Author Topic: BCA stuff we voted on  (Read 1434 times)

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2021, 11:21:18 pm »
For reference, I am out of touch



Incidentally, the language argument is both incorrect (because Chair is perfectly accepted as a word for the leader of a committee; see Civil Service guidance about removing gendered terms apparently) and irrelevant (because it's not the intricacies of language that matters, it's that there was a single woman at the AGM last week and what you had was a Zoom wall of older white men, and I say that as someone heading in that direction).

Also, I've never heard anyone say 'so who is chairmaning the meeting'...

Online JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #26 on: Yesterday at 12:24:45 am »
Also as a BCA colleague points out the current acting incumbent of this role and previous holders refer(red) to it as chair themselves
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline aricooperdavis

  • Global Moderator
  • forum star
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Cornwall to Cumbria
    • Cooper-Davis.net
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #27 on: Yesterday at 08:38:09 am »
[...] Chair is perfectly accepted as a word for the leader of a committee; see Civil Service guidance about removing gendered terms apparently [...]

I am the source of the "apparently" here as I brought this up at the AGM. I was referring to this guide for gender neutral drafting which includes:

Quote
[..] gender neutral drafting involves [...] avoiding nouns that might appear to assume that a person of a particular gender will [...] perform a particular role (e.g., "chairman")

Online Ian Adams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1302
  • UCET
    • UCET Caving Club (North Wales)
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #28 on: Yesterday at 10:55:59 am »
Joshw,

Thank you for your reply.

It’s obviously too late now, but, it may have been more helpful for the BCA to simply state (on the lines of) ;

The BCA is committed to the Equality Act of 2010

The online statement could include the link;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf

The statement could/should include a reference to the disciplinary process where someone falls fowl of the act.

That’s all I think it needed.

Personally, I think the BCA’s statement (with proposed amendments) is confusing, misleading and unnecessary.

Anyway, that’s just my thoughts and (as I said above) it’s all too late now anyway.

Thanks for answering my questions.

Regards,

Ian
A door, once opened, may be stepped through in either direction.

Offline menacer

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #29 on: Today at 08:43:52 am »
, it's that there was a single woman at the AGM last week and what you had was a Zoom wall of older white men, and I say that as someone heading in that direction).

Well, speaking as a woman, I can tell you exactly why this female doesn't bother with meetings.

They are always stuffed full of civil servant type pen pushers that care more about crossing t's and dotting I's than getting anything that actually matters, done.

Historically they are often the control freaks, they like to legislate to prevent people doing things that they don't like as well as keep our the people they don't like.

And I can tell you now, this next generation doesn't look any better to be frank.
You talk of inclusivity but it's smoke and mirrors.
You are the simply the next generation manoeuvring to get the people you don't like or disagree with out the way.
It never changes.



Most caving females are out there caving with the folk that' actually get things done.

My god, the last ballot was just full of non caving related amendments in order to promote inclusivity?!

What a bore. 

Please don't think changing the name "chair" is going to have woman flocking to AGMs ( in any meaningful uncoerced sense) - it isn't.





« Last Edit: Today at 08:55:54 am by menacer »
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #30 on: Today at 10:24:04 am »
Why so negative Menacer?!

The BCA are chipping away at decades of exclusivity, doesn't happen over night but every little change is a change for the better.  Just think the AGM was online for any member to join, you just had to register, or you could watch it live, or watch it all after the meeting.  That is such a change from 3 years ago where you had to register, attend on the day in person.

A question, the pen pushing civil servant types who love an agm (hello  :-[ ) are not 'getting anything that actually matters done'

What is it that as a women (who I assume is a BCA member? and therefore able to bring forth proposals to the AGM) would class as actually mattering?  If you can bring up some ideas the BCA doers (willing, capable, enthusiastic volunteers) will absolutely get cracking. 

I suggest Ari, Andrew, Josh, Jenny, Rostam, Russell all who post in the forum are all only a message away.

Conservation projects
Education and training opportunities
Newsletter articles
Safety warnings
Any opportunity for deploying the fake cave BCA has?

I've no ideas myself, I'm a civil servant type pen pusher who loves to sit behind his keyboard (but at least I recognise it).

Online JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #31 on: Today at 11:12:42 am »
And if you do have ideas Menacer, about ways we can up diversity by improving inclusivity, please do feel free to contact me at youth@british-caving.org.uk or on here.

A big part of my remit is development and my election statement for youth and development officer was to be pushing D&I issues. I've got some potential projects that I'd like to get started in the coming months/years around this, but covid and general life has gotten in the way of this.

Steph Dwyer has been involved with a group called black girls hike, getting them underground, and outreach like this is something I'm definitely keen to promote on a wider scale.
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline nearlywhite

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 413
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #32 on: Today at 01:30:29 pm »
I'm quite proud to be a civil servant pen pusher, and I don't think the 'sod the rules' approach gets as much done.

