Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

National Trust AGM

1000 replies

PRAMtran · 04/09/2023 13:59

I’ve received an email from the National Trust inviting me and all other members to vote in their AGM. Does anyone know if there are any things a woman’s rights advocate should vote for or against. Eg TWAW by stealth.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2023 22:36

Or is yours just a generalist argument, like so many others on here.

Which is perfectly acceptable, it isn't up to you.

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 22:37

As opposed to people you approve of demanding other posters tone police others?
eh?

PencilsInSpace · 09/09/2023 22:40

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 22:23

@quantumbutterfly are you going to set out what exactly you feel the NT has done that is pushing identity politics and what you would like changed?

Or is yours just a generalist argument, like so many others on here. When pressed, no-one has been able to articulate this. So how can there be sharing ideas when people plop on just to make a demonstration of their own ideological stance?

She doesn't need to do that for your satisfaction.

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 22:44

@Ereshkigalangcleg So a bunch of posters going ‘the whole thing just smacks of identity politics, which I hate’ but refusing to be drawn into the details?

Well that’s worthwhile. I thought people were suggesting that critical thinking and rational debate was a good thing that happened a lot on this board.

PencilsInSpace · 09/09/2023 22:44

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 22:27

I’ve noticed 6-7 other people tone policing posts not directed at themselves. Your rather twatty gotcha at 22.04 didn’t work.

I'm not 6-7 other people.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 09/09/2023 22:45

GodessOfThunder · 09/09/2023 21:29

Upthread a poster - you can find their post for yourself suggested NT visitors were middle class and therefore did not need to be told any history of a property’s connection to slavery as they knew it already.

Do you endorse that POV?

Or do you agree it is nonsense? They, irrespective of their class, might well have some top-line knowledge of slavery, but it’s very unlikely the average visitor will know a great deal about a specific families links to specific slavery-related and colonial activity.

Edited
Show quote history

I have found it for myself, and that is an incredibly bad-faith misinterpretation of a poster querying whether you were contradicting yourself.

Honestly, do you not feel ashamed to be so deceitful?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2023 22:45

eh?

Ask @GodessOfThunder

"Out of interest, what’s your perspective on the poster who asked for more “humour” when we discussing a topic involving mass rape and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?"

Which as @EdithStourton pointed out, was the poster's own disingenuous spin:

You know, I thought I would have spotted someone asking for more 'humour' in discussions of slavery, because I would have found it pretty distasteful. And I hadn't noticed.

So (research skills, innit?) I went back through the whole thread searching for 'humour'. And the post I think GOT means is on p.19 and it says, 'Another thing that I find sad is the complete absence of humour in certain sections of society. Scolding and patronising others seems to be their main (only?) form of social interaction. Do these types ever crack a smile?'

Not quite the same thing as asking for 'more "humour" when we discussing a topic involving mass rape and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people', is it?

Rather, it was an observation that some people ('certain sections of society' - which I took to mean, certain posters) seem to be extremely joyless. Slavery is very serious topic, but there were various off-shoot discussions on the thread where humour would be entirely appropriate.

I hope your rather disingenuous attitude is not a fair guide to how you would usually handle your source material. Because if it is, that is rather concerning.

ArabeIIaScott · 09/09/2023 22:46

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 22:27

I’ve noticed 6-7 other people tone policing posts not directed at themselves. Your rather twatty gotcha at 22.04 didn’t work.

'twatty'

PencilsInSpace · 09/09/2023 22:47

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2023 22:28

youve put distraction in quotation marks. Are you going to provide the actual quote where someone used that word? Scroll back and you will find that I was complaining of the continuous association of the pro NT argument with non-gc arguments

Fair enough, I misremembered distraction. People did rather hijack the thread from its original topic though, then you came in in the middle and complained that queer theory/trans was mentioned.

"I’m keen for some further dissection of the boundaries between what you describe as a political agenda and progress in advancing equality. Otherwise this is just lazy association (and even lazier attempts to dock this into GC)"

And my response to you then still stands:

"The overreach of queer theory is my main concern, I've argued other points about slavery as a general principle, mostly. Don't try to put words into my mouth, thank you."

Well said. This thread was derailed from the third response.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 09/09/2023 22:49

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 22:44

@Ereshkigalangcleg So a bunch of posters going ‘the whole thing just smacks of identity politics, which I hate’ but refusing to be drawn into the details?

Well that’s worthwhile. I thought people were suggesting that critical thinking and rational debate was a good thing that happened a lot on this board.

It has indeed happened on this thread, but you can't force your arbitrary debate rules on everyone who just wants to say what they think.

