Men saying that MWC should include male spouses

[Madvixen]

So the Military Wives Choir movie is out this week and I've just read a blog post from a male spouse stating that MWC should become more inclusive and include male spouses and families.

It's made me rage but now I feel guilty for being angry. He's in a really lonely position (there's very few male spouses) but why does that mean he gets to come into a woman's group?

Ahhhhhhh what do I do? Do I reply to the tweet and say what I think or suck it up?

Instead of six days of week waiting for my husband to come home to have an adult conversation, it would have been seven days. Basically, at that point, my only interactions were with nursery staff and shop assistants. I was in an odd position of the time of not coming under the welfare umbrella of any regiment due to DHs job.

It could easily be viewed that two women had an idea, but it was only with the help of a man that it became successful.

It could.
See, some men are actually supportive of women and help women achieve women only choirs, groups, rights.

Gareth strikes me as a lovely man.

Why did they need him though? Obviously, it's so easy to set a choir up that they should have done it themselves. Were they too lazy or too entitled, that's the question.

Wonder what Gareth Malone's thoughts would be on opening the choirs up to men? I wonder who the choirs "belong" to, because someone must be collecting the royalties from the film.

GM could have just as easily been a female celebrity choir master. He popularised the choirs, not invented them.

@whatsthecominovertge hill It could easily be viewed that two women had an idea, but it was only with the help of a man that it became successful.

Also not true, the idea for the choir came from 2 ladies in Catterick, they approached Gareth for advice and support, he wasn't able to help them at the time. He then set up a choir at Chivenor and Plymouth, that's your TV story.

The film story is an amalgamation of both, it's inspired by the choir set up by the 2 ladies, with a few bits of the TV program added in.

It wasn't Gareth who made the choirs a success it was women supporting women, it was the women from the choirs who chose to extend their support from their own choir to a network of choirs and it is the women in those choirs who continue to support each other.

Men are not included because it a space for women to support women to sing together as they choose to sing together, singing what they want together.

It's about choice, these women have chosen to spend their precious free time with other women and have chosen to do that in an all female environment.

Barracker, you've gone on about it being something that women have built up as a reason to not have male singers (remembering still that they do have men involved otherwise, and I'm still not sure why men can be involved in some aspects but not others), but a massive part of the success was because of the involvement of a man. Which defeats your point somewhat.

One thing that's striking is that it was pretty high profile nearly from the off. What with the tv show and then singles being released etc. It's quite a big brand really. And I can understand having misgivings about that changing and potentially undermining its success. But as quite a few people on that old thread said (including someone who was a military wife), they did not like the idea that it gave the impression of the brave men going off to fight leaving the poor womenfolk behind.

@hearhoovesthinkzebra. The choirs belong to the women who sing in them, they set up a charity to support each other, the film is an independent venture from my understanding there is no royalty agreement, the film is inspired by their story, it is not their story.

Gareth has set up male only choirs too.

Women are resourceful and can seek help from whomever they please. In this case resourceful women created a female voice choir, and they happily accepted the assistance of a man to get it up and running. If Gareth had declined, I'm sure they'd have sorted something else out.

And now the female voice choir is up and running, and Gareth's short term input is no longer required. Which no doubt suits all parties just fine.

I bet, that if the complainy man in the OP who wants to force a female voice choir to change its entire 2000 strong female only membership criteria for him, were to put up his own posters to start a mixed voice choir, there'd be people willing to help him get it off the ground too. Some of them might be willing women even.

The choirs 'belong' to the members, who are all female. Groups of females, singing, own themselves.

Are there no.profits from the film then or do the choirs not see any of that?

The choirs had nothing to do with the making of the film, so they won't be receiving any of the profits

Gareth set up one choir, the women set up 70, which are all running and providing support without him.

I set up and run a women only social group in my area. Approximately once per month I receive a joining request from a male, even though they have to answer this filter profile question: 'Are you a woman over the age of 50?' before their request is sent to me. I also had a member ask me if her male friend could come along to our book group session, because he said he'd really like to.

