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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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??

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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...

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

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.

MUComs - is it really true to say mothers are no longer the principle parent in terms of bringing up children? Parenting is a lot more shared now, I agree, but there is still nothing like the same number of SAHDs as SAHMs; the majority of working mums do so in a less well-paid job, often working fewer hours, and take more of the responsibility for day-to-day care than the dads.
Surely by denying this different experience you are in danger of missing the fact that mothers are disadvantaged by it.

Mary Sumner was my great great something or other. Family of big job Christians. Always found the idea of the MU a bit claustrophobic and narrow TBH.

"At the time of founding (1875) mothers were the principle parent in terms of bringing up children. This is no longer the case."

I call bullshit on this.

For a start, 1 in 4 families in this country is run by a lone parent and in 90% of those families, that parent is a mother, not a father.

Of the other 75%, I'd like to know the proporitions of mothers vs fathers who:

Take paternity/ maternity leave
Take part time work in order to balance child-care responsibilities
Visit/ interview the nursery/ childminder/ nanny
Take time off work when the children are ill
Take responsiblity for going to parents' evenings, class assemblies, sports days, school plays etc., even when that means takign time off work
Fail to apply for better paid/ more responsible/ higher status jobs because to do so would interfere with family commitments
Make the lunch sandwiches for the kids
Sort out the PE kits
Book the music lessons
Take them to sports and social clubs
Organise the other extra curricular activities
Arrange playdates and sleepovers
Organise birthday parties
Take the kids out to buy their clothes
Cook the kids' dinners and clear up with them afterwards
Plan the kids food shopping and buy it / order it online
Organise the kids' bedrooms and help them organise and tidy them themselves
Make the kids' beds
Do the kids' laundry
End up with a worse pension in old age because they prioritised childcare instead of work

I'm willing to bet that the majority of those tasks (and those are just the basic ones I can think of, I'm sure other people could add loads to that list) are mostly done by mostly mothers, not fathers. The contention of the MU, that it is no longer the case that mothers are the principle parent in terms of bringing up children, sounds as complacent and meaningless as "we're all middle-class now". If only that were true - childcare would actually be valued if most fathers did as much of it as most mothers do.

And furthermore, women would be smashing through the glass ceiling if men did an equal share of childcare.

ITA with HerBeatitude.

I say bullshit too to ""At the time of founding (1875) mothers were the principle parent in terms of bringing up children. This is no longer the case."

If mothers the world over stopped doing what they do for a day, the majority of children would not be cared for that day. I seriously challenge anyone who thinks it is sensible to argue otherwise. The majority of fathers could stop doing what they generally do for a day and it would make precious little difference to children's care.

I see the union's baseline is "Christian care for families" - the more I look into this organisation, the more I am bristling at it having the name 'Mother's Union'.

agree with HerBeatitude and Beachcomber. No way are mothers not the principle childcarers.