My approach during my time in Y&D was to do the boring paperwork on behalf of the members, find kit and get them caving. That started 4 new university clubs and kept a few more open. We also had a paperwork fight to get online voting into the BCA - so that we could include more opinions. A bit of bureaucracy can go a long way.

As for non caving amendments; there was one proposal updating the equality and diversity policy and one slight change to wording to reflect what is actually used by the organisation. It was only put in as there were other amendments to the constitution.

A bit ironic to be upset at it being both controlling and totally ineffectual.

Pretty sure all this talking has taken up about 100 times the time and effort I spent writing and submitting the thing  :lol:

Offline menacer

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #33 on: Today at 01:53:15 pm »
Lots to respond to here.
I'll endeavour to answer most things in one hit

The diversity and inclusivity role, ethos, position mission statement or whatever you want to call it appears to be a red herring.

There have been recent posts from folk claiming they want this but all they really want is the right people with the right thoughts in their gang.

This is actually human nature. It can't be stopped but let's not dress it up for something it's not.
Everyone does it, every clique does it, every family does it every neighbor hood, every county, every club.

Cliques develop of like minded people. It's why we have wars, different religions and  different regimes across the globe, not every one thinks,says or  does or believes in the same thing.
What is most important to you is not necessarily very important to me and vice versa
A recent example
Someone from this forum one of the " diversity promoting cavers" recently referred to a who person attended the agm with different ideas on life was classed as " not a good look "
So diverse!
So welcoming

Another, alluded that if "x" proposal didn't go through they wouldn't want to represent an organisation like the BCA.

They don't sound very diverse and inclusive to me.
They sound like agitators.
Many assuming motives from people they don't even know. 
So what if someone doesn't believe in being politically correct, just ignore them.

So, I'm going to ask the diversity and inclusivity promoters a question or too because I think we all need to know what it is we are and aren't allowed to say these days of this is the best way forward you see for bca

How welcome would I be of I voted brexit.
How welcome would I be if I wasn't vaccinated
How welcome would I be I thought the government response to climate change was incorrect
How welcome would I be if respected you for your caving ability rather than your virtue signalling and politically correct mission statements
How welcome would I be if I really don't give a monkeys about your title. .

These are ridiculous questions but from what I've viewed on this forum they seem to be coming all too important to some

The BCA needs to be smaller not bigger.
The civil servant type needed to run it should really be seen and not heard. 
Like all organisations we need to hear about what  can be done not what's too difficult or to red tape or too unfashionable
There are too many people making rules and talking points and amendments and changes for the average caver to be remotely interested.
Like every politician you will likely lose your audience, become detached from reality.
Cavers want to go caving, shared the experience with their friends and socialize after

That's it.

On a personal level, the BCA does everything I need it to, most my caving is overseas so I don't use it's funding as much as some but I'm having that c&a access costs are covered by it in regions and a democratic vote to push through crow was respected.
It also provides a repository library for those researching info, training for those that want it and a website to promote caving.

What British caving doesn't need from the BCA is for those closely linked to it, to come onto an independent privately owned forum and dismiss, censor shun or label anyone with different views or ideas.
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #34 on: Today at 02:37:28 pm »
Interesting post Menacer, I disagree with you on a few points.

Being politically incorrect is not ok when it harms others, or in this case an organisation you represent on behalf of others and people are right to challenge it, including BCA members.
How to challenge it is open to interpretation of course but your suggestion of just ignoring it, in my opinion is not dissimilar to acceptance, which is not dissimilar to agreeing.
I rarely challenge anyone because I'm a wimp, glad the BCA volunteers are tougher than me.

Offline BradW

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #35 on: Today at 02:49:07 pm »
If you remind yourself whenever you hear the term Politically Correct that it is supposed to mean, for example, demonstrating respect for others who are not like you, it makes it easier to decide whether you agree with something or not. PC is a horrible term which is why lazy people use it. Lazy people who expect you to agree with them and join them in perpetuating the comfortable inertia of doing nothing.

Offline menacer

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #36 on: Today at 02:50:50 pm »
How do you define "harms" Ian
Who defines it, who determines whether any interference is required. . Who should dictate any level of admonishment.
Be careful what you wish for.
You may be currently on the right side of a political force that agrees with your interpretation or view but politics is fluid.

You are trying to pigeon hole complex human interactions emotions and interpretations into an easily identifiable solution when it is rarely the case.




Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

Offline ChrisJC

  • Funky
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
    • http://www.cowdery.org.uk
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #37 on: Today at 03:48:16 pm »
How do you define "harms" Ian

That is the fundamental issue with the rewriting history shenanigans currently in vogue. Perfectly acceptable, normal even during one time period might become deemed harmful in a different period. Who are we to judge the past, and the future even. And who are we to judge people who we are not. You end up with the other nonsense of people being offended on somebody elses behalf! (most likely they themselves aren't offended either)

The other complication is when insult and offence are considered harms. Makes things much more difficult.

Sorry for wandering even more OT  :spank:

Chris.
--
http://www.cowdery.org.uk
Mines, caves,
Land Rovers

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #38 on: Today at 04:21:05 pm »
Let's be entirely clear what we are debating here.


We are choosing whether to either use the word 'chairman', a gendered term with baggage from when the assumption was that it would be a man, or 'chair' which is a perfectly acceptable non-gendered alternative.


We are not choosing between 'virtue signalling' or 'doing something useful'; we are choosing whether to continue using increasingly outdated language

No-one is harmed by choosing 'chair' over 'chairman'. There are no people who will be disadvantaged as a result of choosing 'chair'. There are no people who are included by the word 'chairman' that are not also included by the word 'chair'. There is no subtle background of sexism that 'chair' upholds or is rooted in. If this is the 'thin end of the wedge', I can't see what the actual disadvantage to non-gendered language becoming universal is. In other words, there is no good reason to choose 'chair' over 'chairman'.

So why make a fuss? Why is this even a debate?

Instead of making sweeping strawman arguments about society in general, can anyone give me a clear example of one good reason to choose 'Chairman'? (both words being common, and Chair probably being more common than Chairman these days)

And yes, this is apparently the hill that I am willing to die on. Probably because sexism is important, and caving isn't (relatively speaking).

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #39 on: Today at 04:27:07 pm »
That is the fundamental issue with the rewriting history shenanigans currently in vogue. Perfectly acceptable, normal even during one time period might become deemed harmful in a different period. Who are we to judge the past, and the future even. And who are we to judge people who we are not. You end up with the other nonsense of people being offended on somebody elses behalf! (most likely they themselves aren't offended either)

We are but human, but you can't just completely deny all responsibility to judge morality - that's intellectual laziness. We can look back at history and pretty unambiguously say 'that was wrong' about a lot of things. We can do the same about things today. Yes, things are always complicated, but the moral thing to do is to make the best choices we can, and that means making judgements about right and wrong (and shades of grey).

If I painted your house pink, I'm sure you would judge me then - as would a court.

Also, the more things change the more they stay the same - most of the 'ills of modern society' are not new, and you can find people saying the same thing through the centuries.
I would suggest that re-writing history is, if anything, _less_ in vogue than in centuries past, courtesy of a free press, easy access to publication and a relative lack of censorship...

Offline menacer

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #40 on: Today at 04:52:50 pm »
Andrew
This is the concern, that the use of the word chair or chairman does seem to be a hill "you are prepared to die on"

What is going to be your hill of choice next year and the next..... For me, just my perspective, this molehill has been turned into a mountain.

I'm, and maybe some others who may or may not feel similarly, are being asked to vote to choose the next chairman to try and bring unity to the BCA... And the biggest topic....Chair.... Literally the preferred use of a title.

Forgive me not thinking these erm significant ( to some) sweeping changes are going to be the answer to anything.

Let's assume ( fairly reasonably) that the motion passes.

Nothing else changes.
The same difficulties still lie ahead.
There would be a period of strutting⁷ around saying you're bringing sweeping changes and making changes to people's lives but, are you really.
The current Issues still need to be addressed.

 Please don't let your next hill be for example gender quotas,  because it's easier to throw out " inclusive slogans" than it is to actually bring disperate individuals with a diverse variety of view points,  together.

Managing people is a very difficult task, very few people possess the qualities, I certainly don't, yet I believe it can't be fixed by simply changing the name of a role. 

Boy oh boy I'd love to be wrong though
Wouldn't that make life so much easier
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

Online JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #41 on: Today at 05:07:25 pm »
Quote
I'm, and maybe some others who may or may not feel similarly, are being asked to vote to choose the next chairman to try and bring unity to the BCA... And the biggest topic....Chair.... Literally the preferred use of a title.

There's literally about three people out of the BCA membership (including yourself), who just happen to have enough spare time on their hands at the moment to post on here that believe it's the biggest topic.

Everyone else, either doesn't care enough, or believes it's just the right thing to do, and as a quick and easy update to the constitution to bring it somewhat into the 21st century, thought why not.
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline ChrisJC

  • Funky
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1629
    • http://www.cowdery.org.uk
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #42 on: Today at 05:08:39 pm »
So why make a fuss? Why is this even a debate?

To be fair, I only brought it up to contradict the notion that certain questions being asked had such an obvious answer that everybody would vote 'correctly'. But I did vote against it.

