|
Sub Rosa posted:Still not really getting it. I've only seen EAs in my home jurisdiction so maybe we do something different. You were greeted with a certain instrument upon a certain part of your body. That's the bit being discussed.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Still not really getting it. I've only seen EAs in my home jurisdiction so maybe we do something different. Ours have to be at least 50 years old or so. Tattered, faded, and beat to all hell. We want to get new ones, but every time someone mentions it, they get shot down. For chrissakes, the founder of Woodinville probably wore those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 10:06
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Still not really getting it. I've only seen EAs in my home jurisdiction so maybe we do something different. That's pretty firmly "clothed" (or "clad" depending on the verbiage) in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:That's pretty firmly "clothed" (or "clad" depending on the verbiage) in my opinion. Hear hear! Let's see some boobies! Yeah in case this hasn't been made clear, the ritual involves nudity, but only looking, no touching! There is a very important symbolic reason for every element of this ritual so it's not just glorified hazing. Besides, what would a woman do with the g-? INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 16:39
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:stuff Keep in mind this bit is secret in a whole bunch of jurisdictions.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Keep in mind this bit is secret in a whole bunch of jurisdictions. And even if it's not, this is a super cool aspect of the degrees that I was glad wasn't ruined for me ahead of time. So for the sake of potential brothers/candidates reading this, it might be best to consider amending it a bit. On another note, I received the Royal Arch degree last night and the information that you get from it is so ridiculously cool. The ritual is fascinating and the history is equally as amazing. While the whole Chapter degrees are more christian than I was expecting, it didn't stop me from getting a great deal out of them. Next stop, council degrees at the end of June! edit: spelling imac1984 fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
I was trying to be vague, although I can edit mine too if you think it's too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Keep in mind this bit is secret in a whole bunch of jurisdictions. Better?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
What the hell jurisdiction requires you to be without underwear? Scottish Rite?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:What the hell jurisdiction requires you to be without underwear? Scottish Rite? Being a member of 3 lodges that use the Scottish Rite rituals for EA, FC and MM, as well as having just completed the 32nd this past weekend, I can tell you that it is not the SR. I don't know of any ritual system that requires nudity. Top half, yes. But certainly not anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
MB13 posted:Being a member of 3 lodges that use the Scottish Rite rituals for EA, FC and MM, as well as having just completed the 32nd this past weekend, I can tell you that it is not the SR. I don't know of any ritual system that requires nudity. Top half, yes. But certainly not anything else. And women, if allowed, would no doubt be allowed bras, conservative at that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 04:18
|
|
MB13 posted:I don't know of any ritual system that requires nudity. Shrine, but that's incidental to consumption.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Shrine, but that's incidental to consumption. This just shows the Shrine is even more reckless than I thought. I mean, getting people naked is one thing, but doing it because of consumption is just out of line. They need to be quarantined, not stripped. You can't decontaminate a lunger that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Still not really getting it. I've only seen EAs in my home jurisdiction so maybe we do something different. That would have been fun, also our footwear only goes up to about a size 10, I'm a 13. It didn't work too well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Seriously though, how are yours in such good shape? I mean after like, half a dozen times with the goat ours lost the rear end and we had to replace it with some materials that the Jobies had spare. It's pretty great though. The rear end is now pink and has giant letters spelling YOB at an awkward diagonal.
Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
SaNChEzZ posted:That would have been fun, also our footwear only goes up to about a size 10, I'm a 13. It didn't work too well. Actually the pants were too small for me and I spent my entire EA trying to not let my pants drop around my ankles. They only did once. So once again, prospective members, wear clean underwear is the best and only piece of advice you need to be prepared. One of the member's wives sew me custom pants for FC and MM.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 21:48
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Actually the pants were too small for me and I spent my entire EA trying to not let my pants drop around my ankles. They only did once. Ours are all made to fit both the initiate and the...well you know. I had to tie them around each other to form a sort of belt at some stages...
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:Ours are all made to fit both the initiate and the...well you know. I had to tie them around each other to form a sort of belt at some stages... You guys don't use bungee cord in your jurisdiction?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Congratulations, Brother Companion Sir Knight South-central Indiana, just south of Indy. quote: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. I'd love to see it when you're done.  We did get copies of the Cryptic Monitor and Ritual, and my sponsor gave me his old copy of the Templar Ritual book, as well as the Tactics Manual. He says there are books for the Royal Arch back at the lodge when I go to my first meeting. quote: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. I can see that, but heck, we're already using "Templar." Why not just SAY "Templar" or "Templar Knight"? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Okee guys, fess up, who has been messing around without telling here? I had to backlog my trades to be able to turn a hefty profit, an effort I would rather not have had. http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/04/10/215227/bitcoin-value-collapses-possibly-due-to-ddos
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
I was told ahead of time (as I'm a big dude and the standard set of garb doesn't fit) "just bring a pair of sweatpants and a shirt that buttons in front". They didn't tell me it couldn't be a loud Hawaiian shirt....
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Stopped by my local lodge, Mt Zion Local #135 F&AM in Metuchen, NJ. The guys were super nice and showed me around a bit. They showed me the meeting room and it was amaaaaazing. I did hear a soft bleating noise coming from the Initiates chamber though... No but really they seem like a bunch of good dudes and I'm looking forward to starting the process. I can't wait to be an Illumiatus
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Aureus posted: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? lord1234 posted:Do you believe that all women's organizations should allow men? For example, the Girl Scouts or how about women's only gyms? 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. Keetron posted: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. Well, lest I be accused of leaving in a huff... Keetron, this is an Ask/Tell thread about Masonry. The point is for people to ask questions and for them to be answered. Nobody is forcing you to participate. Nobody is invading your "territory" and making you answer questions you don't want to. On the flip side, nobody gives a poo poo whether I think Masons are jerks or not and there would be no point in me saying so. For what it's worth and since my bona fides have been repeatedly challenged: - I don't think Masons are jerks for not allowing women in. Clearly the people in this thread have reasons for keeping women out and I believe they believe them sincerely. - I don't believe all organizations, events, clubs, or societies should be gender-integrated. Sometimes there's a perfectly valid reason to do so. However, I don't think "the organization defines itself as being only for men" is, in and of itself, a good reason. That's why I've been trying to find out what attributes about Masonry (apart from it defining itself as excluding women) require it to be men's-only. - I'm curious what evidence QPZIL would need to deem someone as trying to "actually understand" the issue. Paramemetic posted:
Paramemetic posted: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'm not really understanding how the second quote is consistent with the first one. Paramemetic posted: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? It's clear that our fundamental difference is how far we believe rights of association trump equality rights, and vice versa. Clearly I come down harder on the "equality" side than the "association" side. I certainly understand that Masonry is not a governmental or essential service. Where I live, access even to private and non-essential services, where offered to the public, cannot be restricted by sex, race, creed, disability, et cetera. I strongly agree with this rule because I believe that society has an interest in promoting equality and social harmony over and above freedom of association, and I believe the 20th century amply proved this. However, where I live, social clubs are exempt from this rule, which protects your interest in freedom of association. I agree with that, to a point, although I start to question that rule when you look at large international organizations without thousands of members. At some point "freedom of association" stops making sense when you have never met the vast majority of people you are "associating" with. To answer your questions (although again, this thread isn't about what I believe): Should boys' schools admit females? - Yes, unless they can show there's a societally beneficial reason to having only boys at the school. Should men be allowed to become nuns? Should women be allowed to become priests? - Plenty of religious denominations manage to have female ministers so I don't really see why the Catholic church has to be any different. I have no idea what nuns do or why they have to be women, so I can't really comment. Edit: Thanks for the custom title, boys. Stay classy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:- I don't believe all organizations, events, clubs, or societies should be gender-integrated. Sometimes there's a perfectly valid reason to do so. However, I don't think "the organization defines itself as being only for men" is, in and of itself, a good reason. That's why I've been trying to find out what attributes about Masonry (apart from it defining itself as excluding women) require it to be men's-only. Well, like folks have said, part of the degree ritual requires partial top-half nudity. Most women aren't comfortable with that. Also, it's in the oath we take to not be present at the making of a woman a Mason, even if a Grand Master would make a woman a Mason on sight, which he's within his rights to do technically, even if it goes against the landmarks (he'd probably be thrown out when the next GM comes along, and the Grand Lodge he operates would be immediately de-recognized by the other GLs). But additionally, and I think most importantly - men and women are fundamentally different. I talk to my Masonic brothers in a certain friendly and brotherly way, knowing that I can divulge absolutely anything to them and know that they'll not only keep my secrets, but usually also be able to see things from my perspective. When I speak to women, because I try to be a Southern Gentleman, it's in a different tone and with different points of view, out of politeness. I can't treat a woman the same way I'd treat my brothers, because at the very least in my own faith, women are on a totally different spiritual and emotional level and command a certain respect and dignity. A woman deserves more than the bro code. One who would be worthy of being a Mason on a personal level, if she was a guy, is *more* than worthy of being a Mason, and likely would not fit in. We can't really exercise the operations of our fraternity in our own way if they're members. Besides, in our lodge, the EAs and FCs are the ones who, under direction of the JW, prepare and clean up from dinner, and then while lodge is open in MM, prepare dessert. How would that look to the feminists if the girls joined up and we immediately sent them to the kitchen?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Hm, speaking for myself only, my future answer to the "no-females" rule is going to be "Because we don't want it that way." That should suffice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
I, also, hate women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 19:33
|
|
|
Grandmaster.flv posted:No but really they seem like a bunch of good dudes and I'm looking forward to starting the process. I can't wait to be an Illumiatus  IlluminatusCarbolic posted:what attributes about Masonry (apart from it defining itself as excluding women) require it to be men's-only. This doesn't mean I really think Masonry is a genderless institution. Masonry sets out to be a gendered organization in every way, and I would argue it succeeds. While much of society has changed in regards to gender roles since Masonry started, gender itself is still something that is very real. Not to deny the identity of agender or non-binary folks, but both male and female genders are real and they are not the same. So unless you think that gender is purely a social construct or that gendered institutions, no matter how old or historically significant don't have the very right to continue to exist... Carbolic posted:At some point "freedom of association" stops making sense when you have never met the vast majority of people you are "associating" with. Carbolic posted:Should boys' schools admit females? - Yes, unless they can show there's a societally beneficial reason to having only boys at the school. I would make that exact case in regards to Masonry. Masonry either is allowed to be male only or it stops existing. Masonry in general does a tremendous amount of social good. Can you really demonstrate a corresponding social ill equal to or greater than that good caused by excluding female members? I know you cannot. Carbolic posted:Should women be allowed to become priests? - Plenty of religious denominations manage to have female ministers so I don't really see why the Catholic church has to be any different.  when you also seem to be all for erasing real and historically rooted valid difference because it fits your narrow minded view of an ideal society. I would encourage you to develop an appreciation for and acceptance of diversity in the world.And for the record, if it wasn't the case that the structure of the organization makes it so this vote would never be able to happen, if we could vote on allowing women in, I'd vote let women in. I also don't think the Catholic religion shouldn't let women be priests, but then not agreeing with the Catholic religion is why I am not Catholic. If I was a Catholic woman who wanted to become a priest, I would realize that I don't agree with my own religion and I would convert to one compatible with my beliefs, not expect over a thousand years of belief and tradition to change to accommodate my wishes because I personally feel in some way wronged by being excluded. Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Apr 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Just like how boys and girls are different, Catholics and Protestants are different. Difference exists in the world. If you think erasing difference and promoting homogeneity and assimilation equals equality you must be very white first off and etc. Whitewashing difference is harmful to minorities of all sorts, and is generally a practice that comes from a place of blind privilege. All those things you write about equality and social benefit sounds remarkably This is a really interesting viewpoint. Maybe by not allowing women to have the same rights as men and access to the same positions, we are actually helping them by not whitewashing things. It is also true that only rich white privileged people care about erasing inequality (or as you put it, "difference") and that is a good point as well so thanks for making it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Shouldn't the reverse be true? If they are in general socially beneficial, shouldn't it instead be that the requirement be shown that excluding girls has a larger negative effect than the general positive done by the school to compel it to accept women or stop existing? By that logic, a society in which only boys' schools (and no girls' schools) existed would be fine, because each individual boys' school did more good than harm. Sub Rosa posted:I would make that exact case in regards to Masonry. Masonry either is allowed to be male only or it stops existing. Masonry in general does a tremendous amount of social good. Can you really demonstrate a corresponding social ill equal to or greater than that good caused by excluding female members? I know you cannot. Can you explain what social good is done by Masonry that could not be done equally or better by an organization that was exactly identical except for admitting women? Sub Rosa posted:Just like how boys and girls are different, Catholics and Protestants are different. Difference exists in the world. If you think erasing difference and promoting homogeneity and assimilation equals equality you must be very white first off and etc. Whitewashing difference is harmful to minorities of all sorts, and is generally a practice that comes from a place of blind privilege. All those things you write about equality and social benefit sounds remarkably I am curious how you read my position as promoting homogeneity and erasing difference. When you talk about "erasing real and historically rooted valid difference" that is precisely the kind of argument that has been used over the centuries first by apologists for slavery, then apologists for segregation, and now people resisting same-sex marriage. Yet giving black people or gay people rights hasn't erased difference or made society more homogeneous. This is what I mean when I talk about "different worldview" - I talk about laws that require businesses to serve customers irrespective of race or creed, and you equate that to the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Go convince a couple thousand crotchety old men to let women into their secret club and then you can be a Mason. Until then, you can't be a Mason. Unless you want to be a French Mason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Go convince a couple thousand crotchety old men to let women into their secret club and then you can be a Mason. Until then, you can't be a Mason. Unless you want to be a French Mason. A few million crotchety old men, actually. 1.3 million in the US alone, 800,000 or so in Canada, and that's not even looking at UK/Ireland and Europe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Crap, that's true. Web of recognition and everything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A few million crotchety old men, actually. 1.3 million in the US alone, 800,000 or so in Canada, and that's not even looking at UK/Ireland and Europe. It doesnt change your argument but there is no way that Canada number is right. That would mean about 1 in 40 canadians are freemasons. And once you consider the fact that women cant join that number seems even more ridiculous. Starks fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Apr 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Starks posted:It doesnt change your argument but there is no way that Canada number is right. That would mean about 1 in 40 canadians are freemasons. And once you consider the fact that women cant join that number seems even more ridiculous. No you're right, I accidentally added a zero there in my head. There are about 80,000 Masons in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
BAKA FLOCKA FLAME posted:I, also, hate women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:By that logic, a society in which only boys' schools (and no girls' schools) existed would be fine, because each individual boys' school did more good than harm. Carbolic posted:Can you explain what social good is done by Masonry that could not be done equally or better by an organization that was exactly identical except for admitting women? That fact remains, however, that this is not an option on the table. The facts are that Masonry does a tremendous amount of good, and it will either survive as is and continue to do that good, or cease to be. Carbolic posted:I am curious how you read my position as promoting homogeneity and erasing difference. Carbolic posted:When you talk about "erasing real and historically rooted valid difference" that is precisely the kind of argument that has been used over the centuries first by apologists for slavery, then apologists for segregation, and now people resisting same-sex marriage. Yet giving black people or gay people rights hasn't erased difference or made society more homogeneous. And I do think similar things can be said about the transformative effect the civil right movement has had on the cultures of racial minorities. So if you "act white" you are "one of the good ones" and allowed access to positions of power in oppressive power structures. I certainly don't think segregation was better, but the point is that the actual seat of power never changed, we just get to borrow some if we participate in our own subjugation. So I think giving up difference in exchange for privileges from power structures that will never really serve us is a devil's bargain that I don't agree with. For more on this from a radical queer perspective, I'd suggest http://www.againstequality.org/
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:You literally said you don't understand why the Catholic Church has to to be different. I believe individuals have rights, not institutions, so I don't believe that promoting equality (or as you call it, "homogeneity") in access to institutions harms society. Now please, tell me more about how the Nazis were in favour of women's rights and racial integration  Sub Rosa posted:Actually I'm queer and pretty much against "gay marriage" because I think it's wrong for LGBT organizing to focus on gaining more privileges for the privileged instead of actually dealing with the more serious injustices people in the queer community face. And I think it has ended up being the spearhead of activism because the affluent white men bankrolling organizations like the HRC are just as classist, racist, and sexist as straight affluent white men. Proposing that queer people need to fit our relationships into a heterogeneous mold patterned after heterosexual marriage so that we can get access to what should be rights and not privileges is precisely the sort of difference erasing and assimilationism that I'm talking about. I don't even know where to begin here. Equal marriage is bad because of who advocates it in the United States (apparently it should be rolled back in the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa...?) Discrimination is just "difference" that only white men want to stamp out. "Homogeneity" is where people of different races and creeds have equal access to organizations, which is bad because they they'll all act like whitey; "diversity" is where you are free to exclude minorities from organizations, which is good because then they'll keep their historically rooted differences. If you were a Catholic woman who wanted female priests, you'd leave, but as a Mason who wishes women could join, you're staying. "Oppressive power structures" run by white men are bad, but letting women and minorities join them is worse. ("Trust me, you don't really want the rights and privileges I have, they're bad for you.") Nazis promoted minority rights. Anyway, this is a derail, unless some or all of these beliefs are embraced by Masons more generally. To move in a more constructive direction, how accepting are most lodges of LGBT members? (Transgender issues were discussed very briefly at the start of the thread, but I haven't noticed a discussion about LGB issues). Does this tend to be a function of the social mores where the lodge is located? Sub Rosa, are you open about your sexual identity at your lodge? Am I correct from reading the OP that Masonic lodges do not take political stances on issues, and thus would have no particular position on same-sex rights or same-sex marriage (or Obamacare, or immigration reform, or whatever)?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
Thank you for acknowledging the derail for what it is. Masonry is a diverse group, some are fat, some are really tall, some are rather small, some men have a dark skin and some have a lighter skin and there is a whole bunch in between. Some of these men fancy men, some of these men fancy women and some of these men don't care for gender. The core of what is required to become a member is that you are a free man of good standing. Aside from this, there are lodges all over the world and no doubt there are members that could do with work on their cultural understanding. You know, like most real people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
I've been asked to be a Knight at the triangular table during the Order of the Temple and a Bannerman during the Order of Malta next time degrees are conferred. I'm pretty excited about that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:I've been asked to be a Knight at the triangular table during the Order of the Temple. That's a fun job, I'm surprised that your Commandery even has a dedicated team to handle these positions... at our inspections people would just come from the sidelines and fill in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 16:03
|
|
