Women should lead and direct the women's movement

Isn't it a bit like the Labour Party being run by a Tory? But then again, we've had that as well - Tony Blair.

The entire campaign has been co-opted by the patriarchy, hasn't it.
Let's not focus on girls heaven forbid..

it does matter, it matters immensely.
Pretending it does not matter that a man runs the Mother's Union does not change the fact that it does matter

ANd as MUcom has just shown, the Mother's UNion is "passionate about the importance of fathers".
Not much use to a single mother fleeing a batterer, is it?
So why not change the name?
It niggles, because they are portraying themslves as being for the interest of mothers-as-a-group...when they're not.
And why are they talking as though mothers are supporting them when it wasn't them who invented the concept of LGBG. Surely, they should support PinkStinks...

Oh well, I think it will continue to matter until women have equal rights, influence, financial and political power and proportional parliamentary representation.

Not really,Beachcomber,I'm in the group that thinks that if a person is doing a good job it doesn't matter if they are male or female.

Maybe MUcoms can clarify,but in what sense is Reg Bailey leading the MU? What I'm asking is,is he deciding what direction the organisation takes,or that decided by the membership?

I think the name should be changed.

An Analogy: Why would an organization representing the interests of white men, with a white man at its helm, pretend to represent black people?

MUcomes "He is passionate about the importance of fathers or a father figure for children"

But what on earth has that got to do with mothers?
Why is it called mother's union when it acts in the interests of fathers, because as we all know, the interests of fathers and mothers don't always coincide.

Poglewood don't you think it is a bit odd that they seemingly couldn't find a competent mother to run what is presented as a mother's organisation?

For me either it is not a mother's organisation really any more but something else, in which case they can have whoever they like running it.

Or it is a women's organisation that is being led by a man - I find that very odd.

I wouldn't expect a Christian organisation to be run by a non Christian or an Asian organisation to be run by a non Asian or a parent's organisation to be run by a non parent.

Hope I can bring some clarity to some of the posts here.
Firstly Reg Bailey is a first-rate Chief Executive. He has been a member of Mothers' Union for nearly 15 years, and in the little free time he has he volunteers in child contact centres to try to bring together families torn apart by divorce. He is passionate about the importance of fathers or a father figure for children. Mothers' Union is a charity that believes in the value of, and in giving support to parents.
So why the name?
At the time of founding (1875) mothers were the principle parent in terms of bringing up children. This is no longer the case. Five years ago we began reserach into changing the name of Mothers' Union as, as some have rightly pointed out, we now have male and female members, so why keep the name? The advice from professionals was that although people didn't seem to know what we did, or had a stereotypical image of us, nevertheless the name was recognisable, and so we did keep the name. Also many members - especially our members in other countries (we are in 81 countries around the world) would have faced real problems and unnecessary costs in a name change. Our aim is to use all our funds to bring support and relief rather than the non essentials.

Our campaign, Bye Buy Childhood (www.byebuychildhood.org) was launched in September after two years of extensive research gathering. It is not a knee jerk reaction but comes as a result of gathering concerns of members, finding if the evidence supported their concerns, and then budgeting for and launching a campaign. In fact I met Carrie Longton in June and talked to her about our campaign and she was most supportive, and also we hope to support this campaign. However, although we deem it really important issue on the sexualisation of girls, we also want to support the parents of boys. The values and happiness of children should not be gender specific. If girls are being conditioned to think about their personal worth in terms of being attractive to men at a young age - what is the effect on boys growing up seeing and hearing that too? Mums on here have expressed their concerns on the imagery on music channels and the effects on boys for example.
The more people who raise their concerns on the issues, surely the better world we will make for our children? We were delighted to have Justine's support on Radio 4 on Monday and only sorry we could not take up the invitation from Today on Monday. But the important thing is that the issues are being talked about and parents and industry now have a real hope of being able to voice concerns and for helpful guidelines being put in place that set boundaries but are also helpful in finding positive ways for industry to reach consumers.
I've just heard a programme on Radio 4 this lunchtime in which an apps designer talked openly about having things in apps designed to be free or low cost for children having in them attractive ways to ensure that children "engaged with a brand" and asked for the expensive items mentioned in the app. It is so pernicious this commercialisation of our children that we hardly notice unless we are really look - so the more awareness that campaigns such as ours, MumsNet, GirlGuides and lots of others out there fighting to create a sense of self-worth and value in our children, the better.

there's another thread on this pogleswood, it's linked further up.

but in the main, women, mothers should be entitled to organize themselves, for themselves, like any disenfranchised group, without a member of the dominant group becoming the leader of that organization.

Call it Parent's union if you want to have a patriarchal dynamic

Unlikely though it seems,dittany,some women do follow patriachal religions.
How does having a male CEO mean that an organisation which works for women and has AFAK a predominantly female grassroots membership has been coopted by men??

because it's normal for the head of a mother's union to be a mother

The chief exec is not a mother

That is very strange...flabbergasting really

So we do a bit of investigation and find out that it's not really about mothers at all... the chief exec himself says so.