Instead of making sweeping strawman arguments about society in general, can anyone give me a clear example of one good reason to choose 'Chairman'? (both words being common, and Chair probably being more common than Chairman these days)

Yes. Chairman is a word which perfectly and accurately describes the individual in charge of a meeting, irrespective of gender, hair colour, skin colour, age. It is unambiguous and has just one meaning. That works for me.

It is slightly sad that people ignorant of it's true meaning have made some sweeping assumptions about the last 3 letters, which are not true.

To replace the word with 'chair' is just confusing. When I preside over a meeting, I prefer people to refer to me rather than the thing upon wot I am sat.

Where are we going to stop? Human - that's the same. I believe Human Beings cover both genders? Mankind? Mannequin? The same logic applies surely?

I realise I am on the wrong side of history, and merely voted as a protest on this subject. I fully expect the change to be made.


And yes, this is apparently the hill that I am willing to die on. Probably because sexism is important, and caving isn't (relatively speaking).

Sexism is important. I would prefer to address it by ensuring that any opportunities I am fortunate to be able to offer (both caving or engineering) are given with regard only to suitability and merit, not genitals or skin colour.

but the moral thing to do is to make the best choices we can, and that means making judgements about right and wrong (and shades of grey).

As most sensible people (including me) will do. Perhaps the difference is that I will only try to make the future a better place, as there's no point trying to change the past.

Chris.
--
http://www.cowdery.org.uk
Mines, caves,
Land Rovers

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #43 on: Today at 05:21:58 pm »
Blimey! fast moving thread.

That is an interesting question Menacer.  What do I mean by harm?  In this case I was thinking of you saying the BCA reps shouldn't openly disagree with people on this forum because it is not the BCA forum and because they shouldn't disagree with people. I feel that is a unfair.
The BCA is trying to grow the sport and it's diversity of representation.  That is something I support, so to say people should be allowed to argue against it, but the BCA reps not allowed to respond is in my opinion harmful to caving.






Offline menacer

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #44 on: Today at 05:33:51 pm »
Speak to some of your friends
I'm not going to name names but whilst some can openly disagree on a forum,  others are censored before debate can even occur.
That's within the BCA organisation.
That's why I now have concerns   
I didn't say they couldn't openly disagree, I actively promote it but behind the scenes others aren't offered that courtesy and are labelled as being nasty whilst the direct nasty ad hominem attacks are left untouched.

One rule for bca types another rule for the rest.

That's not on me, that's on them.

If course I'm going to point out the double standard, who wouldn't.






Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #45 on: Today at 06:09:18 pm »
Sorry Menacer, I don't understand, I think you know more than I do and I'm somewhat debating from a position of ignorance, which is an unpleasant position to be in. 

Please make your concerns known to a coupe BCA reps when the elections are over and let's get this ironed out.

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #46 on: Today at 06:11:58 pm »
Yes. Chairman is a word which perfectly and accurately describes the individual in charge of a meeting, irrespective of gender, hair colour, skin colour, age. It is unambiguous and has just one meaning. That works for me.

OK, so _potentially_ someone might briefly confuse the word 'chair' with the piece of furniture. Obviously this sort of thing happens all the time in English, and it's very unlikely to happen in practice (has anyone ever actually got this confused?). But OK, yes, there is a (tiny) chance that someone might, briefly, become confused.

Fortunately there is a simple solution - chairperson. Of course, when this is suggested, the same people who don't like 'chair' generally say 'that's even worse', hence you end up at the widely-understood, increasingly dominant 'chair'. Arguably it should be changed for future-proofing alone, as 'chair' must already be more common than 'chairman', I suspect, and so the difficulties of dealing with an anachronism will only increase.

Offline BradW

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 225
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #47 on: Today at 06:23:00 pm »
There is an easy way to resolve this.

"Chair" is uncontroversially used as a verb - "Who is going to chair this meeting?"

Clearly, someone who "chairs" a meeting is a chairer. No gender specificity and all resolved amicably.

Who do I send the consultant's invoice to?

For an extra bonus fun fact, don't forget people who table motions...... from the floor.

As long as there are no stools left lying around after the meeting.



Online Fishes

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #48 on: Today at 06:40:49 pm »
The words chair or chairman don't really seem to be an issue to me.

I come under three of the protected groups under the equality act and I don't see it as an issue. I've found cavers and mine explorers one of the most accepting groups of people I have had the pleasure of being involved with. As an LGBT woman for instance I have found it a much more accepting place than the gay scene ever was.

I wish people would stop getting offended on my behalf and focus on what we all have in common - a love of the underground.

 
« Last Edit: Today at 07:10:43 pm by Fishes »

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1202
Re: BCA stuff we voted on
« Reply #49 on: Today at 06:51:50 pm »
Fishes  :thumbsup:


 

Main Menu

Forum Home Help Search
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal