|
I'm going to try to tread lightly here. First, I love women, and definitely believe in gender equality and equal rights. My wife is my best friend and I also have platonic female friends that I enjoy hanging out with. But the fact is men and women are different and sometimes it's nice to have a guys only environment. I wouldn't be upset if I was prevented from joining a women only group; I think such arrangements can be quite healthy actually. Don't worry, we're not plotting new ways to oppress women at our meetings. And there's nothing to stop you from starting your own cool club you know. I'm gonna catch poo poo for this no matter what, eh?
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Flying Fortress posted:Don't worry, we're not plotting new ways to oppress women at our meetings. This reminds me of something that caught me off guard after I joined. After I was raised and started going to meetings regularly I assumed it was going to be bunch of grouchy old men complaining about their wives. It was the exact opposite. Every time I hear a wife, mother, or whatever mentioned it's always about how amazing they are for putting up with us or something similar. Obviously I can only speak for the half dozen or so lodges I've been to but that is honestly the case, and it was really refreshing to discover.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Flying Fortress posted:I'm going to try to tread lightly here. Well if Eastern Star and Amaranth weren't so incredibly lame by comparison...  An Old Boot posted:Stuff As someone who has both a vagina and a computer, and the ability to use Google, I know what you're getting at. It's a situation where, if everyone knew what was coming, it wouldn't really be the end of the world. Particularly if it were an already co-ed situation. But the particulars of the ritual being a surprise makes.. yeah.. I can see how it wouldn't work out, especially as the first female member(s) of an otherwise male organization. That particular problem doesn't preclude the existence of something like all-female lodges, but then you get into the whole 'what is a regular lodge' and 'what is Masonry' meta-issues which muddy the waters in a whole different way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:I'm asking questions because I'm curious whether members of a particular fraternity (the Masons) see any parallels between a fraternity and a "whites only" organization, No. quote:and whether they think that posterity will view fraternities in the same light as "whites only" organizations are viewed by most of society now. No. quote:There have been a couple of mentions in the thread about a former "whites only" rule It was never a "rule". It was racist men just voting no on black prospective members. quote:as well as one mention of a former "no maimed man" rule. This is still the rule, but it's not as hard a rule, and it's always ignored. I am not aware of any time in history it was not ignored. The rest of what you asked has been answered in the OP and elsewhere in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:I haven't presented any argument. I'm asking questions because I'm curious whether members of a particular fraternity (the Masons) see any parallels between a fraternity and a "whites only" organization, and whether they think that posterity will view fraternities in the same light as "whites only" organizations are viewed by most of society now. I don't believe these questions been asked in this thread before. I agree with Lovable Luciferian that these can be considered loaded questions but I can't really think of a more polite way to ask. This is, after all, an "Ask us" thread. Given this, I'll go ahead and answer. I had refrained before because it seemed like the kind of "gotcha" setup one sees all too often, meant not to earnestly inquire but to push an agenda. So, firstly, I do not see any parallels between a fraternity only allowing men to join and a "whites only" organization that only allowed whites to do whatever. There are a few reasons for this. The primary one is that race and gender are not analogous, and not equivalent. Whereas one would have a hard time demonstrating that one race to another is substantially different aside from superficial traits and cultural experiences, it is trivial to demonstrate significant differences between men and women. Further, even though I reject major gender differences that matter, and I don't adhere to any ideas of "women like such and such and men like so and so" as a rule, as an observation I see differences, created by society, in how such groups operate. In either case, on principle I have no problem with women doing Masonic-like things. If someone broke their oath and taught women all about Masonry, I'd have no problem with the women, and though I'd not recognize them as my brothers, I'd not harbor ill will. As for the man who broke that oath, I'd see him as an oathbreaker. So there's that. Another issue is that I do believe in a degree of freedom of association. That is, Masonry is not a governmental institution. It's a fraternity. It is, if we want to push the case, an esoteric society which claims to be in possession of certain truths which truths hone good men into better men. I don't think I give up the game much to say that it has some vague relations to Rosicrucian thinking, and it is somewhat shallow as far as esotericism goes compared to what I think some people hype it. In any case, it is not the kind of organization that I think we need to be breaking down barriers in. Women being excluded from this club is no different from the fact that I can't join the Junior League, and I'm quite fine with that. I do not think it is a social justice issue that I might want to have this as a men's club sort of thing. Is there an earth-shattering, deeply seated misogyny in this thinking? I don't believe so. For what