|
Post by corab on Jan 15, 2006 14:57:34 GMT
I had the pleasure of attending Bro. Davie's Prestonian Lecture on Women in Freemasonry during last Thursday's London Lunchtimers, where some questions were answered but new ones presented themselves. I've had a few days to ponder this, and I'm going to put this before you now, to see if we can come to an answer.
For clarity's sake ... (1) I'm not after changing any existing form of Freemasonry, (2) I have nothing but respect for anyone's Obligations, (3) I'm just trying to understand.
That established, let's crack on, shall we?
Bro. Davie explained initially it was impossible for women to become Freemasons because here in England they held no right of property, which automatically excluded them from access to Freemasonry, because they failed the requirement to be free and of good report per definition. However, somewhere along the line the Brethren did begin to involve their Ladies to some extent, but all of this came to a grinding halt when the Suffragettes demanded the vote.
As we all know UGLE has to an extent recognised the female-only orders active in England, but extending the same courtesy to the co-masonic orders remains right out of the order.
Bro. Davie answered that, too - it all boils down to temptation. Or, as he put it: the ladies would get jealous if they saw their husbands guided around their lodge by another, prettier woman.
I called him up on that, actually because I could not grasp it. My inability to understand this lies herein: (1) it is my understanding that part of Freemasonry is to rise above our base natures and learn to control our emotions. Then why would jealousy and temptation be an issue? (2) Whatever happened to trust? Trust towards your partner and your Brethren not to cross that line and surrender to temptation?
His answer was that he was only joking, but given how common that view is among the malecraft masons I've spoken to, I feel there's something more at play here. A lot of malecraft masons seem to feel the presence of women in the lodge would distract them, and would ultimately prove an unwelcome temptation.
Now let me clarify once more at this point that I do not seek to change any of the existing orders; I believe each of us should be free to practise our Craft in the environment on our choice, be that single-sex or mixed.
When queried, none of the brethren I've spoken with and who hold this view have actually experienced working in a mixed-gender environment - they're merely repeating what they've been told.
I, on the other hand, have experienced spiritual work in a mixed-gender environment. I have a Wiccan background and as such have practised ritual skyclad, i.e. naked, in a mixed-gender group, and never once have I seen any sign of arousal. This, I believe, is because during ritual you're focussed on the spiritual rather than the physical - it just doesn't come into play.
And even if it did; even if there was a spark - if we can assume that each of us is guided by Brotherly Love, and strives to control our emotions, then surely we would not engage in any activity that might harm the other and their family, and ultimately upset the harmony of our Lodge?
The Quest continues, but my preliminary conclusions are that the prohibition on intervisitation and the as of yet unrecognised status of Co-Freemasonry are based on historic reasons that no longer have any place in our society on the one hand, and rather ill-founded dogma on the other.
Any thoughts?
