Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2007 0:09:13 GMT
Currently, the mainstream approach to Women and Masonry approximates a Mexican standoff. Each of the mainstream Grand Lodges has retreated to a minimalist position and argues they face the difficulty that, if they move on the issue, other Grand Lodges will withdraw recognition. I suggest this is a 'welcome difficulty,' arising from underlying prejudice, and can largely be understood in terms of Groupthink . The usual structure of such Grand Lodges appears to lend itself to Groupthink, of which we read: In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977). 1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. 2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. 3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. 4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. 5. Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. 6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. 7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. 8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 24, 2007 2:49:06 GMT
Bro. Philip, I'm not a high ranking member of *any* grand lodge or other supreme body; and I have no ambition to be. However, from where I am, I can't imagine who'd be standing off against each other. Unless it be GLs, other than my own, doing the stand off amongst themselves. Quite honestly, I know of no Co-Mason that's all that anxious about this sort of recognition.
Now if you're talking about integrating Malecraft lodges . . . well, as you know, I believe the forced integration of Malecraft lodges to be evil. As evil as it would be to force Co-Masonic lodges to segregate. And I'm not the only Co-Mason who feels that way. If this is what you're talking about, then I'd suggest it's not a stand off so much as an effort to preserve their tradition.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2007 6:44:37 GMT
Bro. Karen, my post specifically referred to ‘mainstream Grand Lodges,’ all of whom are ‘Male Craft’ in character. This is in no way meant to denigrate Co-Masonry. However, under my former obedience, it is a Masonic offence to countenance (i.e., to look kindly on) Co-Masonry. Indeed, I had been officially told by my former Grand Registrar (chief legal officer), writing in that capacity (11/03/2000) at the request of the Grand Secretary (chief administrative officer). ‘…that part of the discipline of being a Freemason who is a member of a ‘regular’ Grand Lodge is to accept the underlying structure of that body which, in this case, includes firm opposition to ‘co-masonry’. As for which Grand Lodges would be ‘doing the stand off amongst themselves’, the Grand Secretary had earlier written to me (11/3/1996) stating: I have long held the view (and expressed this publicly on radio), that should the time arrive when we admit women as Members, it will be because Regular Grand Lodges around the world have all agreed to make the change. Personally, I would strongly baulk at referring to such integration as ‘evil.’ No doubt some people considered the forced ending of apartheid as being evil. Where there is no good and compelling reason for separation I question any lack of integration: Where that separation exists contrary to the institution’s professed traditions (those of Operative Stonemasons) and in the face of rhetoric espousing inclusion, equality and justice, I too detect a whiff of evil, but from a different quarter. THAT'S EVIL Karen, I suggest you stand back and consider this situation not as a woman, not as a Co-Mason but simply as a Mason. What is best for Freemasonry? Indeed, what is best for male Freemasons? Not, I suggest, the present situation. No doubt a harmonious resolution would be preferred. However, if that were possible, the issue would already have dissipated. If it is not possible some forcing of the issue is needed. There are difficult choices to be made and no doubt strategies put in place to ease ‘the blow’ for some. As a first step a form of recognition, rather than a qualified acknowledgement of 'regularity' (some sort of Orwellian 'newspeak'). OK, this may be a new form of recognition, but why not? At first limited to inter-visitations at Grand Lodge Communications, Proclamations and Installations and the opening up of ‘Lodge Rooms’ (Temples) for such recognized Orders to be allowed as tenants. Later extended to fraternal visits to Lodge Installations. From there? We shall see!
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Mar 24, 2007 7:08:37 GMT
Personally i like my GL "male only" freemasonry and would not and see no reason whatsoever as to WHY integration would be on any agenda as to a possibility. It is however worth discussing as we do through such media or maybe non masonic meetings between those parties to share there experiences and knowledge.
I have learnt so so much from co masons though and hopefully other male only masons have to and will continue to do so. There is no doubt that this education will filter through the system by this sharing of informatio n.