it's worth, I also think that whites only organizations which define themselves as such (usually for the purpose of being such) are somehow inherently bad, though again the metaphor breaks down quite a bit because usually organizations with racist rules are racist, and there is no utility it racism. I don't think having a club for men that doesn't allow women to join is sexist. That might be because I am a sexist, I don't know. I'll address this point a bit more below. quote:There have been a couple of mentions in the thread about a former "whites only" rule as well as one mention of a former "no maimed man" rule. I'd be curious to hear more about those rules, how widely adopted they were, and how they were changed -- and what made those rules different from the immutable "no women" or "must profess belief in God" rules. The OP mentions a historical schism that resulted in parallel sets of lodges between white Masons and black Masons but it is not clear whether this arose from de facto or de jure discrimination. There is not and never has been a "whites only" rule in regular Masonry. Masonry has always accepted all men as equal regardless of color, nationality, or creed. However, a fundamental practice of Masonry is that members must be approved by unanimous ballot. That has led to a sort of functional, institutional racism in states where there are likely to be a lot of racists. Further, there is a rule that only "free born" people can join. Some of those aforementioned racists have used this rule to justify their racism ("African Americans are descendant from slaves so they aren't free born" or somesuch). That does not mean that it is a rule within Masonry, it simply means that not every Mason so boldly upholds the ideals that Masonry means to impart. The existence of the Prince Hall Lodges has led to exacerbate this problem exactly because it has created a general opinion of "our Masonry" and "their Masonry" and it's an unfortunate schism. Some Lodges and Grand Lodges have done a lot of work to bridge that gap, and that is wonderful. But regardless, it is false to say there was a "whites only" rule in Masonry. There are bigoted Masons, and because those bigoted Masons have a right to veto each and every applicant to their Lodge, there exist some functionally racist Lodges, but it's not about Masonry, and it's not a rule. As for the rule about "no maimed man," the difference there is that this rule is not a Landmark. It worked its way into the general ritual, but it's not really understood to be immutable. Further, it doesn't exist everywhere. I know of only one Grand Lodge which absolutely refuses anyone with a physical deformity (West Virginia, bah gawd). Generally this rule existed because Masonry served in essence as health and life insurance for many of its members for many hundreds of years. A man would join a Lodge and it was understood and indeed practiced that should he become sick and unable to work, the Lodge would provide for him, his spouse, and his children, and should he pass on, the Lodge would continue to provide for his widow and children. For this reason, accepting a man who was deformed or maimed, which in the 1700s when speculative Masonry became a thing meant essentially that that man could not work, would be problematic, taxing on the Lodge. Egalitarian though Masonry is, it's not really communist. Even today, when I first applied to Masonry, a question I was asked was whether or not I had adequate means to provide for my wife should I pass away in an untimely fashion. This was because it is a legitimate consideration for an organization that takes care of its own. In any case, on the second part, how do I think society will see Masonry in 100 years regarding this question of women? I think it will look on Masonry the same as it looks on the Junior League, or the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, or, hell, sports teams. I don't think that this is even a reasonable question with regards to feminism. Hell, I might even consider it a slightly spiteful application of feminism. Institutional sexism is a very real thing, and women face very real obstacles to equality in many areas. Not being able to join a fraternity is not one of those, and diminishes fights regarding wage equality, political power differences, good old boys establishments in workplaces, and cultural ideas. Choosing this particular fight to fight seems petty, and I don't understand why it would be fought in the first place. Masonry is not a University through which men can pass and women cannot. It is not a glass ceiling that must be broken to allow women to fully exist. And it's not even like it is protecting anything really - there already exist Masonic Lodges that allow women to join. They are not regular, but then, this shouldn't bother a woman anyways, because why should she need the approval of the patriarchal regular UGLE? So, that is essentially what it boils down to. Women are not able to be made Masons, but I don't care if they want to join Co-Masonic Lodges and be pretend-Masons. I don't think that women should be allowed to become Masons, but this is mainly because I don't think it's a fight worth fighting. Fortunately, it's not a thing that can even happen, so I never have to deal with confronting whether or not I would be okay with a woman in Lodge. I don't see what difference it would make, frankly, but it would be strange, and different, which is not really what I want when I go to this meeting of an organization that prides itself on hundreds of years of tradition, though I don't think tradition alone should justify sexism, but then, I don't think it's sexist, so. . . And I don't think society will frown on this because I think it is a non-issue, and if it were to become a major issue, I suppose I should rejoice as it would mean we've come a long way in 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:In