Cora
|
|
|
Post by gord on Jan 15, 2006 17:06:50 GMT
I had the pleasure of attending Bro. Davie's Prestonian Lecture on Women in Freemasonry during last Thursday's London Lunchtimers, where some questions were answered but new ones presented themselves. ... Hello Cora, Well, I've read this over a couple of times and wondered if I really should reply, but here goes, and remember from my viewpoint only... Cora: ...As we all know UGLE has to an extent recognised the female-only orders active in England, but extending the same courtesy to the co-masonic orders remains right out of the order. Bro. Davie answered that, too - it all boils down to temptation. Or, as he put it: the ladies would get jealous if they saw their husbands guided around their lodge by another, prettier woman. I called him up on that, actually because I could not grasp it. My inability to understand this lies herein: (1) it is my understanding that part of Freemasonry is to rise above our base natures and learn to control our emotions. Then why would jealousy and temptation be an issue? (2) Whatever happened to trust? Trust towards your partner and your Brethren not to cross that line and surrender to temptation? Gord here: On a real basic level here, the phisiological aspect of having men and women doing this at the same time is okay I suppose, but...and here's the but line...why bother? Are we wanting to do this to prove that we can raise above the phyiscal at all times and in all situations? I doubt anyone does that other than Christian Saints and Buddhist monks. Cora: His answer was that he was only joking, but given how common that view is among the malecraft masons I've spoken to, I feel there's something more at play here. A lot of malecraft masons seem to feel the presence of women in the lodge would distract them, and would ultimately prove an unwelcome temptation. Gord: "Malecraft masons", that's like saying "female mailman" a nonsensical expression. Cora: When queried, none of the brethren I've spoken with and who hold this view have actually experienced working in a mixed-gender environment - they're merely repeating what they've been told. I, on the other hand, have experienced spiritual work in a mixed-gender environment. I have a Wiccan background and as such have practised ritual skyclad, i.e. naked, in a mixed-gender group, and never once have I seen any sign of arousal. This, I believe, is because during ritual you're focussed on the spiritual rather than the physical - it just doesn't come into play. And even if it did; even if there was a spark - if we can assume that each of us is guided by Brotherly Love, and strives to control our emotions, then surely we would not engage in any activity that might harm the other and their family, and ultimately upset the harmony of our Lodge? Gord here: Ah! I too have participated in male/female lodges and unlike you have seen my fellows go into relationships with each other and watched some of the "restrained" flirting that goes on between the happiest married men and women. This incidentally was in amorc lodges, that admit both men and women, not in a mixed quasi-masonic body like co-masonry or LDH. Does this distrurb the harmony of the lodge? You bet it does. Any place you mix men and women, no matter how well structured and how "guided by Brotherly Love, and strives to control our emotions" is our intention, after a period of time in close contact and sharing of esoteric rituals and contemplation the "spark" that you speak of will manifest. Cora: The Quest continues, but my preliminary conclusions are that the prohibition on intervisitation and the as of yet unrecognised status of Co-Freemasonry are based on historic reasons that no longer have any place in our society on the one hand, and rather ill-founded dogma on the other. Gord: Co-masonry is not recognized for very good reasons. The first is not accepting a belief in a Supreme Being as the criterion for initiation. The second reason is that platonic love is probably a rare event. That doesn't mean that it doesn't occur and occur to each and every person alive, but to think that you can predetermine how you will react with each and every person alive before you have met is an oversimplication of a law of nature. So I disagree with your contention that: "historic reasons that no longer have any place in our society on the one hand, and rather ill-founded dogma on the other." I find this well-founded and probably universal to the end of time (or at least next week). Well I have fallen into temptation to express my own very limited viewpoint as stated before; however, as I find freemasonry a comfortable fit at the moment without having to be what may be unnatural for me at least in regards to the fairer sex, I'll leave it at that. By the way Cora, I fought for womens' rights in the 60s and to this day consider a person a person regardless of which public toilet they have to use.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jan 15, 2006 17:22:07 GMT
Well, I have nothing to add, Cora. I agree. I wrote a lot on this subject on this forum in the same way. And I also think that flirtations between men and women may cause "irrational" problems, but as it is true, a MALE-only Heidelberg lodge broke up because a brother of this chain of union had intercourse with the wife of a fellow brother... As you said, it is a question of character, If you have "casanovas" in your lodge no women will be safe ;D On the other hand - why do single-sex lodges break up? Why does friendship break up? Only of "rational" reasons? Because your fellow body is looking for a new pal, a better looking, more intelligent one, one with more bucks, with a better car, with more books etc. Struggles in single-sex groups are not more "rational" than in both-sex-groups. I want to emphasize that one reason for the foundation of the UGLoE might have been the healing of british society of the wounds of the "irrational" wars between the religious and political confessions. Of course, discussions with political and religious themes are forbidden in open lodge. Can this prevent irrational discussions? I wonder why nobody of the High represantatives of UGLoE tells his male-only masons to leave his church or political perty because his membership and possible struggles with fellow brethren could harm the lodge harmony.... As we look in the news the threat of religious fundamentalists to-day is much higher than any other....
