The re-vamping of the CofE Mothers' Union

[Grammarnut]

Had a conversation with another churchgoer yesterday and the MU came up. It's practically defunct, I think, but there are moves to have a similar organisation (without the exclusions of MU i.e. you had to be married afaik). This intrigued me and I asked some questions. Turns out men are to be included. When I asked why I was told that since we are talking equality we have to let men into organisations that used to be women only since women can join what had previously been men only organisations. My point that this was not necessary (supported by saying men also need spaces in the absence of women sometimes) was met with surprise.
I know it's a bit niche, but has anyone come across this and what do people think of allowing men to join what used to be a very specifically women orientated organisation (like the WI and Townswomen's Guild)?

MU member here (though not a very active one).

Men have been welcomed as members for years (there are two men in my church who have joined) and I've never heard of any requirement to be married.

AFAIK the only criteria for membership are to be baptised and to support the Union's aims to strengthen family life.

Folk might be interested in the range of projects and campaigns the MU is involved in.

https://www.mothersunion.org/what-we-do/advocacy-campaigns

My DGM used to go on MU outings - and my DGF from time to time - and she may have been married, but she certainly wasn’t baptised, as she was Jewish.

This was happening thirty years ago in my neck of the woods in the Anglican Church in Wales. Never more than one or two in my experience and often the husband of a member. It really wasn't a problem. They were definitely men and supported the aims of the MU.

Are you sure about it not being a problem? Some women are trapped in marriages or relationships with very controlling, abusive men. Allowing men to join the Mothers Union means these women are deprived of a potential source of support away from those men.

i can only speak from my own experience. These were small churches in a very rural area where people knew each other and there was never any negative comment made. When I was an active member the MU wasn't a woman's support group or simply a social gathering, but an organisation which got involved in various projects like supporting the local women's refuge.

It’s been mixed (perhaps unofficially?) for years. It’s basically morphed into ‘parents’ union’. This has been, IME, at the behest of women who wanted to involve their husbands, particularly as numbers have dwindled. It’s not a support group, it’s a charitable organisation that does Christian deeds in the community.

I don't think there is can be a blanket rule that says that just because an organisation used to be single sex, it must always be. It really is going to depend on what the aims of the organisation were.

Where the main aim is about supporting parents, or even primary caregivers, I think you can make a pretty strong argument that it makes sense to allow men as well. Just as, in an organisation where the main aim is fixing old cars and talking about them, it might make sense to open that up to women as well. Especially in places where there really isn't going to be room for more than one group of that kind.

In other cases, the sex of the participants might be more directly relevant.

@TempestTost the MU isn’t a support group for its members, any more than the Rotary club is. It’s a charitable and campaigning organisation. And as churchgoing continues to decline and more and more women work, many branches have admitted men (usually husbands of members) as the alternative would be to fold.

In my previous Church the MU had male members. Everyone was 70+, and none had small children. There was also a 'Ladies' group and a men's group which were single sex and more about socializing and spiritual support- they were also younger in age profile.

In my current Church we only have about 40 regular congregants, the MU is defunct and we don't really have the numbers to sub-divide ourselves into smaller groups- other than the Sunday School for safeguarding reasons.

In many churches, the MU has gone from being a thriving, active bunch of young mums (in the 1960s and 70s) to a small group of elderly women. Having spoken to one recently she said she was one of the young mums that loved being a member of the MU but they started to struggle to get new members with the rise in the number of mothers returning to work after having children, and not having the time for activities like MU. So the current members of her branch have been there for 50+ years, but can’t get younger women interested any more.

In this country the MU is more or less a social organisation of elderly women, with a few husbands. It is distinctively Christian (though ours has a few who never darken the church door apart from special MU services), ours has special focus on violence against women and has an annual appeal for Women's Aid. Worldwide it's a different matter. I've had a little experience of African MU branches -- definitely all women, they run schools, nurseries, workshops, credit unions and probably most of the church. And the idea that they should have men as members would be seen as laughable.

When my parents got married c. 1950 a couple of MU members knocked on their door to tell them my mother was ineligible to join the MU as my father was divorced. My mother had no interest in joining anyway.

How times change.

And men wouldn't want to join in those cultures, either, @Niminy.