regards to black men and Prince Hall lodges: that was and still is a massive clusterfuck. I've heard theories that Prince Hall lodges were rejected because at the time regular grand lodges in the United States thought their charter was bogus, which seems to be the prevailing theory today. Why they haven't been fully recognized and are still not recognized in some states seems to boil down to two main things in my view. The first of which being old racist bastards don't want to let them in. The second being a very weird issue of jurisdiction. We don't seem to like having two grand lodges in the same geographical region and the Prince Hall lodges in the united states want to keep their own grand lodges. Also many Prince Hall lodges don't want to become fully integrated with us. Just to speak to this on a Masonic level (heh), the issue with Prince Hall Lodges has always been one of charter and jurisdiction. The Prince Hall Lodges grow from, understandably, Prince Hall, a free born African American in the 1770s who sought, along with other African Americans, to join Masonry. The Boston Lodge they petitioned did not permit them join, which was a sad state of affairs but perhaps not unpredictable. In fact, the most surprising part of the story is likely that they were all conferred the Masonic degrees by members of Irish Lodge No. 441, stationed nearby, and then granted a charter by the Grand Lodge of Ireland to have a lodge, meet, perform funerals, and so on, but explicitly not to confer degrees. When the Antients and Moderns merged in England, African Lodge No. 1 was derecognized along with a lot of other American lodges. African Lodge No. 1 went to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, but was not permitted a charter. Being a Lodge with no Grand Lodge, but with a legal charter from Grand Lodge of Ireland, they declared themselves their own Grand Lodge, and went from there. The technical bits come in with the idea of geographic jurisdiction. Historically, Grand Lodges gain their jurisdictions from geographical landmarks, however anymore they use "common sense" political boundaries. No two Grand Lodges could have authority in the same area, because that would create two Grand Masters with equivalent authority which creates problems. So until very recently, those two lodges simply didn't recognize one another. The "regular" Grand Lodge and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge both claimed total jurisdiction, regarded their opposition as clandestine, and operated normally. For the most part this worked just fine, as African American men would be more likely to join Masonry by way of their African American friends and the same with White Americans (amusingly, when a black friend of my wife a few months ago heard that I was a Mason, he was legit shocked to find out that there are White Masons, so this is still a thing). But this issue is now largely resolved through mutual recognition agreements as well as agreements delineating who has jurisdiction over whom. The Prince Hall Lodges as a rule don't want to integrate because doing so would end a traditional line. Their story is fascinating and culturally important, and having them merge is like saying "great, good job continuing Masonic tradition for over 200 years! But now you can come join the white people lodges so forget all that." I can't blame them. "Way to be independent for 200 years, now give up your grand lodge and join us" is a pretty lovely way to do it. The few states that still don't recognize their Prince Hall Grand Lodge equivalents, by the way, are all in the South. I do believe that it is some kind of racist poo poo wrapped up in a "nah, we don't recognize your jurisdictional claim" wrapper to make it seem less racist, but I don't have any way to prove that and I don't intend to, as those aren't my Grand Lodges and so I don't have a dog in that fight. I hope they all find happiness, be that through integration, recognition, or just maintaining the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Just to speak to this on a Masonic level (heh), the issue with Prince Hall Lodges has always been one of charter and jurisdiction. Dear Paramemetic, that was pretty educational. I appreciate the work you put in that post, I don't have anything to add, just wanted to thank you for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 13:49
|
|
|
I'd like to make a brief digression of the topic at hand, if I may. A couple of days ago, I was made a Knight Templar. We went through the whole York Rite degree work in a massive two-day class, with fifty attending candidates. I have to say... WOW. I am seriously stoked, (and seriously tired out) from all that stuff. They were right about the early degrees (the Royal Arch Degrees) in that they really tie in -- and shoehorn in -- to the Blue Lodge Degree work. It seems like the fourth degree goes between Fellow Craft and Master Mason (for reasons that I don't really feel I should go into here) and the fifth degree, the Past Master, is really a post-Master degree. But the Cryptic degrees... wow. SO much material. And then the Chivalric ones. Dang. I am totally gobsmacked by the suddenly inflated number of passwords and counter-passwords and grips and due guards and signs that I now have to cope with. AIIEE! I must admit, though (and I've said it before), that the term "Sir Knight" weirds me out. As a form of address (e.g., "Sir Knight, how are you today?") it's perfectly fine, as "sir" is a term of address. But as a term of reference (e.g., "There are five Sir Knights here today" or "I want to be a Sir Knight") it's grammatically WRONG, as, again, "sir" is a term of address, not reference. The term of reference is, simply, "KNIGHT" (so why don't we just say "he's a Templar?") but, I guess, it's something I'll just have to live with as one of the many (many many many) Masonic idiosyncrasies. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Effingham posted:A couple of days ago, I was made a Knight Templar. We went through the whole York Rite degree work in a massive two-day class, with fifty attending candidates. Congratulations, Brother Companion Sir Knight Do you mind if I ask where you're from?Yeah, having gone through a similar 2-day degree conferral (with 11 total, I can't imagine 50, good lord), I agree that it's a LOT to take in. I'm actually working on a book at the moment that may help you out. Here in NC, candidates are given a small (~25 page) book after being initiated/passed/raised, entitled "The Entered Apprentice", "The Fellowcraft" and "The Master Mason" respectively, that are a sort of recap of what they just saw and some of the symbolism behind it. When I went through the York Rite degrees, I was really saddened that there was nothing of the sort afterwards - it was like, "here's like 9 hours of degree work, enjoy! Maybe you can see it again in 8 months!" So, I started a book that does a similar recap of the capitular/cryptic degrees. I'm not focusing on the chivalric orders in this, as they're a lot more historical than esoteric (though don't get me wrong, there's a lot of symbolism there). Anyway, I'm about 2/3 done with it, and it'll be a short read (<50 pgs). I'm happy to send it to you when I'm done. My hope is that it can have a small run printed and they can be given to the candidates that go through in the fall. I think it'll be really helpful. Effingham posted:I must admit, though (and I've said it before), that the term "Sir Knight" weirds me out. As a form of address (e.g., "Sir Knight, how are you today?") it's perfectly fine, as "sir" is a term of address. But as a term of reference (e.g., "There are five Sir Knights here today" or "I want to be a Sir Knight") it's grammatically WRONG, as, again, "sir" is a term of address, not reference. The term of reference is, simply, "KNIGHT" (so why don't we just say "he's a Templar?") but, I guess, it's something I'll just have to live with as one of the many (many many many) Masonic idiosyncrasies. I felt the same way, but I've come to just think of "Sir Knight ___" as a Masonic thing, as a way to separate it from someone who is a real honest-to-goodness knighted "Sir". This way, I feel, keeps us on a separate level so that we're not encroaching on the hard work people have put in to their actual knighthoods.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
An Old Boot posted:- Since there is secrecy about what a degree entails, there can't be any advanced warning. In the case of a woman, this could be read very, very badly. I won't go into more details on what this means, since you can look them up yourself if you're that curious, just, like I said, try not to ruin it for other people. An Old Boot posted:It's not saying that all women are prone to have shitfits over something like that, or that none of them can handle it, but given the current climate of gender relations in American society at the very least, well. I have to admit, I'd probably be more than a little uncomfortable, if not a little/a lot frightened for my safety given the disorientation involved, no matter how many reassurances I got. It's just that kind of thing. Men are more comfortable with it, don't need to think as much about that aspect of it, whereas women probably wouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Royal Arch Degree tomorrow night! I can't wait. QPZIL, sorry I've been slacking with the PM about the whole phrasing of the Commandery obligation(s). That book you're talking about writing sounds amazing though. I'm really looking forward to getting beyond "finishing the story" and heading off into whatever (hopefully amazing and esoteric) direction the rest of these degrees take. I'm also signed up to do the 2-day Scottish Rite reunion here in DC next month where we go up through the 32nd. I'm going to have a LOT to review in the next months!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:I am a Mason and I still don't understand what people mean by this. Think about the very first part of the EA ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
mrbill posted:Think about the very first part of the EA ceremony. Since that part is there solely to verify the sex of a person, then you could easily remove it once being a male is no longer a requirement to enter the craft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:07
|
|
|
TemetNosceXVIcubus posted:Since that part is there solely to verify the sex of a person, then you could easily remove it once being a male is no longer a requirement to enter the craft. I don't think you're thinking of the right "very first part"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, I don't think it's "solely to verify the sex of a person." Somebody PM me what part we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
For those that haven't been through the ritual, because you're either a woman or a non-mason. It can be weird reading this stuff, I think you should picture it like a scene from a movie. Like one of those WWII movies where everyone has volunteered to go and fight the Hun, and they're getting their medical done. So everyone is lined up totally naked with their id in their hands and a guy in a white lab coat tells them to turn their head and cough. See they don't show you that at the same time as the guy is turning his head and coughing, the medical dude is cupping the guy's family jewels and checking for defects and injuries, and listens to their chest with a stethoscope. In the initiation rite we do something similar, except because we're supposed to be builders, we don't use a stethoscope, we use a 24 inch gauge. I'm having a prostate exam today, turning 50 this year, and I thought that maybe we should do that as part of the initiation. We have a few doctors in the Lodge, so getting a medical done at the same time would be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Well I certainly wasn't given a prostate exam with a 24-inch Gauge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