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 15, 2006 17:41:37 GMT
Sister Cora. As you know I have no personal problems with Ladies Freemasonry nor with Co-Masonry. I would not be able to attend the former as they are Female Only of course and I am barred from visiting the latter by the Rules of UGLE backed by the punishment I would incur were I to attend a Co-Masonic Meeting , namely suspension or even expulsion.
I do not realistically see UGLE permitting mixed Freemasonry in my lifetime and probably beyond that. Why? Because there is simply no groundswell of desire for such a change, certainly NOT amongst the older Brethren and not evident to any great extent as far as I can ascertain in the younger. It is taken as a "given" by most English Men that Freemasonry is men only and I know quite a few of my Brethren who either have never heard of Female Masonry or Co-Masonry or refuse to believe that such bodies exist, an ironic situation given that I attend two Temples where Lady Masons Lodges meet at times other than the Malecraft ones, viz Abbey at Caversham and Saxon Gate at Wokingham.
The very best we could realistically hope for would be that Visiting Co-Masonic Lodges by Malecraft Masons such as myself would be "condoned" though not "approved" but since UGLE does not recognise some male only Grand Lodges for very technical reasons such as dusputed Sovereignty issues, then I cannot see this ban being relaxed. If it were of course then we could invite a MALE Co-Mason back to our Lodges (assuming that Lodge do not object) but we could not invite a FEMALE Co-Mason.
To be honest, although the historical reasons for such a prohibition are tenuous and I am sure that the normal decorum of people would prevent any impropriety, after all we have plenty of other groups with mixed gender membership, it simply will not happen as it is not wanted by the majority of UGLE Brethren who are happy with Malecraft Masonry as it is.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jan 15, 2006 18:09:09 GMT
Hi Gord,
Why bother - if you're asking why anyone should like to practise their craft in a mixed-gender environment I can only answer from my personal point of view: Balance. Working in a single-sex environment makes no sense to me, because in my case it would mean a total absence of male energies, hence no Balance. I'm a great believer in the natural balance of things; of the way complementary opposites like Light & Dark, Life & Death, Male & Female work together, and the notion of a single-sex environment simply does not appeal to me.
Why bother from a more general point of view - hubby and I are joining a Co-Masonic lodge, but suppose we both felt more at home with single-sex lodge, then we wouldn't be able to share in each other's initiations; such an important occasion in our lives!
Personally I think gender shouldn't matter when it comes to intervisitation.
I picked it up from Whistler, actually*G* It makes perfect sense to me; it's an easy way to differentiate between all-male, all-female and co-masonry. Unless of course you're saying that the expression 'female Freemason' is nonsensical as well ...?
Flirting is natural and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. What it boils down to is knowing your limits and respecting the other's and always bearing in mind the harmony of the group. Yes - sometimes our instincts gain the upper hand, but let's smell the coffee - that can happen in a single-sex environment as well; not everyone is, after all, heterosexual.
If you start thinking like that, no environment is safe from temptation. Temptation is part of life wherever we go - what will do: stick our heads in the sand or face it? I know which I would prefer.
Actually, that is a generalisation derived from the position UGLE takes on LDH. The British Federation does very definitely require a belief in a Supreme Being, but is not sovereign in its own right. The International Federation does not insist on a belief in a Supreme Being, and this is why UGLE cannot recognise it. Although the British Federation does require a belief in a Supreme Being, it is not sovereign, so cannot be recognised.
Co-Freemasonry, as you no doubt know, consists of a number of different orders most of whom to my knowledge do require a belief in a Supreme Being, so really the only reason why any Co-Masonic order other than LDH is not recognised does originate from its mixed-gender character.
