Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 8, 2007 1:41:38 GMT
I do not believe one can simply sit back to wait for the normalization of women as Freemasons and reasonably expect it to just happen. The circumstances under which I would advocate the use of ‘force’ to end gender discrimination within mainstream Masonry are as follows. Firstly, every citizen has the right to appeal to the civil courts, once internal remedies have been exhausted. The 'No Women!' rule is imposed on lodges by their respective Grand Lodges, meaning that, those lodges which would otherwise choose to admit women are 'forced' from doing so. Further, I am often told, “the time is not right”—I agree—it is long overdue. Unless the Grand Lodges concerned announce some substantial changes in the near future, I reluctantly advocate the use of ‘force,’ to make them change. I sadly acknowledge that, if that ‘force’ is through legislation (e.g., the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), there may also be undesirable consequences in its wake, preventing us from being able to soften the ‘blow,’ for those who perceive it as such, (better to be proactive and implement the necessary changes now, together with any 'safeguards'). Secondly, while ever there is any substantial prejudice within mainstream Masonry against women being Freemasons, I support the right of the women-only lodges to continue to meet as they do, on the principle of Affirmative Action (while technically discriminatory, I do not believe them choosing to do so is based on their prejudice). Thirdly, I suggest such changes should be implemented gradually. There needs, however, to be a clear deadline for the accomplishment of the goal. Perhaps, any concessions should be reserved for this generation of Freemasons (might not be an option if legislation is invoked), with those entering from now on knowing that Masonry will, in the future be for both men and women equally. Fourthly, some acknowledgment should be given to mainstream lodges which choose to admit women and in areas where there are presently only men-only lodges, sponsorship of mixed lodges should be available, to give worthy women convenient access to Freemasonry. Fifthly, lodges which have elected to admit women (or after any generational moratorium) may however experience every woman applicant being rejected at the ballot, by a minority of members. Where such rejection is manifestly not due to individual characteristics but is solely based on gender, 'force' may need to be applied, akin to that applied in this Virginian example.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 8, 2007 22:08:51 GMT
" I support the right of the women-only lodges to continue to meet as they do, on the principle of Affirmative Action (while technically discriminatory, I do not believe them choosing to do so is based on their prejudice).
Sorry but that has lost you any support you may have had from me
I abhor "Affirmative Action" , "Positive Discrimination" or whatever name one may give to such policies.
If "Men Only" Lodges and GLs are wrong for being so then the same would have to apply in my system of values to "Female Only" Lodges under HFAF or OWF etc.
I have no quarrel with Female Only Lodges and thus can have no quarrel now with Male Only GLs, at least not for being thus whatever other objections I may have to UGLE and Amity GLs.
I am in a Masonic Body which accords absolute equality to Women and Men. I would like to see that be the norm but knowing Human Nature I feel it will be long time in coming and will NOT be achieved by Force of Law.
However if you are waiting for someone to "Bell the Cat" go ahead and institute legal proceedings in your own area.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 8, 2007 22:42:51 GMT
Thank you Bro. Steve,I am glad you are content with the Masonic options available to you. I too have reservations concerning applications of the principle of Affirmative Action and the Wikipedia link raises some of the difficulties. Nevertheless, its advantages hopefully outweigh its disadvantages. I would remind readers that I had qualified my support, saying, " ...while ever there is any substantial prejudice within mainstream Masonry against women being Freemasons..." Ultimately, I see no place for discrimination in Freemasonry, other than on moral grounds. My position is not so strong that I would actively oppose all gender exclusive organisations. I simply see Freemasonry as being perhaps the last organisation which should discriminate on irrelevant grounds and regard such discrimination as being incompatible with my moral, civil and religious duties. Freemasonry teaches that we are all sprung from the same stock, partakers of the same nature and sharers of the same hope. We hold ourselves to be a model of inclusion on the basis of race, politics and religion. Imagine, how alien, how "other" one must feel to be excluded from such an "all encompassing" organisation. Imagine too how, when told Freemasonry is a model which we are encouraged to apply to the wider society, how the "No Women!" rule may influence the application of that model. I hope not to " bell the cat" (an appropriate expression given your avatar ). However, if nothing has happened in the meantime, if our current opposition wins the ensuing federal election (as expected) and if and when they ratify (as promised) the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (making it enforceable), I intend to pursue that line of action. BTW, the UK has already ratified the Protocol (17 December 2004).
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 8, 2007 23:11:31 GMT
We've been over this ground before, and you know my stance. Do what you feel is right Phillip, but, if it becomes nessesary, I have no problem with "going underground" with my Masonry to preserve it from those who would seek to destroy it on the altar of political fanaticism.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 8, 2007 23:29:30 GMT
Do what you feel is right Philip Thank you for your permission, I will. I suggest your "altar of political fanaticism" is my "altar of Masonic principles."
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 8, 2007 23:36:07 GMT
I would think that freedom of association would be a Masonic principle, would it not? We all gravitate toward those with whom we have things in common. It is not right to force others to do that which is contrary to thier will in order to right a precieved wrong, and in doing so, perpetrate as great a wrong as that which you are attempting to "correct."
The specter of those Masonic re-education camps are not as far-fetched as you think...