Yeah I defintely don't remember anything verifying my sex when I went through the degrees.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Aureus posted:Yeah I defintely don't remember anything verifying my sex when I went through the degrees. It isn't put to you as such, but it is the original rationale for some aspects of the manner of dress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
But the very first part of the initiation process is signing in as a candidate in the guest book? How is that checking gender?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Given this, I'll go ahead and answer. I had refrained before because it seemed like the kind of "gotcha" setup one sees all too often, meant not to earnestly inquire but to push an agenda. Well my point of view is evident from my questions, but there is no point in trying to troll an ask/tell thread. Paramemetic posted:So, firstly, I do not see any parallels between a fraternity only allowing men to join and a "whites only" organization that only allowed whites to do whatever. There are a few reasons for this. The primary one is that race and gender are not analogous, and not equivalent. Whereas one would have a hard time demonstrating that one race to another is substantially different aside from superficial traits and cultural experiences, it is trivial to demonstrate significant differences between men and women. Further, even though I reject major gender differences that matter, and I don't adhere to any ideas of "women like such and such and men like so and so" as a rule, as an observation I see differences, created by society, in how such groups operate. Race and sex may be different kind of differences, but I am curious how/why the differences created by sex are considered so fundamental to what it means to be a Mason (apart from the bare definition of a Mason as having to be a man). I've seen allusions to rituals which presumably have some sort of physical component to them, but I guess I am not understanding why, if Masonry is about making men better, it can't also be about improving women and instilling virtues in them too. If being a Mason is so great, wouldn't you want to share it? It just seems like the more Masonry is awesome, the worse the reasons are to keep it a boys' club only. Paramemetic posted:There is not and never has been a "whites only" rule in regular Masonry. Masonry has always accepted all men as equal regardless of color, nationality, or creed. However, a fundamental practice of Masonry is that members must be approved by unanimous ballot. That has led to a sort of functional, institutional racism in states where there are likely to be a lot of racists. [...] But regardless, it is false to say there was a "whites only" rule in Masonry. There are bigoted Masons, and because those bigoted Masons have a right to veto each and every applicant to their Lodge, there exist some functionally racist Lodges, but it's not about Masonry, and it's not a rule. Do you think that it is possible that a hundred years from now, this same logic will be used to explain why the "no women" rule wasn't really a rule, it was just something everyone did until they knew better? Sort of like how (and I wish I had a less provocative example) 150 years ago it was commonplace in mainstream Christianity in the U.S. to use the Bible to justify slavery, but now, it's accepted by everyone that the Bible (which hasn't changed) didn't really mean that. Paramemetic posted:In any case, on the second part, how do I think society will see Masonry in 100 years regarding this question of women? I think it will look on Masonry the same as it looks on the Junior League, or the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, or, hell, sports teams. I don't think that this is even a reasonable question with regards to feminism. Hell, I might even consider it a slightly spiteful application of feminism. Institutional sexism is a very real thing, and women face very real obstacles to equality in many areas. Not being able to join a fraternity is not one of those, and diminishes fights regarding wage equality, political power differences, good old boys establishments in workplaces, and cultural ideas. Choosing this particular fight to fight seems petty, and I don't understand why it would be fought in the first place. Masonry is not a University through which men can pass and women cannot. It is not a glass ceiling that must be broken to allow women to fully exist. And it's not even like it is protecting anything really - there already exist Masonic Lodges that allow women to join. They are not regular, but then, this shouldn't bother a woman anyways, because why should she need the approval of the patriarchal regular UGLE? Would you acknowledge that there is a certain element of "separate but equal" in your argument? i.e. there's nothing wrong with women, I just don't want them in my club / drinking from my water fountain? (Again, I am not calling you a bigot, I am just trying to show that the logic here is familiar.) I get that you don't think gaining membership in a particular private club is an earthshattering achievement for women, but (1) would you not agree that advancing women's equality in one area of society can have collateral benefits in other areas of society? (2) does the argument that there are bigger priorities out there really justify arguing that smaller problems (if you think they are problems, and I realize you don't) shouldn't be fixed? If I could pick voting vs. using the same water fountain as someone else, I'd pick voting, but do I have to pick only one? Thanks for answering my