After all , there is male only,women only and co masonry so unless you are an alien of some strange species WHY the need and would our own organisations be any better for it?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2007 7:28:47 GMT
Personally i like my GL "male only" freemasonry and would not and see no reason whatsoever as to WHY integration would be on any agenda as to a possibility. It is however worth discussing as we do through such media or maybe non masonic meetings between those parties to share there experiences and knowledge. I have learnt so so much from co masons though and hopefully other male only masons have to and will continue to do so. There is no doubt that this education will filter through the system by this sharing of informatio n. After all , there is male only,women only and co masonry so unless you are an alien of some strange species WHY the need and would our own organisations be any better for it? The same could be said along racial lines.
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 24, 2007 10:35:24 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
IMHO viewing the questions discussed in this thread from a primarily political (i.e. masculine) perspective is, at least, one-sided.
A deeper, cultural (i.e. feminine) viewpoint would IMHO be more adequate.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2007 10:42:40 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
IMHO viewing the questions discussed in this thread from a primarily political (i.e. masculine) perspective is, at least, one-sided.
A deeper, cultural (i.e. feminine) viewpoint would IMHO be more adequate. From your 'i.e.', you clearly identify 'political' with 'masculine'—Let others make of that what they will. To be pedantic, if the questions here are discussed from AT LEAST one perspective, then you are suggesting they are not necessarily limited to one-side—I agree, thank you. Even so, if you have something to add, to make the discussion 'more adequate' than it already was, let's hear it.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Mar 24, 2007 15:19:27 GMT
Bro:. Phillip, Currently, the mainstream approach to Women and Masonry approximates a Mexican standoff. Each of the mainstream Grand Lodges has retreated to a minimalist position and argues they face the difficulty that, if they move on the issue, other Grand Lodges will withdraw recognition. I suggest this is a 'welcome difficulty,' arising from underlying prejudice, and can largely be understood in terms of Groupthink . The usual structure of such Grand Lodges appears to lend itself to Groupthink, of which we read: In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms that are indicative of groupthink (1977). 1. A feeling of invulnerability creates excessive optimism and encourages risk taking. 2. Discounting warnings that might challenge assumptions. 3. An unquestioned belief in the group’s morality, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions. 4. Stereotyped views of enemy leaders. 5. Pressure to conform against members of the group who disagree. 6. Shutting down of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. 7. An illusion of unanimity with regards to going along with the group. 8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting opinions. I agree one could view the current situation from that angle, however, why is it relevant? Let's throw some more politics into the mix: the moment I as a Co-Mason start bothering about what the various Grand Lodges think of me as a Mason or my Obedience as a Masonic Order, I accord them the supremacy they claim for themselves. Which would acknowledge their self-appointed right to judge me and my Order. Well, they don't have that right or supremacy, so I don't bother. What's the issue? S&F, Cora
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 24, 2007 19:55:11 GMT
I agree one could view the current situation from that angle, however, why is it relevant?
Let's throw some more politics into the mix: the moment I as a Co-Mason start bothering about what the various Grand Lodges think of me as a Mason or my Obedience as a Masonic Order, I accord them the supremacy they claim for themselves. Which would acknowledge their self-appointed right to judge me and my Order.
Well, they don't have that right or supremacy, so I don't bother.
What's the issue? Bro. CoraIf there is not a relevant issue for you, fine. While I am mindful that the name of your Obedience, Le Droit Humain, means 'Human Right,' and am encouraged by that choice, my initial post on this thread was not principally about Co-Masonry. As I replied to Bro. Karen, it specifically referred to 'mainstream Grand Lodges' (all of which are 'Male Craft'), for some members of which it is an issue. I have found it is also an an issue for some women (not all would choose the current 'alternatives'). As the example of the 'Moderns' and the 'Antients' demonstrated, as Masons, we should strive to overcome disunity. As the example of 'Prince Hall' Masonry demonstrated, as Masons, we should strive to overcome prejudice (similarly, I see a place for women only Freemasonry, in terms of Affirmative Action, and I would like to see LDH, etc. continue). Hopefully, current Co-Masonic groups and women only Masonry would co-operate in any efforts toward some sort of future unity. However, the problem is principally one for the 'Male Craft,' where as stated to Bro. Karen: Where there is no good and compelling reason for separation I question any lack of integration: Where that separation exists contrary to the institution’s professed traditions (those of Operative Stonemasons) and in the face of rhetoric espousing inclusion, equality and justice... Why exclude any worthy group? Alternatively, "OH! THAT EXPLAINS WHY ONLY ONE OF US WILL BE ABLE TO JOIN THE LOCAL LODGE"
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 25, 2007 4:23:38 GMT
Bro. Philip, I am human and prone to error. I also am young in the Craft. However, I feel I always view these things with Masonic eyes. Always. I am disappointed that you would think otherwise.
