Leaderboard

Imagine you're organising a stag do. You're the best man and you're all flying to Amsterdam. The groom is a pretty popular guy, but he's only wanting 22 pals to come away with him (for whatever reason). One of the boys drops out so your wife suggests one of her female pals that would like to come along. Does saying 'no' to that idea make you a backward, sexist, misogynistic dinosaur? You can attach all the tradition and gravitas you want to Up Helly Aa, but for most of us it's a p1ss-up comparable to the scenario above, where the best craic is on the bus where you spend most of the night singing, drinking, making crude jokes and talking sh1te. While I know for a fact that there are many women that excel in this pursuit as much as men, I suspect most of us would rather just keep it as it is. To conflate the dynamics of this boozy party with the Equal Pay for Women issue, or even the vile treatment of women by abusive, powerful men from Westminister to Hollywood is disingenuous and ridiculous. In doing so we cast both male and female participants in this fantastic festival as complicit villains or meek, subservient spectators of sex discrimination. There are more men wanting to go out in squads than there are places. There are more lasses wanting to go to halls than there are tickets. A few shrill letters to the Shetland times have not diminished their enthusiasm for the festival. Be 'offended' all you want, but come next Tuesday men and women will be dancing the night away and not giving a flying... torch.

^ AFAIK thats pretty much a matter between the person wanting to join, the existing members of the squad they want to join, and the leader of that squad. The UHA Committee, last I was aware anyway, has minimal interference in individual squad affairs, beyond the general 'don't disrupt the event and/or bring it in to disrepute' type of stuff, and the residency qualifications that were/are for anybody taking part in the event, when it became necessary to cap total numbers back in the 70's. In its basest terms, as I understand it. The event is one person's private party (the Jarl), who is joined by other private partys (the other squads), in an all night merry go round of visiting yet more private partys (the venues). Its all harking back to its roots of small groups of people with a common interest (neighbours, workmates etc) informally getting together to visit dwellings throughout the town where the housholder was holding open house, and carrying brands or dragging burning barrels to provide light for themselves, with the same rules applying now as then. If you weren't part of whatever 'clique' that formed those informal groupings back at it start, you'd not been invited to join them, you'd either have had to find a 'clique' in to which you were accepted, or be left on the outside. In today's incarnation, folk generally join squads which aready have relatives, workmates, neighbours etc in them, who smooth the path as and when space exists. Its not a public event, its not advertised, spectators are not invited. Its a collection of private events which come together for a short period of their durations for a single private event held in public, and pedestrians have been allowed to spectate if they wish, simply due to the fact there's no legitimate reason to prohibit them from the public pavements concerned. The venues, with the exception of the Town Hall aren't public events, they're by invitation only of the hostess(ess), just the same as their namesakes of the open houses back in the day.

Yes. Off hand I don't remember the year, but it was certainly pre-WWII and probably pre-WWI. Very true, it could be said to have a tradition of gradual change. The key to this is the intangible “Spirit of Up-Helly-Aa.” Organisation and governance is consensually based rather than an adversarial system as familiarly used in Westminster. The Committee's remit is to the guizers and they are completely in tune with how the guizers interpret the “Spirit of Up-Helly-Aa.” Consequently, when changes do happen, they are never controversial. Exactly so. Tedious indeed. It is completely pointless and only engenders ill feeling. Something which dilettante UHA attackers really miss is the "have your cake and eat it" angle. All the UHAs are different, so taking part in two is not the same thing done twice. Many, many women like to both guize in the rurals, and also enjoy the very different Lerwick formula. When you can have two different types of event, why would you want just one?

I don't think anybody would disagree that male only guizing is an accepted custom of the Lerwick festival. The instruction "it is the duty of each Guizer to conduct himself at all times in accordance with the “Spirit of Up-Helly-Aa” with goodwill and strict adherence to accepted customs." is therefore quite clear. So, are you saying that despite the previous alleged official line', and widespread belief being 'there is no rule banning female participants', a ban on female participants does actually currently exist? If so, has it existed for some time, and the belief it didn't was simply another myth, or has the rule been introduced recently? While a current custom may be for only male guisers, customs are quickly and easily rendered obsolete by many types of circumstance, practicalities, challenges etc. UHA has seen numerous changes and an evolution over time, different procession routes, different burning sites etc. Prior to those changes the formers route, burning site etc could have equally been argued to be 'the custom', but those customs were cast aside for 'reasons', when the right reasons came along, as can any of the current customs be. Any change in gender roles within UHA will have to come from the inside, and having the same old chestnut arguments trotted out every year by those outside UHA, when its been established they won't and can't, and indeed shouldn't change a damn thing, as its not the ousiders party, has gotten very irksome. By all accounts all UHA participants, guisers, hostessess and guests, are either supportive of or at least happy to leave alone the gender defined roles currently in place, and the rest of folk need to accept that its not their business to interfere in it, and live with it. However, should the day come, as it very probably might, either sooner or later, that a significant percentage of participants are no longer content with gender defined roles, I'll put money on it that the 'custom' of male only guisers will go down the Swanee quicker than the the remnants of last nights curry when the chain is pulled.

There is, of course, nothing to stop those who don't like the Lerwick UHA from starting up their own event in a way they see fit, and leaving those of us who do enjoy it in its current format (and we are many) to enjoy it.