questions. As you can tell, I fundamentally do not share your worldview, but it is interesting to explore it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:If being a Mason is so great, wouldn't you want to share it? It just seems like the more Masonry is awesome, the worse the reasons are to keep it a boys' club only. I have a pretty simple question for you about your worldview... Must all organizations be open to both genders? Is it wrong for a fraternity to exist at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:If being a Mason is so great, wouldn't you want to share it? It just seems like the more Masonry is awesome, the worse the reasons are to keep it a boys' club only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:Race and sex may be different kind of differences, but I am curious how/why the differences created by sex are considered so fundamental to what it means to be a Mason (apart from the bare definition of a Mason as having to be a man). I've seen allusions to rituals which presumably have some sort of physical component to them, but I guess I am not understanding why, if Masonry is about making men better, it can't also be about improving women and instilling virtues in them too. If being a Mason is so great, wouldn't you want to share it? It just seems like the more Masonry is awesome, the worse the reasons are to keep it a boys' club only. It isn't being "kept from" because Masonry hardly has the monopoly on this sort of thing. There are other organizations. And again, I don't think there's any particular reason other than the reasons already discussed at length. It would tangibly change the flavor of things, it is literally impossible to make the change and remain Masons, etc. are all compelling reasons why this is not a thing I have devoted particular mental energy to. quote:Do you think that it is possible that a hundred years from now, this same logic will be used to explain why the "no women" rule wasn't really a rule, it was just something everyone did until they knew better? Sort of like how (and I wish I had a less provocative example) 150 years ago it was commonplace in mainstream Christianity in the U.S. to use the Bible to justify slavery, but now, it's accepted by everyone that the Bible (which hasn't changed) didn't really mean that. No, not likely. A hundred years from now Masonry will continue to be a men's organization which allows only men, or Masonry will simply not exist, and there is no possibility for it to go any other way. Any Mason who is present at making a woman a Mason is no longer a Mason tautologically, and so the whole point is moot. I hope, again, that 100 years from now there are more important things being made. quote:Would you acknowledge that there is a certain element of "separate but equal" in your argument? i.e. there's nothing wrong with women, I just don't want them in my club / drinking from my water fountain? (Again, I am not calling you a bigot, I am just trying to show that the logic here is familiar.) I get that you don't think gaining membership in a particular private club is an earthshattering achievement for women, but (1) would you not agree that advancing women's equality in one area of society can have collateral benefits in other areas of society? (2) does the argument that there are bigger priorities out there really justify arguing that smaller problems (if you think they are problems, and I realize you don't) shouldn't be fixed? If I could pick voting vs. using the same water fountain as someone else, I'd pick voting, but do I have to pick only one? No, I don't agree there is an element of separate but equal here. This is not a matter of "we don't want to share what we have, but they can have something of their own if they want." I am curious to hear your answer to the question asked you above about whether or not you think there is any occasion where it is reasonable or acceptable to have groups which separate in any way? I mean, avoiding any question of tradition, because I don't think an appeal to tradition is particularly compelling, and sometimes traditions are simply wrong, the point is more that I see no reason for this reform. It's not a civil rights barrier. It comes very much down to a question of right to assemble. Masonry is not a good or service that is being denied to a demographic, at least not legally (esoterically, perhaps, but that's suspect). It is an assembly, a group, a club, and if we want to get right down to brass tacks, I think that the right for human beings to assemble with people with whom they want to assemble, and to not be forced to assemble with those with whom they do not wish to assemble, in their own property, on their own time, trumps the right of the individual to be allowed to join an assembly against the will of the majority. I think there is a right of association, a right to privacy, that determines that men (and women!) should have the right to not have people foisted into their social group. Certainly this is not true with regards to governmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations which perform certain essential services, and so on. The distinction is fairly common-sense, though. Do you think that boy's schools must admit females? What about girl's schools, must they admit boys? Should men be allowed to become nuns? What about women becoming priests? And rather than make this a question of your opinion, rather I am asking do you believe that either society as a majority-consensus or via the arm of government should have the capacity to compel organizations or individuals to give up those rights of association, privacy, and so on? That's what I'm fundamentally questioning. It is not a question on womanhood, or even about Masonry in particular, but more now I'm abstracting to hear your viewpoint on this. You seem interested in the perspective 100 years from now, and