Gay Pride ad a new 'equality gap'?

But, as djen pointed out, it was considered sufficient to send gay people to mental institutions for therapy in those days

Quite plain what Ana meant.

Are you older than I think you are, Jalima?
I wasn't sleepwalking in the early 60s, I was at school.

If gays were in. Mental institutions in the sixties it was probably they were suffering from anxiety /depression. Shock therapy was the norm then, i was in a mental hospital in 1971, one chap had it because he had suffered badly as a prisoner of war, a mum of an austistic child was depressed and exhausted - shock therapy , I had severe post natal depression, I refused to sign for shock treatment, they then told me they would treat me for an eating disorder, it was years later I learned insulin injections were used as shock therapy . So I do not accept people were placed in mental hospitals because they were guy, possibly from the mental stress they were under.

If you won't accept what people who were placed in mental institution for being gay tell us about their experiences there's nothing more to be said really. Do you accept people were put in institutions for having illegitimate babies or are they lying too. Or perhaps you think I made up the attack on my brother. I expect he just tripped over!

Yes, djen I am very very old.
Well, not that old as my youngest DC is the same age as your DGD apparently

I know you weren't sleepwalking
I was at college.
I remember mentioning in passing about Dusty Springfield being lesbian (gay was not a term then) and my DM had not heard of such a thing.
However, we were perfectly aware at school as more than two of our teachers were presumably in same-sex relationships ('best friends' as it was called). That would have been in the late 50s.
However, being female and 'friends' it was perfectly acceptable.

So - was it just men who were persecuted or were women too?

Well it says a lot about attitudes and it explains why gay people need Gay Pride marches if people in spite of numerous posts, stories, and evidence still refuse to recognise how badly gay people were treated and how much of a stigma it was. In fact to me it proves the need to have the NT tell the stories and ask people to wear the badge because there is still such a lot of ignorance and prejudice out there.

Eglantine, no, unmarried mothers were not locked in mental hospitals in the sixties.

A close friend of ny younger daughter , her sister and their mother shared a house with the deputy head . They rented a two bed roomed house, the girls in one room the women in the other. When they bought a three bedroomed house the first time my daughter stayed overnight she was thought her friend and the sister were spoilt, seems x and x had a bedroom each but mrs x and Miss deputy head still had to share a room , ?

When mental institutions were closed in the 70s and 80s a large number of women were discovered who had been committed because they were unmarried mothers. The much respected psychologist John Bowlby had given evidence as to the "unstable" character of the unmarried mother and this had been accepted by the authorities. Even more common was the family practice of placing relatives who were pregnant in "nursing homes" from which their babies were adopted. This is well documented Annie f you would care to research it just a little. But then you would have to say you were mistaken.

We are not talking about gay people receiving therapy, or unmarried mothers in the past being in institutions or anything else other than staff who work ( probably volunteers) for the NT told that they must wear gay pride lanyards and badges......it is only that fact that is important here, and seems to be being firgotten in the rush by some posters to condemn others as 'homophobic'. Which is nonsense.

Trisher the volunteers weren't asked to wear the badge, they were told. If they disagreed, mainly because they objected to being told to wear it (it being the thin end of a wedge), or because they knew Ketton-Cremer to be a private man who would have objected strongly to his sexuality (whether straight or gay) being openly discussed by strangers, they would be branded as homophobes. This has happened, they have been by some and it's very hurtful.

I would refuse to wear any badge supporting anything which wasn't about the National Trust. I volunteer for the National Trust and am proud to do so and support them. I love where I work and it's history. I am also very careful not to foist my opinions and views on our visitors and not to offend. It's something we've be trained to do. Some religions teach that homosexuality is wrong. Some of our visitors follow those religions. It's not for me to 're-educate' them.

Ketton-Cremer was probably gay and if it came up in discussion with a visitor that would be the time to talk about the problems and influence it may have had on his life, but many visitors aren't interested or consider it irrelevant and prefer to talk about the hall's more distant history or the books or the paintings. There's far more to Felbrigg than the sexuality of its last owner.

Well said NfkD

There is far more to this man's life and his public service than his private life which he preferred to keep private for whatever reason. The NT may own his house now but they do not own his private life.

Can't see much 'homophobia' on this thread in fact, only a view that people should not be forced into doing something they would prefer not to because it is not actually in the remit of the organisation for which they volunteer and as a consequence they are hidden from public view.

So all of these 10 volunteers knew Ketton-Cremer who died 48 years ago? I very much doubt that.
As I have already said anyone is free to refuse to wear anything and the NT is free to choose who will meet the public in their properties.
Why shouldn't you educate people? Surely part of telling the history of someone or somewhere is to educate?
As I said before next year celebrates 100 years of women getting the vote would you be willing to wear suffragette colours?

Eglantine, how old were these women ? to be comitted in the sixties and released in the seventies ? Under forty? Under thirty?

I may be willing to wear suffragettes colour if asked to, but not if told to

Isn't it interesting that no-one gives a straight answer, could it be that they realise if they say yes to suffragette colours but no to the rainbow badge they are demonstrating their homophobia?

No to any badge except one that says:

National Trust (Volunteer as well perhaps)

I did say earlier in the thread that I would not expect any NT volunteer to be wearing any badge except the above.

'Keep Britain Tidy'
'Look After the Countryside'
'No to Nuclear Power'
'Vote Labour'
'Vote Tory'
Vote Green'
'Help for Heroes'
'Mind Blue Light Programme'
'Votes for Women'

I would not expect to see any of the above or any other from any organisation on a lanyard round the neck of a NT volunteer when they are at work.

anyone can wear whatever they like in their own free time as far as I'm concerned although I may avert my eyes if it is a barely dressed man or woman in the street.

Just call me an old fart.

I don't think anyone on this thread has demonstrated any degree of homophobia.

Perhaps the reason people aren't getting so het up about the history of gay persecution (and of course it was real and degrading and should never have happened) is that most have just absorbed the fact that some people are gay into their everyday lives and don't see the point of making such a big deal about it.

Certainly not to the extent of wearing a badge to declare your open-mindedness, which is what it boils down to...

Well, I haven't noticed my next door neighbours wearing badges.

I will be proud to wear Suffragist colours Trisher. But not while on duty at my hall. His Lordship influenced many things including Indian independence (being celebrated at present) and USA entering WW2. And he was a Christian Scientist. Should I wear badges for all these? Or just the ones you approve of?

No objection to any of them, why should you imagine I would have. If they were part of the story they deserve to be shown.

But should the individual volunteers be made to wear symbols they personally don't support? In this case few disagree, but it sets a precedent. I'm glad the NT have decided to make it optional.

Sorry, trisher, I wouldn't wear the suffragette colours either. Those who know me, know my views on most matters those who don't know me are unlikely to have any interest in them. I feel no need to drape myself with pretty coloured decorations like a Christmas tree just to prove how virtuous I think I am

NBFK That is not even the right question. It should be "Should the NT assume that people who do NOT wear the symbol do not support what the symbol stands for?"

If the NT is concerned about the beliefs and attitudes of their volunteers, then they need to work on changing the reality of these by education and example.

Surely it is possible to personally treat LGBT people as equal human beings and resist any other treatment of them WITHOUT wearing a badge to prove it? It is what you do that matters, not what you proclaim that you do by wearing a badge. Actions speak louder than words, and louder than an obligatory label.

Wearing a badge proves only that someone is conforming in appearance to what is demanded of them by someone in authority. It does not prove anything about what they do or say, either in public or in private.

In truth, people could wear a badge because they MUST do so, and yet believe in their heart and display with their attitude the exact opposite, or they can be badgeless and welcoming.