BCA stuff we voted on

[menacer]

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 strutting? 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

 

[JoshW]

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.

 

[ChrisJC]

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.

 

[Ian Ball]

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.

 

[menacer]

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.

 

[Ian Ball]

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.

 

[andrewmcleod]

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.

 

[BradW]

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.

 

[Fishes]

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.

 

[Ian Ball]

Fishes 

 

[Badlad]

Going back a few posts to 'chairman'.  That's fine for BCA as it has only ever had a chairman in my experience.  If, heaven forbid, we did ever get a 'chairwoman', are we seriously going to call her a 'chairman', or worse, 'madame chairman'.  Let's try and lay the ground for eventually, perhaps, ever?, getting a woman to 'chair' a meeting.  If I was Chairman, and the boot was on the other foot, I'd not be so keen on being referred to as Chairwoman.  Think about it 

 

[Fishes]

If you want to lay the ground for woman chairman then I suggest that people stop all this pointless bickering about titles and get on with the real business of helping cavers.

Its not only pointless, its counterproductive.

 

[Ian Ball]

If you want to lay the ground for woman chairman then I suggest that people stop all this pointless bickering about titles and get on with the real business of helping cavers.

Its not only pointless, its counterproductive.

As a member of the bickering masses, I've not meant to be bickering at all, just trying to understand others views.

Badlad! very fun point.



 

 

[droid]

If the title of the Big Boss is a major problem to BCA then things must be far rosier than they sometimes seem.

Bit of a distraction really...

 

[mikem]

The reason members vote in committees is to sort out problems like rewording without ever bothering the membership - how did it even get to a public vote...?

 

[droid]

I'd wager the vast majority of the members couldn't give a monkeys.

 

[Pete K]

The reason members vote in committees is to sort out problems like rewording without ever bothering the membership - how did it even get to a public vote...?

Because it is a constitutional change which requires it.

 

[mikem]

"Chair has been used to refer to a seat or office of authority since the middle of the 17th century; its earliest citation in the Oxford English Dictionary dates to 1658?1659, four years after the first citation for chairman."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairperson

 

[kay]

The reason members vote in committees is to sort out problems like rewording without ever bothering the membership - how did it even get to a public vote...?

Because it is a constitutional change which requires it.

And if you allow constitutional change without oversight of the full membership, a small committee can change the organisation to move in a direction that would be against the wishes of the majority of the members.

 

[NewStuff]

And if you allow constitutional change without oversight of the full membership, a small committee can change the organisation to move in a direction that would be against the wishes of the majority of the members.

Much as I heartily dislike the bickering and fighting that inevitably ensues, making certain changes *needs* to be put to ballot. There are elements that have a history of telling porkies and doing WTF they feel like, no reason to make that any easier to accomplish.