Of course you cannot predetermine it - but you can stop it in its tracks as soon as you become aware of it. If that requires retiring from the Lodge in order to preserve its Harmony, then so be it.
Furthermore, I would highlight once again that the very same argument could be applied to single-sex lodges - I assume heterosexuality is not a requirement for joining?
Could I ask you to elaborate on why you felt you had to make that statement?
My personal interpretation of it is that you feel you have to pre-empt a possible charge of sexist, male chauvinist behaviour, which would suggest that somewhere along the line I have given you the impression that my quest to understand is based on a hidden, feminist agenda, in which case I apologise - I had rather hoped that my clarifying statements as to my intents were sufficient to prevent that confusion.
I do not believe for one moment that the prohibition on intervisitation or even the attitude that no woman can be a Freemason are based in sexist or even mysogynist reasons, and have never felt discriminated against because of it. Stronger still, I will defend every Freemason's right to practise his or her craft in their preferred environment to anyone who dares suggest single-sex Freemasonry is a matter of sex discrimination!
Hope that clarifies matters.
Cora
|
|
|
Post by vadro on Jan 15, 2006 21:59:51 GMT
Cora
interesting post. I have read with the utmost interest this topic, and even if obviously this has been discussed and thought through by many of us, Masons, Co-Masons, etc, I would like to reply with my personal ideas.
In addition, I also totally agree with you on this:
Well, I would like to make an example, something I am familiar with, which is the Navy. I am not old, well at least I consider myself young, I am 38, but I have experienced the Navy without and then with female colleagues. First, let me tell you that it is much more pleasant to work in a mixed environment, but I have noticed few differences.
When we were all males, we had no difficulties in reaching a level of “fraternity” if you wish, or a sort of comprehension based on different things, such as experiencing the same life, the same ideals, and the same passion. This should be the same in a mixed community, but from my experience it is not, and here the temptation plays his role. It is difficult to stay focused when you are attracted by another person, you act differently, and this is a fact. It is something normal, something absolutely natural and necessary as well! Obviously this is not always the case, I have worked and I am working fine with many Ladies, but there is an issue here. Maybe because often we are confined in small spaces, at the end of our working hours we can’t go home, (when on a ship), our emotions are amplified because of this, but for sure the “balance” is not balanced at all!
I have never experienced spiritual work in a mixed-gender environment, but reading at your comment it popped in my mind the analogy with the Navy, which I believe can suit the topic, in a certain extent.
So when you say
It is absolutely, correct, but when the control is lost, is lost for good.
So in conclusion, I believe that everyone is free to join whichever Orders suit him/her better, from which he/she can get the most out, the most beneficial for the personal journey, but I believe it is difficult to change the mind of the Brt working in a Male only Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jan 16, 2006 22:12:46 GMT
Gord: Co-masonry is not recognized for very good reasons. The first is not accepting a belief in a Supreme Being as the criterion for initiation. D - I would be very interested to hear your definition of 'a Supreme Being'. I would also be most amazed if all members of your Order believed 100%, all the time, in a Supreme Being. Being the long standing wife of a long standing Mason, a keen observer of people and a bit of a 'home' philosopher, I can assure you that there are many male Masons that profess a belief in something that they are not really sure about, if for no other reason than that they do not know enough, or anything, about 'the subject'. Another question - isn't the term "Supreme Being" a bit of a misnomer? All the great texts will tell you that the Supreme is actually a "non-Being" - Unmanifest - having no attributes - attributes being a limitation (if there were attributes, it would be necessary for there to be non attributes - not possible in this instance - according to the Texts). Have you ever considered that maybe, by not requiring a pre-existing belief in a Supreme Being, LDH etc are not putting the temptation to 'fudge the truth' before candidates. LDH do work for 'the Perfection of Humanity' - and you will find that 'the Teaching', hidden though it is, will eventually lead the Initiate to the Source of Wisdom, Strength and Beauty. Maat A believer - and who still gets peeved by a 'mob of blokes' who are supposed to be confronting the evils of the world - but still can't get past 'the little woman' and their own 'petty evil' of lustfulness. So if there is the occasional 'occurrence' - is the world going to collapse? Lions and Rotary still exist! Happy New Year everybody ;D ;D I'm baack...