I used the word "forced" in my post. It was intentional. No harmony will come from force. None. And no lodge forced to integrate will remain in harmony. It is destructive and not at all conducive to our work. It is evil.
Your comparison of gender discrimination with that of race is an apt one. However, I do not believe righting this wrong justifies committing another wrong. The racial barrier is dropping (maddeningly slow but it is). This is being accomplished without force. I think it likewise will come with gender and I believe I see signs of it.
I am in great hopes that when it does come, it will come at the lodge level. Just as I think it is wrong to force a lodge to integrate, I likewise believe it wrong (and evil) to force a lodge that does not wish to work unmixed to do so.
In any case, I believe there will for a very, very long time (if not aways) be a need for lodges that serve only one gender. If for no other reason than because there are those brethren (male and female) who can deal with the opposite sex ONLY along sexual lines. While not all Male/Female Craft masons fall into this category (I believe the majority do not), single-gender lodges provide shelter to those who do. We are about making good people better. This character flaw should not bar them from the light.
This is my opinion of the matter. We do not agree. I am in great hopes that you do not feel we must.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 25, 2007 5:00:55 GMT
Bro. Karen,In asking you to view this issue from a wider Masonic perspective I may have been attributing a fault in my own character to you. In which case, I apologize. Personally, I find it easier to insist on the rights of others and feel awkward when the issue is too close to my own interests. The change cannot come from the lodge level while its Grand Lodge prohibits it from doing so. I support the idea of 'easing the blow' with a gradual, staggered introduction of integration (initially limited to visitations at Grand Lodge events and freeing up of restrictions on tenancy). I doubt, however, that action can be achieved without some legislative force. There has been disharmony overcoming the racial divide in Freemasonry and I expect in the long-term the vast majority will deem this as having been worthwhile. I guess I simply have faith that Freemasons can, at least, be no more sexist than the wider community, in which context, integration is normal. I have long pondered the concept of 'evil' and feel your use of it in this context is both excessive and unwarranted. Previously, I wondered about Jesus having said 'Resist not evil' (Matt. 5:39), upon looking up the Greek word which had been translated as 'evil' I found it more properly referred to 'that which is hurtful' (there was another word for 'evil', as such). I would say in this context—'Hurtful', yes / 'Evil', no. As you suggested, we may need to differ on this point.
