight year old boy being betrothed to a six year old girl in 1557, that what's being celebrated bears any resemblance to twenty-first-century 'heterosexuality'.

And any historical site organised with any tiny shred of professionalism will acknowledge that.

So why flatten out gay history into a monolith?

Lots of houses celebrate, in one way or another, heterosexuality

They do, but rarely is this the most important aspect about occupants. Instead, we learn how they were also artists, writers, thinkers, soldiers, etc. and often it is this aspect that is highlighted, not the fact that they were straight.

Quite LRD. I'm not entirely sure why my point had to be dealt with so rudely, but as it was, I feel free to say that it's nonsense to see historical family portraits as "celebrating heterosexuality". The last thing such dynastic portraits were about is love or sexuality. The NTs approach on this is a reductive, insulting, ham fisted attempt to tick a diversity box and it demeans everyone involved.

I don't know how many more times I have to say I don't give a shit about the badges

you're not the only poster on the thread.

Sometimes when you are looking to challenge peoples views you do something that in itself is as meaningless as a lanyard but you have to look at what it represents. When some of us burnt our bras in the 60s and 70s our argument wasn't really with bras. It might seem pointless but young women now benefit from the sacrifice of our bras.

For myself it isn't the lanyard or the badge it is making a point and until the NT gets rid of the volunteers who aren't prepared to welcome everyone as equals then they are failing.

For myself it isn't the lanyard or the bade it is making a point and until the NT gets rid of the volunteers who aren't prepared to welcome everyone as equals then they are failing

But are you saying they should get rid of those who won't wear the badges, or not?

Did people really burn bras? I thought that was a myth.

They put them in a freedom trash can I believe...