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jan 16, 2006 22:19:33 GMT
Happy New Year to you Cora... I'm looking forward to more of your posts.
A question for you, I am curious. What do you hope to find in Masonry that you couldn't in Wiccan?
Another question for you - why do you take your clothes off during some of your ceremonies...? I can only think that it would be to delete 'outer world' lower vibrations.
Masons put extra clothes on you know ;D
Cheers Maat
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jan 16, 2006 22:23:24 GMT
Hi Vadro, Interesting parallel - the Navy. I think there is a very distinct difference, though, in that when you're out at sea you have only a very restricted amount of space, whereas in Lodge you can simply walk out afterwards and go about your daily business. Nevertheless I appreciate that physical attraction can and will disturb the harmony in such environments. Why should we want to change their minds? Each and every one of us has the right to practise their craft in their preferred and environment and I will defend that right always. What I don't get is why this issue always seems to turn into the assumption that those of us who query the current situation seek to coerce those who prefer a single-sex environment into allowing members of the opposite sex into their Lodges. What would be the point? I'm about to join a Co-Masonic Lodge - why would I want to change a single-sex Lodge into yet another Co-Masonic Lodge? Having visited the Temple in Freemasons Hall I would absolutely love to have the opportunity to practise my Craft in there, but I know that it is highly unlikely that will happen in my lifetime - and for that reason alone I would wish for a relaxation of the rules! This most magnificent of places is the Mother Temple of all of Freemasonry and holds special significance to me for that very reason. I've discussed this on another forum - what I would like to see is the three branches of Freemasonry (male only, female only and co-masonry) operating under one united banner - recognising each other's differences, but united all the same. As for intervisitation I would not go as far as to expect single-sex Lodges to welcome visitors of the opposite sex (it would rather defy the purpose of being a single-sex Lodge!) but it would be rather nice if a Mason from a single-sex Lodge could attend the initiation of his/her partner or relative / friend of the opposite sex into a Co-masonic Lodge. I suppose, however, that intervisitation on that level would be regarded as informal recognition, so another difficult nut to crack! Cora
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jan 16, 2006 22:47:43 GMT
Happy New Year to you Cora... I'm looking forward to more of your posts. And to you, Maat:-) Buckle up - many more posts to follow *LOL* Oh, that's a difficult one ... Wicca worked for me up to a certain point where my rational mind kicked in and began to seriously question the wisdom of my Elders and was 'awarded' with the cop-out "The answers to all your questions is within". Except that the Question was "Why do you (i.e. my Elders) feel that I am ready for Second Degree?" and I very definitely knew why I was NOT ready. Problem with Wicca is that it's lost control (if it ever really had it) of who's initiated and who's not, and just about anyone can claim to be a Wiccan Elder having read some of the commercial tripe that is available these days. I gradually began to realise that some of the core tenets of Wicca definitely did not sit well with me, and that I really did not believe in the God and Goddess - I don't believe in gods, period. (but that does not mean I don't believe in a Creative Principle!) Essentially I stripped Wicca as I know it of everything I questioned and which did not work for me, and I ended up with the one thing that DID work for me: the psychological aspect of self-improvement; the "Know Thyself". Sound familiar? This I then followed back to its origin ... Co-Freemasonry. Gerald Gardner, the founder of Wicca, was a Co-Mason, and as I recently learnt, 32nd Degree in LDH - so I'm LITERALLY following it back to its origin *LOL* One of the things that appeal to me in Co-Freemasonry is the emphasis on reason and the sciences (i.e. the 7 liberal arts) - and the way that works together with spirituality. Wicca assumes Faith - a blind acceptance of the God and Goddess and their influence on all that is. If I wanted that, if I could do that, I'd have happily remained in the fold of the Christian Faith, but it's not in my nature to