ArabeIIaScott · 09/09/2023 22:51

narniabusiness · 09/09/2023 20:52

Sorry to disappoint you but it won’t be slave produced cotton at that date. The big cotton boom didn’t occur until after Whitney developed mechanical methods of removing cotton seeds in 1793 that cotton plantations took off. Prior to that slave labour was used to produce sugar and tobacco.
Normally I wouldn’t take the trouble to criticize like this but I don’t think your ill informed post could go unchallenged.

Show quote history

This is really interesting, thank you for sharing.

PencilsInSpace · 09/09/2023 22:54

ArabeIIaScott · 09/09/2023 22:46

'twatty'

Show quote history

Yes it's lovely isn't it?

I am not 'tone policing', I hope they carry on. I always learn a lot from these dissenting views.

JanesLittleGirl · 09/09/2023 22:55

OK. Thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread.

I have been a member of the NT for 20 years and have never before voted at an AGM. I have this time. I have voted for the RT list of Trustees and for the motion to remove the Quick Vote. I have abstained on the Clarendon House motion and I have abstained on the trustees report.

I would particularly like to thank DT and GOT for helping me to make my decision.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision · 09/09/2023 22:59

ArabeIIaScott · 09/09/2023 22:51

This is really interesting, thank you for sharing.

Show quote history

It was most intriging to read about this, particularly the claim that Whitney thought mechanising the removal of cotton seeds would reduce the demand for human slaves.

It didn't work out like that at all.

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 23:24

these dissenting views well, pencils, this very much seems like there is groupthink in operation?

PencilsInSpace · 09/09/2023 23:49

TheHoover · 09/09/2023 23:24

these dissenting views well, pencils, this very much seems like there is groupthink in operation?

Edited

No it doesn't seem like that to me. All sorts of people turn up here with all sorts of dissenting views. 'GC' is a huge, uncomfortable political umbrella. Dissent is normal.

When I say 'these' dissenting views I refer specifically to those which cannot be rationally argued and so quickly descend to insults such as 'twattish'.

Sadly, these specific dissenting views are incredibly common and I make no apology for noticing.

Rudderneck · 09/09/2023 23:59

PencilsInSpace · 09/09/2023 22:00

Thank you @EdithStourton I couldn't work out what that referred to.

I agree the lack of a sense of humour from the patronising scolds is very sad and I don't think it can be good for their mental health.

It's possible to think that and also not think that slavery is funny. And also to think that the misrepresentation of that post is quite shocking and revealing.

I think it was pretty to me that the mention of humour was meant to be in general, rather than some kind of specific slavery-based humour. But I think for many intersectionalists, if certain topics are even mentioned, it then has to be a completely serious conversation.

All that being said, I, for one, laughed my ass off at Blazing Saddles back in the day, and any time I've seen it since then it remains as funny. I don't think that makes me Beyond the Pale.

TheHoover · 10/09/2023 00:00

Pencils

You haven’t engaged in rationale debate at all on this thread.

’twatty’ was hardly in response to a rational argument. It was 100% deserved, levelled at something you had written, rather than a personal insult (which you have made).

I also find it interesting that you are suggesting that ‘dissenting views’ are those which cannot rationally be argued. Which, 6 posts ago, @Ereshkigalangcleg admitted was something which multiple
posters were doing in this thread and which you yourself have defended.

So, so many contradictions and so much hypocrisy.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/09/2023 00:32

Which, 6 posts ago, @Ereshkigalangcleg^^ admitted was something which multiple
posters were doing in this thread and which you yourself have defended

I did nothing of the sort. It's "twatty" to put words into people's mouths. Not everyone wants to argue with some of the disingenuous posters on this thread. It doesn't mean their points "can't rationally be argued". They don't have to dance to your tune. Hope that helps.

TheHoover · 10/09/2023 00:43

It is entirely reasonable to assume that when multiple people put across the same viewpoint in the midst of a debate and then do not go on to provide further rationale when asked, that they are not actually able to articulate their point.

people are entitled to choose not to elaborate and I am entitled to draw (rational) conclusions.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/09/2023 00:45

You can assume what you like of course, as we can all make assumptions about your posts.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/09/2023 00:47

But I'm requesting you to kindly not make some tenuous extrapolation based on your own bias and then say I "admitted it was something people were doing on this thread", because it's a lie. Please don't lie about what other posters say, it's not really in the spirit of a debate you claim to be engaging in with good faith.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/09/2023 00:49

I quoted something you had said wrongly, and I acknowledged it and quoted your actual post. Please show others the same courtesy, rather than lie to back up your argument.

TheHoover · 10/09/2023 00:50

@Ereshkigalangcleg gosh this has rattled you. how did you leap from accepting that I had made an assumption to making accusations of lying in 15 seconds?

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/09/2023 00:50

Because I'm tired of your dishonest spin.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.