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 25, 2007 18:31:10 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Although it may differ from some others expressed here, yours truly's view is that other styles and approaches are more appropriate and fruitful to an initiatic Order than those usually found in profane political parties. By way of illustration, Bro. Jean-Claude Mondet has written a useful book specifically for apprentices of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, some 300 pages long, published in 2005: La Première Lettre - L'apprenti au Rite Écossais Ancien et Accepté[/url] Chapter VI, Traditions Uses and Diverse Customs, section 2, Non-Mixity, contains several passages including one on initiatic aspects that might help deepen the cultural perception of the question. Like many other significant French works on Freemasonry, this one has not been translated into English.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 25, 2007 20:22:35 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, Although it may differ from some others expressed here, yours truly's view is that other styles and approaches are more appropriate and fruitful to an initiatic Order than those usually found in profane political parties. By way of illustration, Bro. Jean-Claude Mondet has written a useful book specifically for apprentices of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, some 300 pages long, published in 2005: La Première Lettre - L'apprenti au Rite Écossais Ancien et Accepté[/url] Chapter VI, Traditions Uses and Diverse Customs, section 2, Non-Mixity, contains several passages including one on initiatic aspects that might help deepen the cultural perception of the question. Like many other significant French works on Freemasonry, this one has not been translated into English.[/quote]lihin, Your latest post does not advance the discussion. Providing links to books or subjects can be useful. However, providing yet a further link to a book that is unavailable in English is not helpful to me. As Imakegarb (I think) recently said to you elsewhere on the forum, “I still do not speak French.” Nor do I and I do not need to here, as the language of this forum is English. If you feel an author has made a point relevant to this or any discussion please provide an abstract or summary of that portion in English. Indeed, even where a book is available in English, simply saying an author has something to say on a subject, and expecting readers of the forum to have to purchase the book to find out what that may be, is unreasonable (I once made the mistake of ordering a book to which you had linked: I considered it to be a waste of money). You could be more helpful by simply stating the point to be made. What is it you wish to say? If your whole point was that 'profane political parties' pursue ideas of equality (when it suits them), then I would suggest this is an instance where spiritual influences have been at play in the domain of politics and, I for one, would like politics to be much more influnced by spiritual matters.
|
|
|
Post by lihin on Mar 25, 2007 20:55:35 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren,
As yours truly did at school, some others here are certainly capable of following the examples of very well known and respected Freemasonic Brethren like Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, Arthur Edward Waite, etc. and learn the French language, so rich in esoteric and Freemasonic literature and development in past and present. If a native English speaker can for example learn Hebrew, French is very easy by comparison.
Learning a foreign language also opens access to its mentality that may significantly differ from one's own, e.g. in sensitivity and perception.
Yours truly's last posts express his view that a political, aggressive approach to the thread's subject matter is inadequate in the framework of an initiatic Order and that a softer cultural approach would be more appropriate.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 25, 2007 21:26:37 GMT
Greetings Sisters and Brethren, As yours truly did at school, some others here are certainly capable of following the examples of very well known and respected Freemasonic Brethren like Albert Pike, Albert Mackey, Arthur Edward Waite, etc. and learn the French language, so rich in esoteric and Freemasonic literature and development in past and present. If a native English speaker can for example learn Hebrew, French is very easy by comparison. Learning a foreign language also opens access to its mentality that may significantly differ from one's own, e.g. in sensitivity and perception. Yours truly's last posts express his view that a political, aggressive approach to the thread's subject matter is inadequate in the framework of an initiatic Order and that a softer cultural approach would be more appropriate. Tan ahora todos tenemos que aprender francés para entender los puntos que usted desea hacer Which translates from Spanish to English to mean: So now we all have to learn French in order to understand the points you wish to make
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Mar 25, 2007 21:34:30 GMT
Lihin. ref: A deeper, cultural (i.e. feminine) viewpoint would IMHO be more adequate.Are you suggesting a Male can't have a deeper cultural view point. Oh Dear If you have any doubt Here is a wonderful cultural Song written by a Man It is called the Gumboot song (Intro, spoken, with gusto.) 'Righto, kick it in the guts, Trev... ' Gumboots, they are wonderful, gumboots, they are swell 'coz they keep out the water, and they keep in the smell. And when you're sittin' round at home, you can always tell When one of the Trevs has taken off his gumboots. Chorus: If it weren't for your gumboots, where would ya be? You'd be in the hospital or infirmary 'coz you would have a dose of the 'flu, or even pleurisy If ya didn't have yer feet in yer gumboots. Now there's rugby boots and racing boots, and boots for drinkin' rum. but the only boots I'm never without, are the ones that start with "gum". I've got short ones and long ones, and some up to me belt. I'm never dressed 'till I've got on me gumboots. Whenever I sing at the opera, my gumboots are a must. They help me hit the high notes, and protect me feet from dust. They keep the water well away, so me voice won't get no rust. You will not never see me without me gumboots. Now (names of current unpopular politicians), they haven't made a hit. They're ruining the country, more than just a bit. If they keep on how they're going, we'll all be in turd. So you'd better get yer feet up yer gumboots.[/size] If you want to sing along at get a real cultural experience click here folksong.org.nz/gumboot/index.htmlYou will notice a cultural Kiwi took an uncultured song from a Scot, whose accent is so broad nobody can understand, refined it, and we now have a Cultural Master piece, In fact Richard Strauss (Also a Male) would probably like it played as an intro to his Four Last Songs Be sure to click on the video button, If you look with care you might see Keith he is wearing a Black Singlet. Yes Lithin we Southern Males can turn on all the culture you can cope with
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Mar 25, 2007 21:54:55 GMT
Theres a group of 6 (with me now 7) who have commented on this thread!