blindly follow - I question everything, most of all myself. Perhaps more importantly it's the emphasis on moral and upright behaviour - it fits my personal code to a T: "Love, Honour and Truthfulness". There are different interpretations. The most down-to-earth interpretation is that good old Uncle Al was a naturalist and rather enjoyed the sight of skyclad young ladies prancing about ;D There is also the notion of clothing disturbing the flow of energy but personally I've never bought that - the energy will flow and a skimpy piece of textile won't stop that. Personally, I think it's a psychological thing: it's symbolic of accepting yourself and the other as you/they are. Are you familiar with the myth of Inanna's Descent? It's worth looking up some time. When I went into my initiation (Wiccan, that is) I did it with that Myth in mind. Inanna encounters 7 gates upon her journey into the Underworld, and at each gate (which is progressively smaller than the previous one) she has to surrender some status symbol: her sceptre, her crown, her breastplate - down to her gown until she is like any other, free of her Mask, her Persona. Wiccan initiation mimics that psychological process - the inward journey into the Self. I took of everything that could identify me as anything but my Self - including my weddingring, which identified me as my husband's wife. And I can tell you I was absolutely terrified of going in there skyclad, BUT it has proved the single-most powerful experience in my life in that it set me free of all the misgivings I had about my body and allowed me to just accept my Self as I was. Having said that - skyclad ritual at Halloween in the Northern Hemisphere is a REALLY BAD idea! *LOL* "Extract clothes"? *blinks* Cora
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jan 16, 2006 22:57:15 GMT
Another question - isn't the term "Supreme Being" a bit of a misnomer? All the great texts will tell you that the Supreme is actually a "non-Being" - Unmanifest - having no attributes - attributes being a limitation (if there were attributes, it would be necessary for there to be non attributes - not possible in this instance - according to the Texts). That's actually a very good point - and it is exactly how I relate to It - the Unknowable. I don't call It anything - to attempt to describe and name It is to alter and ultimately lose It. Just like Da'ath - my favourite Sephiroth:-) This reminds me of our second interview. My husband was still somewhat uncomfortable with the term "Supreme Being" thanks to years of strict RC conditioning - as he put it "The very words instantly provoke an image of a bearded old bloke sitting on a cloud" *G* He said to our interviewer that he felt uncomfortable with the notion of It being above him, upon which Phil, our interviewer said something that turned our world literally upside-down, but in the most positive of ways: "Why should it mean ABOVE you? Why not below?" Now THAT slotted in place with a resounding CLUNK. Of course! It is our Foundation! As above, so below - without It we wouldn't be; without us It wouldn't be the same It is. Sheer wisdom - I will forever be grateful for those few words:-) Absolutely - working towards the greater good of mankind or, as you so eloquently put it 'the Perfection of Humanity' inevitably leads us back to our Origin; Creation made whole once again. Incidentally, the British Federation does require a belief in a Supreme Being, whereby the definition of that Supreme Being is entirely up to the individual. Cora
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jan 16, 2006 23:51:24 GMT
Gord: "Malecraft masons", that's like saying "female mailman" a nonsensical expression. As we have Male only Masonic Orders Female only Masonic orders and Mixed Gender Masonic Orders Malecraft is a very good word which we apply generically to all Freemasonic Orders that do not allow Females to belong ie Malecraft. HGW
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jan 17, 2006 0:35:30 GMT