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 0:03:17 GMT
I would think that freedom of association would be a Masonic principle, would it not? Indeed and I support the use of the ballot to reject individuals, but not groups. Would your "underground" Masonry also exclude non-whites? In a wider sense, with respect to discriminating against groups, there are limits to the right of freedom of association, as Alphonse Cerza relates in, The Courts and Freemasonry: Case histories that have or could affect Freemasonry, (Anchor Communications, Highland Springs, Virginia, 1986, ISBN 0-935633-03-0). Referring in particular to US law (which UK and Australian jurisdictions, among others, generally accord comity), Cerza, points out (p.39). Determining the limits of state authority over an individual’s freedom to enter into a particular association ... unavoidably entails a careful assessment of where that relationship’s objective characteristics locate it on a spectrum from the most intimate to the most attenuated of personal attachments... We need not mark the potential significant points on this terrain with any precision. We note only that factors that may be relevant include size, purpose, policies, selectivity, congeniality, and other characteristics that in a particular case may be pertinent. While the observation above specifically related to sexual discrimination, Cerza also points to the precedent (p.40) of a ruling, in a case of racial discrimination, whereby an ' ... organization whose only selection criteria is race has “no plan or purpose of exclusiveness” that might make it a private club exempt from federal civil rights statute.' [edit 13/09/07, added links]
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 0:13:09 GMT
Of course. Apples=oranges. Try to think of a better arguement, my friend. The race-card has been played one too many times.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 0:16:56 GMT
Of course. Apples=oranges. Try to think of a better arguement, my friend. The race-card has been played one too many times. Perhaps those against whom it is played feel it has been played too often simply because it is appropriate. I suggest the principles of discrimination are similar in both cases. Even Bro. Karen, who thinks my position on this matter is 'evil,' agrees: Your comparison of gender discrimination with that of race is an apt one.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 9, 2007 0:30:15 GMT
Bro Philip I concur with thoughts but may I make an observation or two.
The application of 'force' more likely represents frustration at the inaction, even to the point of even some token of acknowledgement on this important issue by the various GLs. And frustration has a habit of breeding intolerance - the very thing you are attempting to overcome.
Affirmative action or goal setting is a tool of political persuasion for whichever method or cause it is invoked - it becomes an end in and of itself and many of its supporters loose sight of the 'real' goal. In other words, there is a distinct danger that the 'objective' becomes the goal and the real goal is lost in the dust and haze.
I might sound like a wet blanket but this issue burns with passion in me as it may with you. I just don't think 'forcing' will have any direct benefit - in fact I see the opposite - positions being entrenched and hardened.
Whiteant them I say - maintain the 'thorn in the flesh' approached - worry them with polite but consistent ly persistent opposing points of view - and - attack when the opportunity presents itself.
If all else fail - vote with your feet - but do it loudly so GL has hear the sound of distant drums.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 0:37:13 GMT
In this particular instance it was not apt, as it was an attempt to cast aspersians on my intentions, to imply racism. Won't work. I am a regular Mason, as is my choice, and my right. No one has the right to force gender integration on me, nor on a female lodge, for that matter. In areas of employment, government sponsored entities, etc., integration of the sexes is appropriate. Forcing a private entity to integrate females into its structure against thier will is wrong. Period. Forcing females to accept males into thiers is wrong. We, as a free society, should have a choice in what we wish to be a part of. That choice exists, we have a type of masonry to suit each individual, and if some are not happy with that, they make something up. Plenty to go around, I think.
When one attempts to bring force into the arguement, because they cannot bring others to thier point of view, it seems as though one has lost thier arguement. The Roman Catholc Church did the same during the Inquisition. Repent, or be burned. Is that what we are trying to attempt here? Repent, you heretic male Masons, or be burned?
Will you burn the heretic female Masons as well, on the same pyre, just to be "fair?"
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 0:41:07 GMT
Bro. Wayseer, I have already voted noisily with my feet (I am presently unattached) and have continued to make noise, as at the International Conference on the History of Freemasonry, in Edinburgh this May, where I debunked the notion that the 'No Women!' rule was imposed on us by our operative roots. The term 'force' was not one I first applied to my position and, from my opening post you will see that it is not my preferred option. However, once the term had been used to describe my position, I could not honestly deny that 'forcing' the issue would, for me, be preferable to continued inaction. I am therefore exploring the ramifications of that option in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 0:45:29 GMT
I'm helping you out with that by "forcing" you to face these arguements here, and now, because you will face them later. For every argument, there is a counter arguement.
And, not to mention, I genuinely disagree with your position.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 0:48:02 GMT
When one attempts to bring force into the arguement, because they cannot bring others to thier point of view, it seems as though one has lost thier arguement. The Roman Catholc Church did the same during the Inquisition. Repent, or be burned. Is that what we are trying to attempt here? Repent, you heretic male Masons, or be burned?
Will you burn the heretic female Masons as well, on the same pyre, just to be "fair?" Again you resort to hyperbole, when losing an argument (am I also meant to chuckle at this instance?) I have stated my case clearly, I suggest you have yet to provide a rational response.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 0:49:09 GMT
A rational response? Its my choice.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 0:52:04 GMT
A rational response? Its my choice. Shall we explore the principles, particularly the Masonic principles, upon which we base our respective choices?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 0:56:45 GMT
I base my position upon that of freedom of association.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 9, 2007 1:00:52 GMT
Perhaps this SHOULD go to a Court of Law in Australia and we would then get a definitive Legal Ruling.
Like Bro Wayseer I would prefer a less robust approach, but this would at least bring this matter to a head.
BTW I DID vote with my feet, left Malecraft (UGLE) and became a Co-Mason .
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 1:04:11 GMT
I base my position upon that of freedom of association. See my Reply #6. Among those on which I base mine are the principles of equality, justice and unity.
|
|
|
Post by tws on Sept 9, 2007 1:04:53 GMT
Perhaps this SHOULD go to a Court of Law in Australia and we would then get a definitive Legal Ruling. Like Bro Wayseer I would prefer a less robust approach, but this would at least bring this matter to a head. BTW I DID vote with my feet, left Malecraft (UGLE) and became a Co-Mason . Thereby utilising your feedom of association. Making a choice, based on your own reasons and not that of some outside force imposing it upon you. I have the utmost respect for your decision.
|
|