I ask myself, 100 years from now, will we value our right to decide with whom we choose to meet, or egalitarianism more, and can we have one without the other? I know this is a bit extreme because you're not proposing that we should be forced to comply with this, but rather that Masonry as a whole should (impossibly, by virtue of its structure and content) unanimously decide to betray its fundamental principles and allow women (and atheists, etc.) to join. But still, I am trying to demonstrate that even the very insistence of the question belies a sort of distrust in our ability to decide with whom we freely associate, and charges our choice to spend a nice evening wearing suits and voting to pay the bills in the absence of women with accusations of misogyny and patriarchy. As Bro. Wafflehound so keenly points out, under all the pomp and circumstance, sometimes dudes just want to get away from their wives. As to the second part of this paragraph, I don't believe this is an issue of "you should fight the harder battles and ignore the lesser ones," and if you got that impression I probably failed to adequately develop the point I was trying to make, which is that because this is so trivial a thing, because it is essentially meaningless and in fact does not advance the women's movement at all, that in 100 years when Sexism Is Over, nobody will care. It is a non-issue that has become an issue out of fervency or zeal. My hope is that in 100 years, or at whatever arbitrary point the cause of liberal progress and civil rights and equal human rights are solved, people will look back at this entire question and go "who cares if women can join a particular club?" Because I don't see Masonry's traditional gender requirement as an act of patriarchal aggression, though I understand fully why it might be confused for the same if one is looking to find it. quote:Thanks for answering my questions. As you can tell, I fundamentally do not share your worldview, but it is interesting to explore it. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say you fundamentally don't share my worldview (I don't know, you might not, but I don't know your worldview writ large enough to know), and I don't think this is a worldview issue. I am very much pro-feminist, though I would not call myself a feminist because I know I have habits and learned behaviors that are misogynistic. I support civil rights movements of all sorts, I attempt wholly to be mindful of bigotry, I strongly advocate for equal human rights and for compassion and loving-kindness towards all people. Through this lens, I don't see this "fight" as being an actual fight because the entire cause of civil rights and human rights advocacy becomes a failure the moment we start stripping rights from one group to give them to another. It is one thing to take privilege or undue influence from one group to give it to another, to level a playing field and to promote justice such that we treat each person equally with respect to their relevant differences. It is quite another when we strip the one group of rights to give perceived-rights to another group. If we, say, give women the right to vote, this does not take anything away from men except a monopoly on politics. If we give gay people the right to marry, this does not take away any of the rights of straight people. If we take taxes and redistribute that money in programs that help those who have no money to take, one could argue it strips people of property, but I would argue that it does not affect their right to property, and further, it does not actually burden them, and so this is just as we look with respect to relevant differences. However, if we take away the rights of one group to determine with whom they may socialize, and then give them to another group saying "ah, women, you have the right to join this club now. Men, you no longer have the right to choose who can be in your club" then this is in fact an injustice, this is in fact taking away rights, not benefiting anyone. So I think we need to be careful, when in our zeal to make the world better for some people, that we do not trample on the rights of others along the way. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:Well my point of view is evident from my questions, but there is no point in trying to troll an ask/tell thread. Do you believe that all women's organizations should allow men? For example, the Girl Scouts or how about women's only gyms?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 10:31
|
|
|
 But seriously, how about the part where any club can set the rules on how the club should function? You want to create a chess tournament for women? You go ahead and shun men. You want to hold a darts competition for men? You go ahead and refuse women. You want to host a dance competition for couples and two gay men who are the top of the same-sex league want to join? You turn them away because two men are stronger then a man-woman couple and thus at an advantage. Some time ago there was a guy with dwarfism but who was rather large for a dwarf wanted to join the club for very tall people, the club had as a rule that you needed to be over 7 feet to join. However, he argued, he was tall for a dwarf and thus he should be allowed to join or did the tall people, who already had all the advantages in the world handed to them (like the ability to conduct independent grocery shopping and reach things high up), secretly hated the little people? You know the Mensa society? The one you need to have a certain IQ score to be able to enter? Well, I think they should accept all people, regardless of IQ, as all people are created equal and barring some people to join because of how they are born is a form of racism and we stupid people want to check up on them to ensure they will not round us up in working camps or straight to the gas-chambers while we are there anyway. Everybody is created equal, people are different. It is not that hard. If you might or might not have noticed, I really dislike your tone of voice, Carbolic. If you think Masons are jerks for not allowing women in, just say so. But stop beating around the bush like a pussy and say it loud, like a man/woman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 12:48
