Women should lead and direct the women's movement

[tabouleh]

Taking inspiration from this quote from Finn's speech at FiL:

But however men are involved in this movement, I suggest one place they should certainly not be is in the leadership, because I believe that women should lead and direct the women?s movement. And this is a political stance, one all too often reduced to so-called ?man-hating? by those who do not appreciate the grand scale of woman-hating that goes uncommented and unchecked in our society on a daily basis.

And in order to not further derail this thread I am wondering why the Mother's Union has a man as its Chief Executive.

I expressed my point of view on that thread that the mother's union should have a mother (a woman) as it's CEO.

Someone asked "Why does it matter whether the chief executive is a man?"

Well I feel saddened that with millions of mothers in this country as possible candidates a charity called mother's union chose a man.

Looking into some of the history of the charity from their website:

Mary Sumner, the founder of Mothers' Union and herself a mother of three, was all too aware of the burdens and responsibilities of parenting; of the feelings of inadequacy that could swamp young mothers.

1876: When her daughter, Margaret, had her first child Mary took the initial steps in founding a society for the support of women in their role as mothers. Mary recognised that good parenting was more than providing for the physical needs of the child, and she believed that the primary responsibility was to raise children in the love of God.

1896: The Central Council of Mothers' Union was formed and the first Central Constitution was agreed unifying members across diocese, into a national union with Mary Sumner as President. Members agreed objectives and a central vision that marriage, parenting and prayer were key to the future of families.

1900: Mary's connections within the Anglican Communion led to Mothers' Union branches quickly being established in Wales, Ely, Exeter, Hereford, Lichfield and Newcastle, followed by branches overseas in Dublin, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada, India and Madagascar. By 1900 the Mothers Union had nearly 170,000 members.

So it seems to me that it was set up by a mother, for mothers...

I also think that feminist movements should be run by women and I'd be interested to see whether any have this enshrined in their constitution - eg Fawcett Society and whether that falls fowl of any equality laws .

Thoughts anyone?

And anyone with info on the constitutions of various organisations and how this fits in with the equality act etc.

Totally agree.

I cannot imagine the Black and Asian Police Officer's Association being run by a white person.

It would be seen as patronising and undermining.

Yes, I agree. Only possible excuse is if there is a dearth of suitable candidates. So for instance at college our LGBT officer was (overtly) straight, because there were no out gay, lesbian, bi or trans candidates for the post (or indeed any in the college at the time at all).

Not exactly the case that there are few "out" mothers though, is it? FFS.

Should the best person for the job not get it. If this man was the most competent applicant for the job then should he not be given the job. I'd always put competence and expertise over gender to be honest.

you were at the wrong college love

anyhoo - totally lolling at your 'few "out" mothers' comment!

Anyone know anything about the constitutions of other feminst groups and the legality of charities for women stating that the board/executive should be female only?

I don't know but I'd be amazed if a charity were allowed to say they will only have women in senior positions in their constitutions.

IIRC there are exceptions to the sexual discrimination laws for certain cases. For instance, producers are allowed to choose a woman over a man for a female role. Also workers in e.g. DV refuges are allowed to be women only. The WI seems to manage it.

I agree. It seems very odd that it is run by a man.

It's an interesting dilemma and it links into quotas for boards etc.

This "most competent applicant for the job" attitude is what causes us to have so few women MPs and in parliament.

Society is set up so that men get into these positions of power for a variety of reasons.

This needs turning on its head and we need quotas like they have in Scandanavia.

I do think that certain special interest charities should be able to have all female quotas. I have no problem if a Fatherhood charity wants a male leader.

Very very odd that 1 man would be better qualified than several hundred thousand females. .

The definition of competency is based on patriarchal norms - right school/right connections blah blah - no career breaks etc.

I am sure someone will come and tell me that the mother's voted Reg in - makes no difference if females chose him - I still find it sad and ridiculous.

Should you not pick the most competent person for the job. Maybe this man has years of experience as a chief executive or is an expert campaigner and lobbyist with great connections (key if you want to lobby successfully).

tabouleh- I see your point but I don't think an organisation that is campaigning for equality can ban men from serving in senior positions. I don't think it sends the right message and would be open to ridicule in the media

Maybe there are a hell of a lot of women who have got that experience too, Hudd.

I think it can byrel - likewise if there was an organisation to support e.g. male victims of child abuse, or male nurses I would be pretty if they were led by a woman.

You might be right Elephants but clearly the selction procedure/panel for the job of CEO of the mothers union felt that this guy was the most suitable person for the job.

WHAT??? The head of MOthers UNion is not a mother....?? What?? Surely a mother is more qualified to be the head of the mother's union. LIke someone who has been in the army is better qualified to be the head of the British Legion.

Doesn'T surprise me though
Charity work.. it's women's business, or has been traditionally. So does it surprise me that it's women working for free or a pittance on the till in Oxfam, or volunteering, and it's men who run the charities for big bucks. NO.. it doesn't surprise me.

Keep the little women in check

I just read the Finn Mackay speech, thanks Tabouleh:

"All oppressed groups should have the right to political self-organisation and ours should be no exception. We should not be made to justify or apologise for women-only space; one our most dynamic tactics for change that we have built up over the decades and which our movement has been built upon."

someone had to say it

But is the "mothers Union" actually a women's organisation? By it's own admission, it is a Christian organisation who's main aim is to support families.

Aim & Purpose: To demonstrate the Christian faith in action by the transformation of communities worldwide through the nurture of the family in its many forms.

Mission:

To promote and support married life

To encourage parents in their role to develop the faith of their children

To maintain a worldwide fellowship of Christians united in prayer, worship and service

To promote conditions in society favourable to stable family life and the protection of children

To help those whose family life has met with adversity

Nowhere in the mission or aims are women actually mentioned. It should probably consider a name change tbh. It's quite usual to find these charities where the aims have evolved but the name hasnt.

Yes.. I realise I overreacted a bit

however, the problems are:

It was mumsnet who began the campaign and now rather than MN being the spokespeople, it seems that they've been elbowed out of the way for this MOther's Union

Feminism and right-wing Christian conservatives overlap on this issue, but for very different reasons. The MN campaign has nothing to do with a right-wing, puritanical agenda, but it is being hijacked and it's going to be portrayed as such.

Better than the liberal left though, who believe anything goes when it comes to children in the name of "the right to free speech" and to hell with the rights of children to be raised in a non-toxic environment.

So it's bizarre that the MN campaign has now been co-opted by a Christian group.
And the name is very sneaky, because it's a man, with a right-wing Christian agenda, speaking on behalf of all mothers, now.

'But is the "mothers Union" actually a women's organisation? By it's own admission, it is a Christian organisation who's main aim is to support families.'

then why is it called the Mothers' Union? Why don't they change the name to what it really is? I think a mother should be in charge. It almost makes it look as if no capable mother could be found. If we are asking questions about it, then so is everyone else. It can't help the Mothers' Union.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.