Sex - In our Lodge Remember one of the uses of our Apron - is to move our mind to higher planes. If your Bros,. and sisters can't work on a higher level they will have a lot of work to do. I am aware of romances between people who happened to be Freemason that have blossomed . In some cases Partners have changed . That is to be expected Freemasonry is a living thing - I am aware of exactly the same things happening between same sex couples in Malecraft lodges. If ones relationship with ones partner is so fragile that they get concerned when their partner is lead around around the lodge - they have a problem not Freemasonry. Sorry I just can't imagine a Male Freemason saying their wife can't join a mixed gender Lodge . Might add that it is a requirement for all members of our Lodge to believe in a Supreme being. We certainly don't ask who or what that supreme being is - The Supreme being could be a tin of baked beans for that person, we wouldn't know. So why ping the French Orders that have removed such a requirement - Our Masonic Rituals spend a lot of time trying to find/ name a supreme being - do we ever truly find it. Through history "Supreme Beings' have come and gone with the evolution. We are asked in whom do we trust. gee just try and pin that down. I can't believe we all put our trust in that same tin of beans.. Does it mean we should trust in something greater than ourselves - that is fine until we find the direction arrow turns around and points right back to us. To Divinator, I Must say I find Freemasonry truly Magic, Totally Life changing and completely absorbing. The men and Women in my Lodge are simply Freemasons and I am proud to mix with them
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jan 17, 2006 1:39:31 GMT
"I Must say I find Freemasonry truly Magic, Totally Life changing and completely absorbing. The men and Women in my Lodge are simply Freemasons and I am proud to mix with them" - - so says Whistler
- - and so says Maat.
We are so lucky! Thank you G..
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 17, 2006 7:02:23 GMT
I like and have now adopted the expression "Malecraft" Freemasonry. It says what it does on the box. A short, sharp, euphonic and descriptive term , not "lumpy" like "UGLE Amity".
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Jan 17, 2006 7:12:04 GMT
Gord: "Malecraft masons", that's like saying "female mailman" a nonsensical expression. As we have Male only Masonic Orders Female only Masonic orders and Mixed Gender Masonic Orders Malecraft is a very good word which we apply generically to all Freemasonic Orders that do not allow Females to belong ie Malecraft. HGW No thats easy Whistler : POSTMAN and POSTWOMAN
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Jan 17, 2006 7:30:53 GMT
Sorry Cora - but I don't think it is the malecraft masons that can't be trusted - tis them female masons you have to watch out for - their uncontrollable lust for their male collegues would overpower everything.....he he
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jan 17, 2006 8:25:10 GMT
What I cannot understand is why we can have many other mixed gender leisure activities which are NOT a hotbed of promiscuity or a vehicle for adultery but somehow people think that a Masonic Lodge containing women and men would be thus?
If anything, given the Moral nature of Freemasonry and in particular the Obligations of the Third Degree in respect of the Chastity of a Brother Freemason's "Wife, Sister or Child" then conduct would be stricter in this regard that in other mixed social organisations.
The Co-Masons who post here have already explained that the Ceremonies can be adapted to cater for any physical action which could cause embarassment if both Genders were involved and that this does not cause problems for them.
In the end there are those who wish Malecraft Freemasonry only and those who would be happy with mixed Gender Lodges, (and of course Ladies Only Freemasonry), and I feel we can co-exist and respect each other in Peace and Harmony.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Jan 17, 2006 8:57:17 GMT
Regard to Co-masonry, sex is not the main problem, at least IMO.
The very problem is the control of the emotional level. I know some male co masons and they all have a bad control of their emotions. This depends on the fact that they are strongly influenced by the women's energies.
Sex can also occur, of course, as well as in any other mixed environment. For sure, it is not exclusive prerogative of any co-masonic group.
|
|
|
Post by a on Jan 17, 2006 9:10:27 GMT
Female energies are indeed very potent, which is why I guess some try to repress them, instead of incorporating an growing with them.
If anyone has any doubts about the potency of female energies, consider the sheer power of a woman scorned. Or more positively the sheer beauty wisdom and strength that can flow.
It is all about finding the right balance, in/with Nature, in group settings, in the family, and in onesself.
Herein lies another key to taking a step forward. A very difficult step, but also a very enlightening one.
|
|