After feedback
Is Stonewall’s face red?! Of course it wouldn’t dream of erasing mothers from the language. It was a typo.
Stonewall has dropped guidance advising groups on its workplace schemes to remove the word “mother” from their policies.
The lobby group said that it would no longer reward higher ranking scores to employers who replaced “mother” with gender-neutral alternatives.
Nancy Kelley, the Stonewall chief executive, denied in an interview that such a policy existed. “We’re not interested in removing or erasing the word ‘mother’,” she said. Kelley, who has two adopted children with her wife, added: “I’m a mum. I’m married to another mum. It’s a deeply emotive term. I would be really upset if my children didn’t call me Mum.”
When presented with its recent advice to Dundee University, which contradicted Kelley’s claims, Stonewall said it would change its guidance.
In other words Nancy Kelley was either mistaken or not telling the truth when she told Emma Barnett on Woman’s Hour that “We’re not interested in removing or erasing the word ‘mother’.” It’s not a great look for a CEO either way, especially in light of the fact that gender critical feminists have been objecting to the erasure for months. It makes her look either incompetent or dishonest.
Critics say that organisations are in effect paying a lobby group to promote their [that is, the lobby group’s] policies. Dundee University confirmed yesterday that it had replaced “mother” and “father” with gender-neutral alternatives after feedback from its application for the index.
Explaining why the university scored only five out of 15 points on its policies, Stonewall wrote: “We recommend that you remove the terms mother and father from the body of your policies . . . we’d recommend using gender-neutral language in the body of the policy.”
Oh but that’s outdated now, says Stonewall. No it’s not; it was never indated. It was an idiotic and brutal thing to “recommend” for the sake of this demanding narcissistic never-satisfied “activism.” Funnily enough human beings care about their relationships, and the relationships having to do with mothers and fathers are pretty basic to that caring. Trying to eliminate the words altogether out-Orwells Orwell.
An investigation by The Times earlier this year disclosed how Stonewall told the Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust to “use terms such as ‘pregnant employee’ or ‘birthing parent’ instead of mother”.
“Pregnant employee” suggests the person is pregnant with a work-related item, a broom or a bus or an inventory. “They is having my invoice.”
They blinked! The jig is up! Kelley can’t even afford to stand by Stonewall’s own policies. Will she be forcedout? Will there be a press release about her “wanting to spend more time with her family” or “pursuing other challenges and opportunities?”
I haven’t listened, but this does sound like it was a particularly disastrous interview.
“Pregnant employee” is one of the cases where I could actually see using the construction, specifically to distinguish between employees and clients, customers, or whatever, should those groups be subject to different policies.
Yes, sure, there are contexts where it makes sense and isn’t there to erase women; the issue is the blanket replacement of “pregnant women” with “pregnant employees.”
“They is having my invoice.”
Ten thousand lulz!
They’re backing down? Excellent, they must be feeling some heat.
It was an excellent interview. Emma Barnett deserves credit for this – she kept confronting Nancy Kelley with facts and repeating questions until she got a non-evasive answer. I think that Nancy Kelley realised that what Stonewall has been doing is indefensible; she certainly couldn’t come up with any kind of defence.
Incompetent or dishonest.
Hmm. I know which one I think is operative.
“I’m an accountant in love and I love what it’s doing to me.”
Now, now, maddog. Don’t sell her short with a false dilemma. She could be both.