imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 11, 2007 0:54:43 GMT
Bro. Philip,
Respectfully and with as much fraternal affection as I can express in this ether . . .
As I mentioned in the other thread, I will debate this issue with you no more forever.
If others want to take it up with you, they may. But your time of debating with me is at an end.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 11, 2007 2:30:38 GMT
Yes, we can do with some help in that cause - from women. Bro. Wayseer,I do not know whether or not her politics suit you, but congratulations anyway on the ensuing appointment of your first woman Premier, Anna Bligh.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 11, 2007 6:52:31 GMT
Perhaps part of the problem here are the various shades and meaning of the term "forcing". There is a sense in which it connotes the equivalent of 'undesired compelling against'; there is another sense in which it refers more to 'facing and addressing the issue with moral strength'. In some way, the two stand at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Perhaps, to link it to Masonic ritual, the term 'force' can here be connected to the cardinal virtue of fortitude (with which it is etymologically connected).
So the question can be re-asked as to how we are to face the issue with courage and fortitude or force - remembering that these are all terms that have been used to render the single Greek cardinal virtue into English.
In Book one of the Laws, Plato talks of the virtues thus: "Wisdom is the chief and leader: next follows temperance; and from the union of these two with courage springs justice."
I would suggest that it is with the above in mind that this thread needs to perhaps also be understood.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 11, 2007 11:33:36 GMT
I don't know what women's situation in general is in Australia, so I'll leave that to one side for the moment. We are here to discuss masonry, and a perceived case of gender discrimination in masonic context.
I don't know if there are female-only lodge in Australia, but I do know that there are co-masonic lodges over there. If the argument is that due to the thin geographic spread of lodges which do admit women, freemasonry is not readily accessible to these women, then that is not discrimination -- it is simply a matter of supply and demand being out of balance. The solution to that, which I offer from personal experience, is to see to it that a triangle or lodge be established within reasonable difference of a group of women who do wish to become masons.
It's a daunting endeavour, and lot of hard work, but it can be done.
It is simply not right to force those who wish to practice their Craft in a single-gender environment to admit members of the opposite sex.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 11, 2007 11:51:30 GMT
Which is a pretty big step for this redneck State. What next?
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 11, 2007 11:58:36 GMT
It is simply not right to force those who wish to practice their Craft in a single-gender environment to admit members of the opposite sex.
Quite.
But for me the issue is about 'recognition'. All this gender stuff can be bypassed by the various malecraft GLs by 'recognising' co-masonic Lodges. The fact that don't creates the present situation.
Again, as I've indicated on previous posts - it will be the economic argument that wins the day. Simply opening up these Lodges to women will increase the potential membership by 100%. And, just as there are now various 'side orders' I could image those 'side orders' may well be gender specific Lodges.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 11, 2007 14:32:10 GMT
It is simply not right to force those who wish to practice their Craft in a single-gender environment to admit members of the opposite sex. Voilà! Thus the debate has come full circle and here, it seems, we must agree to disagree. Regular and Co-Masonry thread, Reply #51 I do feel that we would be causing irrevocable harm to the fraternity as a whole if we take the line that the single sex fraternities MUST open up to the opposite sex, mainly because of the number of people who are happy with the status quo, and would be very unhappy about being forced to accept women in the lodge room that they attend. I repeat my opinion that the "No Women!" rule represents an unprincipled indulgence of prejudice.In an institution where, among other issues, we are meant to keep our passions and prejudices within due bounds, this indulgence bother me / not you (I almost envy your detachment). Thus, I must go my way while you are welcome to go yours (no doubt your Masonic principles are expressed in other ways). Thank you for your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 11, 2007 20:58:15 GMT
In an institution where, among other issues, we are meant to keep our passions and prejudices within due bounds, this indulgence bother me / not you (I almost envy your detachment). If I interpret this correctly, you are citing the very argument I cast at the Prestonian Lecturer in January 2006 after his citing "jealousy" and "passions" as the chief reasons why women should not be allowed to enter male-only lodges. A mere candidate at the time, I asked him two questions. Firstly: whatever happened to trust within marriage, and secondly: how would this ever become an issue in a group of people who have learnt to subdue their passions. The answer was a rather patronising "I was only joking, dear" -- which means so much as the total absence to any real answers to the question. That was then, when I was just a candidate. Now, almost 2 years on and with a serious dose of masonic administrative experience under my belt, I think differently. To call the situation an "indulgence" is a vast oversimplification. If indeed it comes back to recognition, then the situation is much more complicated than that. Think about it. For a malecraft order recognised by UGLE to formally recognise feminine masonry, let alone admit women in their midst, would be a major departure from the "unchangeable" landmarks. What a statement to make: a GL declaring the landmarks changeable, and indeed flawed. That Order would instantly lose its recognition and be declared clandestine. That same Order would also lose a significant number of its members, which means a serious financial blow in combination with a severely impaired attraction of new members due to the Order now being clandestine. More importantly, though: to declare the landmarks flawed is to declared your own foundations flawed. History teaches that with sufficient drive and dedication to the ideal of equality -- as you so obviously have -- it can be done, and it can flourish into something as beautiful as a worldwide co-masonic order. But recognise the time, place and the socio-political circumstances in which my Order came to life -- fin du siècle France, amidst the passionate battle for women's emancipation riding on the mighty crest of liberté, égalité, fraternité, which still regularly echoes through our temples worldwide. I continue to feel that the answer is not to coerce single-gender jurisdictions into embracing the co-masonic ethos, but to capitalise on what is already there: further expand the reach of femine and co-masonic jurisdictions. What are the practical objections / obstacles in that respect? H.g.w., Cora
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 11, 2007 20:59:23 GMT
Which is a pretty big step for this redneck State. What next? And you don't think it's a pretty big step for a mere FC? ;D
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Sept 11, 2007 23:18:09 GMT
What I'm suggesting is that we can jump up and down about the rights of women and 'fairness' but it will be the force of the economic argument that will initiate the change desperately needed. I continue to feel that the answer is not to coerce single-gender jurisdictions into embracing the co-masonic ethos, but to capitalise on what is already there: further expand the reach of femine and co-masonic jurisdictions. What are the practical objections / obstacles in that respect? H.g.w., Cora None from me, masonry should be encouraged in all flavours.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 12, 2007 0:13:44 GMT
If I interpret this correctly, you are citing the very argument I cast at the Prestonian Lecturer in January 2006 after his citing "jealousy" and "passions" as the chief reasons why women should not be allowed to enter male-only lodges.