Mumsnet, PInkstinks are about mothers, organized by mothers.. So why is a campaign begun and organized by real groups of mothers now been hijacked by this MU (and has anyone ever heard of them before today?- sorry if they have, I'm out of the loop)

Why did the gove not ask one of the mothers who actually started the awareness campaign?

Why indeed...

I've no doubt there are members of the MU who happen to be mothers but thats not the same as an organization run by and for mothers, with the interests and perspectives of mothers in mind...

If it was Parent's Union, I'd understand. But language is relevant. We have to be pedantic about language, and its uses, because if an organization is called Mother's Union, the connotations, the meaning it evokes, are different.

Sakura,how exactly has the MU been co-opted by a group with another agenda?
And why is it inappropriate for a group which has been concerned since its founding with supporting mothers and families to be involved in campaigns which affect the welfare of children?
You can't say it has nothing really to do with mothers either - I'd be very surprised if the majority of members weren't mothers,still...

This is from the MU website,which also contains links to its statements to the UN commision on the Status of Women

Mothers? Union believes that governments must take the following actions:

1. Eliminate all forms of institutional discrimination against women and counteract discriminatory attitudes in society through education, addressing the media?s sexualised and violent representation of woman and girls and strengthening commitment to all human rights.

1. Invest in healthcare and health education, including training of health workers, for all throughout the life-course and recognise that women are affected by the health of their whole family.

1. Ensure girls? and women?s equal access to and participation in education and training across the life-course, including those with caring responsibilities, those in poverty and those in rural areas.

1. Prohibit discrimination and harassment in the workplace, including eliminating the gender pay gap and denial of land rights, and ensure that family friendly work practices are available, for both women and men.

1. Ensure women?s fair and equal access to political participation, including free voting and genuine political leadership at all levels and relating to all political areas.

For me that pretty much covers my views.I don't want to turn this into a "debate the Mothers Union" thread,and if you are not a christian you will not agree with the aspects of it which relate to that - but I think as an organisation it is being misrepresented here.

bohemian, there's more to it than that, but you'd have to read the thread.
Using the name Mothers Union, when it has nothing to do with actual mothers, or their interests, is disingenuous

So men should be barred from working for or joining Mothers' Union? Should women be barred from the Fatherhood Institute? Why is a Christian organisation automatically right wing?

They may well be called the Mother's Union for historical reasons but it does appear that they need a change of name.

I now understand why the top dog is a man - it is because this is not a mother's union in reality.

As said by Bagged - in the interest of honesty, they should be called 'The Christian Family Union' or somesuch.

I object to their name - I'm a mother, an atheist and feminist, these people do not represent me or my values as a mother.

Bagged and Tagged, yes your post at Wed 08-Dec-10 09:01:56 about the Mother's Union being co-opted by a group with another agenda is spot on
and it is just as relevant to look at how it now seems to be co-opting actual mothers' issues, such as mumsnet campaigns.

Why is a Union, which has nothing really to do with mothers, (apart from the name) co-opting issues and campaigns run by real, actual mothers?

Dittany- well it does because the "vision, mission and aims" is the constitution of the charity and what the charity does defines it more than what it's called.

Charity trustees spend a lot of time on these things because that defines what the charity is about, far more than the title, which is often historical.

The charities commission and funders are able to require that charities stick to their constitution.

The Mothers Union was an organisation for mothers,founded by a woman and with a female membership.It was founded at a point where the woman's role was assumed to be to be at home bringing up the children,and the aim was to give them support in doing that,from a christian viewpoint.Even then it was open to unmarried women and women without children.

But,AFAIK,as society moved from assuming bringing up children was womens work,the MU moved from being focussed only on supporting mothers to supporting families as a whole.

Talking about it as a NFP aimed at mothers misses the point in the same way describing the Womens Institute as an organisation aimed at women would,because of the structure of the organisation.It is made up as far as I know of local groups who elect officials,with another layer of elected officials regionally (in the dioceses),and on top of that the national organisation.

I imagine women in the MU "put up" with having a man as CEO because what they share (christianity/furthuring the aims of the organisation) is more important to them than what they don't share (gender).
I assume it is still called the Mothers Union because that is a name that is important to members for historical reasons even though its precise role has changed.(it obviously matters enough to me to post about it and I only have a family connection...)

Disclaimer: Mother and grandmother in MU,(both involved in running branches)not involved myself
Apologies to any current MU members on MN for any errors.

A more relevant discussion might be

"Has the Mothers Union been hijacked by the current chief exec and transformed from a NFP largely aimed at mothers to one largely aimed at families"

Assignment: Look up the aims, mission and vision from 10 years ago. Compare to current ones. Draw conclusions.

Because the mother's union does not aim to represent mothers. It aims to support families by following a Christian agenda. There is no mention of women or mothers in their vision, mission or aims.

They just need a name change- "Christian Parents Association" or something.

I would agree if this was a women's organisation, but it's not.

would a group representing miners have a banker as their Chief Exec?

Would an organization designed to empower african-americans have a white man or a white woman as its Chief Exec?

Why do women put up with this? Are we that insignificant

Exactly
It gives the impression that an actual mother couldn't manage it.

Would Fathers4Justice have a a mother as their Chief Exec? I think not.