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.

Any organisation who can say that mothers aren't the principle carers of children anymore, is anti-mother. Because in order for them to be able to say that, they simply have to either not recognise what we do, or ignore it as not really being that important. It's like those surveys which show that men have 15 hours a week more leisure time than women, but they think they are doing 50% of the housework, when a proper analysis reveals that they are doing only 20% - so much more than their fathers, that they wildly over-estimate how much it is and imagine they're doing the same amount as the women they live with. And it simply doesn't occur to them to imagine what it is their wife is doing while they spend 2 hours on the computer

In every women's institution where men are allowed power, the women's voices get co-opted by men who then make the debate about them, instead of the women. It sounds like that's what happened in the MU. I hope that Christian women re-claim their organisation for themselves.

principal

LOL

'Because in order for them to be able to say that, they simply have to either not recognise what we do, or ignore it as not really being that important.'

wow, really? amazing

What an interesting thread.

I am on the side of groups for special interest/minority groups being run by people who have experience of it.

Gay women run gay womens groups
Jewish grandparent runs jewish grandparent group
Glaswegian hamster owners club run by glaswegian hamster owner
etc etc etc

And if you're talking about an oppressed group, even more so. People who have not "walked in the shoes" are not appropriate to direct things. Support, yes. Direct/run, no, I don't think so.

I do think the Glaswegian hamster owners' liberation movement has been dominated by Edinburgh gerbil owners for too long....

Too right. I've been getting really angry about it.

What would be helpful (to me at least) would be a MNer who was a current member of the Mothers Union to explain how it runs now.Because while I do agree that the Mothers Union isn't the most appropriate name now,the organisation you are all arguing against bears no relation to the organisation that my Mum and grandmother belonged to.(My knowledge runs to 2002,when my Mum died.)
I don't believe an organisation predominantly made up of women,with a history of involvement in issues affecting women worldwide,loses its effectivity just because it starts to accept as members at grassroots level a small proportion of men,and one or two men higher up.The CEO is a man,the worldwide president is a woman.I also think,and this makes me angry,that if in an organisation run by women for 135 years,the womens' voices can be co-opted and overtaken by men the minute men are allowed to join,then we should be ashamed.But I do not believe
e that this is what has happened in the MU.

With regard to men being involved in feminism,is the general opinion that John Stuart Mill should have kept his ideas to himself? Or does what he did count as support rather than anything else?

Ok,rant over. I would share my views on Edinburgh gerbil owners,but I think I may have hypothermia,it is freezing at this computer....

Are people not missing the point that this man was probably the best person they could find for the job and so they hired him. I seriously doubt they went out of their way to have a man as CEO.

no, we're not missing that erroneous point

Why is that point erroneous?

I think the statement by MUcom shows how far removed an organization can get from the needs of the members it's supposed to represent when it allows a member of the dominant group to lead it.

The reason organizations such as this are required in the first place is because women/mothers do not have enough power to lobby and legislate. They are effectively invisible and powerless. A group like this can ease the burden of that invisibility in a man's world. It does not makes sense for a man (who is part of the problem) to lead the group because he cannot comprehend the difficulties.

because in order to believe a member of the dominant group is the best person for the job in an organization that has been set up to support a disenfranchised and minority group you either have to believe that the member of the dominant group has some inherent ability that makes him better than the thousands of mothers who could do the job, when in fact he has no personal experience of walking in their shoes, and they do. Are women as a group really that incompetent? Do you believe they couldn'T run their own group?

As we have seen, the group relies on lies, such as "mothers are no longer the primary carers" in order to further the aims and goals of the dominant group.

I think MUcom's aims would be better suited to represent Father's for Justice

A mother has so many problems that fathers do not have. Apart from the obvious ones HB pointed out on the previous page, apart from the invisibility of their work, (meaning that fathers believe they're carrying out more childcare than they actually are) there are biological issues: conception, breastfeeding, who is going to look after your other kids when you go into labour (a BIG one IMO) , logistical help, poverty, dependance on the state or a man for sustenance because you can't work full time...

There are umpteen issues that mothers face that men have no awareness of... as we have seen....