A mere candidate at the time, I asked him two questions. Firstly: whatever happened to trust within marriage, and secondly: how would this ever become an issue in a group of people who have learnt to subdue their passions. The answer was a rather patronising "I was only joking, dear" -- which means so much as the total absence to any real answers to the question. Bro. Cora,Right glad I am to find your lecturer was only joking (I guess you had to be there). This argument had seriously been advanced up until the early 20th Century. J.S.M. Ward, thoroughly debunked the argument in his 1923 book, Freemasonry its Aims and Ideals, and it had been addressed as early as 1783, by George Smith, in his treatise, The Use and Abuse of Freemasonry. Basically, given the selective nature of admission and the moral tendency of our teachings one should not reasonably expect Freemasons to be less able to keep their passions and prejudices within due bounds than is the case in the wider community. I suggest this argument is even more apt today. While I would welcome the general recognition suggested in this thread (and as I have more or less suggested elsewhere). I see this as only a step towards the goal I share with others, which encompasses a wider range, with a generational change normalising the admission of women as Freemasons. Indeed, there could well be more problems with recognition of other Obediences, than with having each address their own particular circumstances. While some may see this goal as political correctness gone mad and consider that Freemasonry ought somehow be a special exception to community norms and expectations, I see it simply as a natural unfoldment of intrinsic Masonic principles and as an expression of Masonic virtues, as described in the “ A Reason That Demanded FreeMasonry” and the “ Success has an edge” threads, whereby the wider community appears to have overtaken our institution in the adoption (if not always the practice) of Masonic principles.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 12, 2007 8:58:34 GMT
I write this as much to myself as anyone else -
The word Lewis denotes strength and is herein depicted with certain pieces of metal dovetailed into a stone with form a cramp, and when in combination with some mechanical powers such as a system of pulleys, allows the operative mason to raise great weights to certain heights, with little encumbrances, while fixing them of their proper bases. But, as we meet not as operative, but as speculative, or symbolic masons, it the moral to be derived from the contemplation of these devices I wish to draw your attention.
In this respect the Lewis teaches us that force is not necessary to move large objects or raise great weights. Indeed, force is an encumbrance to the speculative mason if such application is used without skillful means acquired through the understanding of the natural laws concerning leverage and balance.
It is more than obvious that there are many Freemasons, which unhappily include those in positions of power and authority, who do not understand the many symbols with which a Freemasons Lodge is replete. That is not the fault of Freemasonry.
In writing this post I cannot help but refer to Walter Leslie Wilmshurst (1867 -1939) who, if I may paraphrase, said - If Freemasonry is not spiritual it is nothing. Too often, it seems, I forget that lesson. That some do not 'get' the message the the symbols relay is to be understood - we are all on different levels of achievement.
When all grows dim I see Light. It is the Light shown by the Brethren with which this internet Lodge is endowed that causes me to pause and to think. Without you I would not be much. It is a privilege to be in your company - a happy band a Brethren who display courage and application without fear constraining our thoughts on the mundane chance that harmony will not see the cracks in our character.
If we cannot deal with each other honestly then we are treading water going nowhere. The fact that we have divergent views does not make any of us any less a Brother.
So, I think it is time to pause and think - to adjourn to the South. Perhaps the Mods might think it worth while to install a Coffee Lounge board where we shoot the breeze when thinks get a bit over the top.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 12, 2007 10:04:33 GMT
I see this as only a step towards the goal I share with others, which encompasses a wider range, with a generational change normalising the admission of women as Freemasons. I don't intend to join this debate but I'm wondering if you could clarify something for me (I'm a bit slow). So I'll just cut through all the rhetoric and BS. What you're actually saying is that your ultimate goal is the destruction of Masculne Freemasonry, leaving only Feminine and Co-Masonry! How exactly would this benefit Freemasonry as a whole? M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 12, 2007 10:24:23 GMT
I don't intend to join this debate but I'm wondering if you could clarify something for me (I'm a bit slow). So I'll just cut through all the rhetoric and BS.