|
|
|
It's the same thing that happens every time - someone comes in here with an opinion under the guise of "just wanting to understand the other side," while making no effort to actually understand the other side. Nobody's mind is changed, and everyone just leaves in a huff. Look, Carbolic, it comes down to this: we all, as Master Masons, took a very solemn obligation, under penalty of very gruesome (symbolic) corporal punishment. If we are to break that obligation, it literally defines us at that point as non-Masons. Part of that obligation states that we will not be at the raising (i.e. the coferring of the Master Mason degree) of a woman, among other things such as atheists. It can't be put any simpler than that. We take the same obligation that our brethren took in 1717 when the United Grand Lodge of England was founded, and not only is our history something we take very seriously, but our obligation is something that we take VERY seriously. If someone wants to break the obligation and let women into the ritual, that's fine, but they are at that moment by definition no longer Masons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 13:23
|
|
|
TemetNosceXVIcubus posted:For those that haven't been through the ritual, because you're either a woman or a non-mason. It can be weird reading this stuff, I think you should picture it like a scene from a movie. Like one of those WWII movies where everyone has volunteered to go and fight the Hun, and they're getting their medical done. Is this some kind of Albert Pike joke? Anyway, I'm not going to give anything away here that almost everyone doesn't know, but the point some were making about it being "uncomfortable" for women is because they'd be blindfolded and then have their chest bared. Then they'd be paraded around the room, still blindfolded and bare-chested, and caused to kneel. So I guess the argument would be "Well change that part so it's not so scary for women!" And at that point we might as well just have a tea social, because now it's no longer Freemasonry anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
Nope, it is not like that under the GOdN.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Keetron posted:Nope, it is not like that under the GOdN. What is GOdN?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:What is GOdN? Grand Orient de Nantes, i.e. the Grand Orient de France.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
Ah, well, that sort of proves my point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 16:06
|
|
QPZIL posted:It's the same thing that happens every time - someone comes in here with an opinion under the guise of "just wanting to understand the other side," while making no effort to actually understand the other side. Nobody's mind is changed, and everyone just leaves in a huff. Actually, the English Emulation ritual does not contain any oath not to allow woman/atheists/etc. to be Freemasons. I'm pretty sure that's mostly an American thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 16:55
|
|
SimonChris posted:the English Emulation ritual I have no idea what this is.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
SimonChris posted:Actually, the English Emulation ritual does not contain any oath not to allow woman/atheists/etc. to be Freemasons. I'm pretty sure that's mostly an American thing. This may be true, but it doesn't change the fact of it being impossible then to make these changes in the Americas, it doesn't change that it is a Landmark, and it doesn't change the impossibility of the thing due to the web of recognition. I believe but am not certain that the woman/atheist bits are included in English Emulation, but may not be hidden the same place. WAFFLEHOUND posted:I have no idea what this is. Set of degrees practiced in some regular Lodges. I had occasion to observe an English Emulation 3rd Degree, and I think many Brethren would be perhaps startled and unnerved by how different it is from the more familiar degree. After the degree I had to make triple sure that I hadn't just attended a clandestine meeting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:17
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:I have no idea what this is. Emulation is the most popular craft ritual in England, and is based on the ritual originally approved by the United Grand Lodge of England at its formation in 1813. It's probably the closest we have to Original English Freemasonry, which unfortunately wasn't written down at the time. SimonChris fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Grand Orient de Nantes, i.e. the Grand Orient de France. Colonial Air Force posted:Ah, well, that sort of proves my point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
Well Grand Orient in France is not a regular lodge, but it's moot because that's not what you were talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Keetron posted:Nope, it is het Groot Oosten der Nederlanden, The Grand Orient of the Netherlands. A regular lodge with a charter from the GLoE. My mistake. Neem me niet kwalijk!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
mrbill posted:Think about the very first part of the EA ceremony. Colonial Air Force posted:chest bared. Then they'd be paraded around the room, still blindfolded and bare-chested We put our candidates in clothing like this.  You'll notice there are flaps in the chest area which may be opened and all modesty be retained. Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 07:42
|
|