Philip, I admire your views on Women in Freemasonry and have learnt a great deal from a lot of your very informative posts. But this thread tells me that your views and wants are not the same as a lot of Co-Masons and probably Women Freemasons. In this Forum the majority of Posters believe that Co-Masons are 'real' Masons, that 'women' masons are real Masons, but the majority just do not feel as strongly about this so called recognition issue that you do.
I have absolutely no doubt you feel incredibly passionate about it (From what you have told us in your communications with your ex Grand Lodge). I for one do not, It is not important to me, I love my Freemasonry, and I am sure I will be still loving it in 20 years time, and GL's around the world will still not recognise the regularity of Women and the simple reason is that the majority of the people who are Male only Masons want to keep it that way.
I will continue to recognise all Co-Masons and Women Masons as regular, I will still not visit (A great shame) but at the end of the day I love what I belong to and it isnt going to change.
As I have previously said I am lucky enough to belong to a couple of Esoteric Orders that admit women, and I find them to be the most interesting, however as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water you cannot make it drink (I know you will find a picture!)
Good luck
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 0:07:14 GMT
Bro. MP,
I have a question for you. And I know you know I love you, deeply and fraternally. And that I won't ask a question with anything other than honest and respectful intention.
Do you believe it is at all possible to recognize Co-Masonic obediences without integrating single gender lodges?
I do, very much, believe it *is* possible but I'm getting the impression from your post that you think this is not possible? So I'm wondering.
And if I am reading your post right, why is it not possible?
And for what it may be worth, I don't think Bro. Philip is talking about recognition. I believe he is talking about the integration of single-gender lodges. The difference is subtle but important.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2007 0:09:46 GMT
Bro. MiddlepillarThank you for your input. Here is a ‘leading a horse to water’ picture, as expected (have I created a rod for my own back?): I too regard Co-Masons and Women Masons as ‘real Masons,’ I simply do not accept that their existence diminishes the responsibility for ‘mainstream’ Freemasons to get their own houses in order (especially as LDH, etc. have more ‘idiosyncrasies’ than simply the admission of women and do not appeal to all female aspirants). While you and others may not regard the women and Masonry issue as a priority, others do. At a meeting where I briefly spoke about the issue, I had no trouble finding seven women (including several Co-Masons) to sign as ‘aggrieved persons’ in a complaint to the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. I could have had at least twice that number, but I only had one form, with provision for seven signatories. Indeed, several people (men and women) objected to being left out (I suggested they complain on their own behalf). While you say, "...the majority of the people who are Male only Masons want to keep it that way"—How would you feel if the same logic were used to justify racial segregation, especially in an institution espousing, inclusion, equality and justice? As for the future, as Gandhi said: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 26, 2007 0:17:10 GMT
. . .especially as LDH, etc. have more ‘idiosyncrasies’ than simply the admission of women and do not appeal to all female aspirants. Bro. Philip, I can put finger to a number of "idiosyncrasies" in every obedience in Freemasonry (just compare UGLE with GLAE or GLoS with GOoF or any GL in the US with any other GL in the US/world and you'll see what I mean). To suggest this is unique to LDH is unkind, inaccurate and appeals only to the very element you claim to be resisting. You are far better than this. I am in great hopes I will not see you do it again.
|
|