Think I might start my own group....
The REAL Mothers Union (TM)

bereavement: miscarriage, or losing a child late-term and having to go through the labour

birth: birth trauma, care for other children while you're in labour, post partum care (getting other children to school while you recover if there's no man around, or you have a H who can't take time off work

what about help for mothers who have a nasty ex, who (to quote HB) believes he carried out 50% of the childcare because he read the kids a story twice a week. Louis de Bernieres did this. He told the papers he deserved a 50% stake in the children's custody, because he'd carried out 50% of the childcare, but then it transpired that he was hardly ever there. His own friends^ admitted he was always on the road promoting his books. IN his mind, he was doing 50% of the childcare

what about battered wives? If a woman is not a mother she can leave a partner easily. If she is a mother, she is often tangled up financially with her partner and in many cases cannot leave. The fact she is a mother limits her options considerably

What about all the mothers who are abandoned by the father, like a recent case on MN, where the H wanted to leave the family because he wanted to do more clubbing. Fathers are free to abandon families wantonly.

what about campaigns by actual groups of mothers being appropriated and redirected by rogue organizations who pretend they're acting in the interest of mothers

I could go on, but you get the point

How can a non-mother be the best person to represent mothers?

If it was a job like being an accountant or a teacher I would definitely say, let's have the best candidate regardless of their sex.

However this person is supposed to represent mothers - surely a mother is the best person for the job?

One only has to look at that weird statement about the inflated role of fathers in order to see that this guy isn't the best person to represent mothers.

I can't quite believe that women don't see how important it is for us to at least have a bit of power and influence when it comes to our own concerns. That is what equality is about.

This 'best person for the job' stuff is disingenuous.

I can't quite believe it either.
Thoroughly depressing. Black people, other disenfranchised groups would not stand for it.
I think it shows how downtrodden women really are.

What everyone is forgetting is that if women had an equal stake in society there would be no need for a mother's interest group . THey could lobby, or make up laws in their favour, just like men do. A mother's group can only be there to redress the imbalances of power created by a patriarchal society. It simply cannot be headed by a man.

It does feel like a combination of downtroddeness, obliviousness to our situation and some sort of notion that equality has been achieved.

I was also a bit to read that the head of OBJECT is a man who believes that "women can't succeed in equality without the help of men"

Fair enough, his heart is in the right place regarding OBJECT, however the patriarchal dynamic is once again at play.
ONe lone male head and a flurry of female underlings.
A doctor and his nurses
A headmaster and his female teachers
A Manager and his secretaries
The Male Head of the Mother's Union and then the mothers

Does it ever occur to these men that the best way to help us might be to back the fuck off and let us do things?

If it was someone heading up an organisation about teachers or accountants, you would expect them to be a teacher or accountant too.

Head of a mothers organisation should be a mother. Just the only thing that makes sense.

Fact is though that it's not an organisation for mothers any more, and it should make it clearer, with a namechange or tagline.

Something like "the mothers union - working hard for fathers" might do it

And I am getting increasingly annoyed that the govt has brought them in to do this.

Oh,FGS...
though I do like the idea of the MU as a rogue organisation...
While "the mothers union - working hard for fathers" is a catchy phrase it still is not fair to the organisation,and what they do in the UK and worldwide.They have not started to support fathers at the expense of mothers.But if you want to support families,offering support to fathers,grandparents,carers,as well as to mothers - what's the problem with that?(but ok,maybe don't call it the Mothers Union - but that isn't my decision.the organisation has evolved over the years )

"Are women as a group really that incompetent? Do you believe they couldn'T run their own group?"

You said this,sakura - I don't think women are incompetent,but I wonder if you do? The MU is one of the biggest womens organisations in the world,it has been in existence for 135 years,it brings together women from different cultures and backgrounds.I could be wrong because it is a while since I thought about this but I think it is run by the Worldwide Council,which is elected by the membership?

I think it is insulting to the intelligence and competence of the women who belong to the MU now ,and to those who built it up in the past,to assume it will lose its way because of the involvement of men at whatever level.

And I assume the government has brought them in because of their long track record with issues affecting women and children.

"The MU is one of the biggest womens organisations "

But you've just said that it's not an organisation for women/mothers, but for families, parents, grandparents. So you see how the name is very misleading.

"long track record with issues affecting women and children"

But this is no longer their focus, as I understand it.

It's not just because it has a man at the head of it that I am sceptical about its ability to repreents the interests of mothers Pogleswood. It's this particular sentence written by its reprsentative:

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

That sentence tells me everything I need to know, about how connected to mother's issues this organisation is. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot have a mother's organisation saying this and treat it as if it is credible.