There are posters on here who would no doubt say, come on Wiggy, what's the harm? If there's no equivalent group for the men they should be allowed access to the women's group surely? Be nice! Thing is, I've been in mixed sex social groups and I don't like them. The men dominate, some make inappropriate remarks, send unsolicited private messages, mistake friendliness for flirting etc. The dynamic is completely different.

I was looking for a women's social group in my area for ages and there wasn't one, so I set up my own. Is it really beyond men to take the initiative if they feel their social opportunities are lacking? It sounds like there would be plenty of men on a military base, so why can't they organise themselves?

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would tell men they should be nice and allow women into their groups. Then again, women are unlikely to try forcing themselves into men only groups - we're too nice.

Why do so many women (if the 'be nice' posters are women) take issue with women having spaces free from men?

It's about choice, these women have chosen to spend their precious free time with other women and have chosen to do that in an all female environment.

Exactly.

And as for 'success', I don't think you understand what community choirs are all about. They exist for people with a commonality to enjoy singing together.
Some people choose to sing with the opposite sex.
Some sing with their own sex only.
The important thing is that we all freely choose the company we keep. Nobody really gives a toss about 'success'. Only the joy of singing together with people on terms that everyone is happy with.
The world is big enough for everyone to find a niche.
We don't need to force other people to abandon their preferences.

I mean success in terms of how many choirs there are now. It's possible that there would be just as many choirs started if it hadn't been for the tv show (and the single etc that followed on). I just think it unlikely.

I applaud you Wiggy. I wish I lived near you

Nobody, absolutely nobody, would tell men they should be nice and allow women into their groups.

They do quite often. Golf clubs for example were heavily pressured to open up membership for women, including one being told they couldn't hold the Open unless they did admit women.

Whatsthecomingoverthehill - it's not the same. A choir which meets once a week for an hour isn't a golf club.

Why do women argue this stuff? I really don't get it.

On a day when Jess Phillips solemnly read out the names of the 149 women who have been murdered by men in 2018 in parliament, it seems particularly distasteful to be doing the WATM crap.

KeepYourWigOn

I think your example is completely different though. You aren't in a unique situation, you aren't in a relatively isolated community.

Support groups tend to be organised around a shared experience don't they? In the case of military wives choirs it was set up to be, predominantly, a support for women whose husband's were in the military and deployed. It's all in the original thread that was linked.

I've not been on a military base, don't really know how spouses live, how close they are to the serving personnel etc but are there going to be a lot of men free to join a choir? I would imagine that the wives stay there whereas the service men are going to be coming and going, off on leave etc so the potential pool for male members of a choir is possibly smaller than the pool of women.

I became a volunteer of a charity that I had benefitted from during a time of need. I was happy to give up my to.e to help organise it for those who then needed it but at the time when I needed it there's no way that I could have set it up, if one hadn't already existed.

It's just far too simplistic to say "well if you want something, just set it up". There are many members of all different clubs and groups who join existing groups, who don't just set up their own group because for many reasons they just aren't able to. Do you know anything at all about this man? How do you know what his circumstances are, to know if he's able to set up his own choir or group?

How many isolated or lonely people do we have living around us? The elderly are a group that are recognised to be particularly vulnerable to loneliness - following some of your points here these people should just get on with sorting it out themselves rather than wait for anyone else to do it. Sometimes the people who would benefit the most are the least able to organise it.

A choir which meets once a week for an hour isn't a golf club.

What's the difference though? If you believe that people can organise a club based on whatever criteria they choose, why shouldn't men organise a men only golf club if that's what they want?

As it happens there are women only golf clubs too, but it's the men's ones that were pushed to accept women and not vice versa. And in that case I think it's pretty understandable why - there were plenty of golf clubs men could go to, and the men only clubs were often pretty historical ones that women would rightly want the opportunity to play at. The women's courses were generally set up because they weren't allowed to join the men's ones.