What you're actually saying is that your ultimate goal is the destruction of Masculne Freemasonry, leaving only Feminine and Co-Masonry!
How exactly would this benefit Freemasonry as a whole?M Bro. Mike,Despite your intention, you have joined the debate and brought your own rhetoric and BS. Welcome. Ultimately, the benefit would be that of Freemasonry being "relieved of the damning and unsightly excrescence" of discrimination.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Sept 12, 2007 10:44:01 GMT
Bro. Mike,Despite your intention, you have joined the debate and brought your own rhetoric and BS. Welcome. Ultimately, the benefit would be that of Freemasonry being "relieved of the damning and unsightly excrescence" of discrimination. I don't hink insulting someone who has asked a polite question advances your argument any ichabod. It appears to you to be "damning and unsightly excrescence" but others hold different opinions. I too read it the same way Mike does, you are quite happy for female only masonry and co-masonry to exist but want to do away with, by force or legislation, male only masonry. That surely is wrong. As is wayseer's economic argument - if there is enough demand for a co-masonic lodge in a town then why not start one? Why force change on the male only lodge if that is the only available option, surely the law of supply and demand is the ultimate judge? If a male only lodge has been going for 100+ years, it is surely secure enough in its own standing to cope with competition from a co-masonic lodge starting up, and those men who feel strongly about women in lodge can then feel free to join that one. Or is that too simple and uncontroversial?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 12, 2007 11:04:46 GMT
I don't hink insulting someone who has asked a polite question advances your argument any ichabod. Bro. Bod, Where had I insulted Bro. Mike, other than with his own words to me? To expand on my reply to him: There may still be LDH, et al., but there would be no need to distinguish them with a "Co-Masonic" tag, as gender would then be as irrelevant in Freemasonry as it is in politics, workplaces, etc. By way of further analogy, "men-only politics" may have been technically "destroyed" by the involvement of women, but not "masculine politics," as such, it was complemented by "feminine politics," and then there was just "politics." I am a mainstream Freemason (albeit, unattached) and that is where my interest lies. Women-only Masonry keeps being raised as a counterpoise or as a red herring, I am not so concerned by them, as I have explained ad nauseum. I recognize some justification for them seeking mutual support. I hope that need will not always be present but it will not be in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Sept 12, 2007 11:49:35 GMT
A famous mason of the last century Sebastien Faure said " teaching the moral is useless but if the evil is contagious know that the good example is also contagious"
I don't want to force them because I want a freemasonry of free minds. Our ancestors, the founders of the LDH, or Anderson, of the founders of the first feminine GL, just decided to do it. Not waiting century for changes, build now !
I don't believe that freemasonry as a social body can be "free" of social evolution, we ( freemasons) will adapt the model to the world we living in or we will turn to a folkloric group. If you feel desperate about the craft read what our brothers and sisters of spain or south america are doing. It's the future. I have faith in one masonic tradition : Evolution.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Sept 12, 2007 12:07:56 GMT
and seriously no one will force no one to act against its will, I am also for a freemasonry with multiple flavours, multiple species lika an ecosystem. thanks to internet and forum it is almost a reality.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 12, 2007 12:17:22 GMT
and seriously no one will force no one to act against its will, I am also for a freemasonry with multiple flavours, multiple species lika an ecosystem. thanks to internet and forum is almost a reality. Bro. Fred,I too am in favour of a diversity of variations on the Freemasonic theme, provided those variations retain a moral tendency.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Sept 12, 2007 13:14:30 GMT
I was initiated in a lodge for men and women then I change for a male only lodge, the only solution, for me, to work English ritual ( emulation) and to learn this other masonic tradition. Often, I explain to my actual brothers that there is no big differences , I mean that you rapidly forget to see a man or a woman but just another initiate ... but most of them keep on saying that they'll prefer leaving masonry than accept the initiation of women in their lodge. Meanwhile since few years we are doing common lodge meeting with feminine or a "comason" lodge from other GL, this slowly change the mentality... Are they immoral ? I don't know, for this generation men and women were only together at the university... Am I compromising my personal morality in a male only lodge ? Maybe, But I love to much freemasonry to resist I know that I will go back to a lodge for men and women someday not because it is moral but because I feel it natural. Then, there is something that is never talk about : what do we do in lodge ? If it is only ceremonies : opening/closing - reception/passing/raising I don't care to work with men or women because it is just about ritual work. If we have an operative work in lodge with debate, papers on symbolism or social evolution it is better to do it with all kind of opinions including women of course. If no militant about equal rights fight about gender equality in the mainstream lodge it is, maybe, because they think that nothing still happen in the lodges nothing that worth the fight. I have seen one obedience where at a certain point the lodges had the choice Feminine, Masculine and women and men, the first two categories disappeared in a few years simply because it is easier to be a lodge for men and women in 2007. How many candidates will insist to work in a male only lodge ?
|
|