Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
... someone who says, you have to read this article that's on the Internet. And I went to the article and on it, I found the headline that said:
"Pegram: Women are still not engaged in the thinking of fundraising." Now I need to put some context
behind that. A group of women and I had been having a good
natured debate on Twitter about why there weren't more women
involved in The Summit.
And we agreed
very early on in the discussion
that we kept referring to academia and market research and so we decided to combine those into thinking that a shorthand for academia and market research.
We certainly didn't mean to imply the thinking applied to
all fundraising that happens within all
the third sector. But what was even worse,
is they left out a word. What I actually said was "women are still not
adequately engaged in the thinking in fundraising".
"Women are still not adequately engaged in the thinking in fundraising".
And that one word changes the whole meaning
of the expression from one that is
absolutely sexist to one that is actually supportive of women
and pro women in
the fundraising field.
There then began a furore
first of all in the fundraising press and then in the fundraising sector as a whole.
I was devastated.
I felt my career was in tatters and had come to an abrupt end.
I didn't know what to do. Should I try to explain myself as I have done to you?
No, the bedlam and the furore was far too great to be quelled,
by an explanation. So I did the only thing that I could reasonably do,
is that I gave an apology. I said that I was absolutely devastated,
repentent and totally
sorry for the words that I had used and the interpretation that had been put on them
and the distress that that had caused. Now some people were happy with the apology and reproved the furore.
But the furore continued and eventually Adrian Sargeant and I decided
that we should cancel The Summit and so we did so.
This was actually a great shame because the women and I were actually having quite a good natured debate
and I had some messages from some of those women,
one of which I'd like to read out to you. "I think everyone came away
from that Twitter storm feeling misunderstood and rather bruised.
"The follow-up in the online press did little to clarify
and only seemed to stir-up a more disproportionate response
from a wider audience. It's so hard to read tone and intent in 140 characters.
And the further the conversation moves away from the original
comments the wilder the speculation and accusations become.
I was so shocked to read the reports and comments
from people who never saw the original conversation
but I've been back to the original tweets, there was certainly some misunderstanding of tone and intent
you would expect from a difference of opinion."
I learned a number of lessons from that and for those I'm very grateful to Ken Burnett.
You're never too old to learn a lesson,
even the hard way. Be bold,
bounce back, move on. Have confidence in your beliefs, recognise your strengths
and those that you can rely on. You can curl up and hide or you can face it out.
We should always plan for the worst but aspire for the best.
And finally, a 30-year-old reputation and track record is strong enough to survive even theTwitter gods. [Applause].
That's very kind.I've actually learned two other things.
One is never have an argument on Twitter. If you have an argument on Twitter, as Ian MacQuillan says, you've lost.
And the other thing I've learned is
never put in a tweet something that
might be part of a longer string of tweets but that you would mind if it was taken out of context and put in the public domain.