Anyway, I do think women have the right to women only groups, and don't think they should be forced to accept men into their groups if they don't want them. But I don't think it is unreasonable for a military husband interested in singing to ask whether he could join. And the painting of him as someone trying to destroy womens' endeavours etc is ridiculous.

And the MWC was set up by two women, not by Gareth. Didn't you read the backstory?)

That's not the backstory presented in the film.

Isn't it? The film I saw was about 2 women setting up a choir. If it was about GM setting up a choir then he would have been in it surely. Or at least an actor acting him would be.

There's a certain sort of man that will never forgive women for "encroaching on male spaces" such as golf clubs, at a time when there was no other way for women to have access to activities and facilities that had been established by and were ruled by men but depended on wives and daughters to service them: "making teas", running raffles, etc.

They like to make a point. They might not have been around at the time but they imbibe the bile from their forebears and they have a skewed understanding of the history. The history that relegated women to the role of "supporting", of "mothering" and did not welcome women as equals.

Their privilege was to have spaces where they could fart and cuss at will, decide affairs of state, have "boy's clubs" of all ranks and stagger home when the mood took them to rule the domestic roost.

Now that women have the freedom and wherewithal to earmark their own spaces, I do not see women insisting that everything that they started must be single-sex and at the same time that everything that was male-only must become mixed-sex.

Most men "get it" and understand that as a society we have moved on from the sort of sex-segregation that reflected the "Upstairs-Downstairs" class-difference between men and women, a hangover from the time when women were legally the property of men. Not all men "get it", unfortunately.

I have lived through times of being yelled at and physically manhandled out of a couple of CIU bars because it did not occur to me that women were banned. The "space for women" in those clubs was usually a behind-stairs, grotty, dirty den like the spaces later designated for smokers. (ie. when smoking was allowed indoors but in a separate space).

The "military choir man" and his brothers are still fighting that rearguard battle against women. I have worked on military bases. If women on military bases say that they need time together away from men, I am going to believe them and I am not going to think it is because they are nasty, mean, selfish people.

If non-serving men need time together, I can understand that. But any man who insists on being included in a women's group, just because there are not enough men with the same issues that he has, is not recognising that his issues are different. They are analogous - but different. This is not the same as women wanting to play golf, FFS!

Personally, speaking for myself only, I am willing to cede "men's spaces" where they can fart and cuss at will and talk, if they wish, about "men's issues", in exchange for women's spaces where we can fart and cuss at will and talk, if we wish, about "women's issues" - and be safe from physical and sexual assault by men and their tedious need to use women as ego-fluffers.

Mixed spaces and groups have their place too, obviously. I belong to some mixed-sex musical groups. The ones led by men are the ones riddled with toxic back-biting, malicious gossip and tiresome horn-locking ego-wrestling - all initiated and kept going by a handful of men who look at any social gathering and seek out not companionship but whatever bit of limelight exists and, if none exists already, whatever they can manufacture for themselves.

To mix metaphors, they will cock things up by creating a dung-heap for themselves to crow from. It is the mixed groups led by women that are the more welcoming and comfortable. However, it is at the cost of women having to spend time and effort managing the disruptive man (or sometimes men) and evicting any who make things so unpleasant that other people start to leave.

It only takes one man to poison things, it can take a long time for a group to recover and it is never quite the same again. It has lost that "safe space" feeling and in mixed-sex groups the other men are as much unsettled as the women.

Men who cannot behave in mixed-sex groups are more than welcome to have their own single-sex groups. Women who want to avoid the extra hassle entailed in belonging to a mixed-sex group should be allowed, without being challenged, quizzed and criticised, to exclude men.

Finally . . . choirs . . . I sing, I know about arranging for voices. Maybe this man does not understand, or want to understand but if, when it is explained to him, he still "does not understand" then he is going to be a liability, in any choir, whatever its make-up. Choirs are, by definition, a team effort and require team-players. PPs have covered all the technical issues to do with singing and choirs so I am not going to repeat them.

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY