|
Post by gaslight on Sept 18, 2007 4:02:15 GMT
Thus, if Masonry is a profound spiritual path, on what basis does any GL refuse access by half of the human race? Good question. Women's Mysteries? Men's Mysteries? (I'm reminded of something from Frank Herbert's Dune.) I can see that if a mainstream lodge were to allow a visit from a female Mason, its charter would be pulled in no time flat, but what about the reverse? If mainstream Masons visit co-masonic lodges and GL gets to know about it, would that necessarily result in Masonic charges? In most jurisdictions I guess it should, but does it?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 18, 2007 5:38:15 GMT
There are "associate" Brothers in my jurisdiction (they attend lodge with us but remain affiliated with their Malecraft lodges) who tell me they do so with the knowledge of the brethren in their other jurisdiction and nothing happens. Cynically, I suppose it could be said that those jurisdictions don't want to draw attention or create martyrs. More optimistically (the way I prefer it ), it could be a sort of tacit acceptance that indicates, ultimately, how the system is evolving and will, one day, be taken for granted. However, I also know associate Brothers who are afraid to let the Brothers in their Malecraft lodges know about us. I also know female Brothers in my jurisdiction who feel compelled to hide their light when they are around their husbands' Malecraft brethren. Bro. Gaslight, I don't know if that answers your question but this is my own observation.
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 18, 2007 6:04:48 GMT
There are "associate" Brothers in my jurisdiction (they attend lodge with us but remain affiliated with their Malecraft lodges) who tell me they do so with the knowledge of the brethren in their other jurisdiction and nothing happens. Cynically, I suppose it could be said that those jurisdictions don't want to draw attention or create martyrs. More optimistically (the way I prefer it ), it could be a sort of tacit acceptance that indicates, ultimately, how the system is evolving and will, one day, be taken for granted. Bro. Karen, that not only answers my question but confirms something I read several years ago on another board. I was told that at least some US co-masonic lodges were happy to welcome malecraft visitors but, appreciating their situation, did not require them to sign the Tyler's Register. I got the impression that quite a few malecraft Brethren were taking advantage of this hospitality. I share your optimistic view of the situation. Sooner or later I think someone will demand action from his GL, but the later it gets, the more difficult it will be to close the stable door. (Not a very apt metaphor, but still)
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 18, 2007 7:09:15 GMT
I find speculation as to my intentions to be somewhat curious and I suggest that simply taking what I say at face value may be more fruitful. Do you ? Now I find that far more curious! I am taking what you say at face value which is why I am questioning your intentions. Personally, I do not see the “natural evolution,” of which you speak happening, (consider the disproportionate responses even on this exceptionally egalitarian forum). I see a continuing, unprincipled indulgence of unwarranted discrimination. What progress has been made has only been achieved in the face of strong resistance and what we have is the very LEAST that could be possible at this time. Don't you? So you can't read the words written on Masonic Forums owned and operated by masculine Masons (which encourage discussion about the subject) written by members of masculine Lodges who do not vehemently oppose the concept and practise of women being made Masons? Something unthinkable 30 years ago. So you can't see the softening of the previous stances held by Masculine Grand Lodges regarding Women Masons, for example the GLoS Website has links to both HFAF and LDH on it. Lodge websites under the UGLE are allowed to have links to them as well and still get official approval. You can't see the events sponsored by Masculine GLs open to Women Masons? Maybe things are bad in your little corner of the World (frankly it would be arrogant of me to try and guess) but they're not elsewhere, so don't tar us all with the same brush. I see that resistance as becoming increasing entrenched, as mainstream Freemasonry attracts more and more applicants who like it, at least in part, BECAUSE it excludes women. The "right" time to admit women is long gone, as is any reasonable period in which to wait passively for change to simply happen. If you accept that the mixed and Feminine Orders aren't a part of Freemasonry, then your view is correct, however, if like us you see them being valid parts of freemasonry universal you are mistaken. While there are always younger members coming in with different attitudes, there is also the constant aging of the existing members, who were once young and fresh and upon whom hope for future change once depended (we find that, often accompanying old age, is an ossification of ideas and a fear of change). By analogy, the River Jordan constantly supplies the Dead Sea with relatively fresh water but, with evaporation, the result is that sea becomes increasingly salty. So when I am old and a Grand Lodge Officer, I (like my peers) will still regard Feminine and mixed Masonry as valid! I suspect you didn't think your point through to its obvious conclusion. The problem with your analgogy is that you choose a Sea, a place which rivers feed and once there the water can only evaporate. Surely the correct analogy for Freemasonry would be a river. The GLA would be the Sea or ultimate destination. M
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 18, 2007 7:11:48 GMT
However, I also know associate Brothers who are afraid to let the Brothers in their Malecraft lodges know about us. I also know female Brothers in my jurisdiction who feel compelled to hide their light when they are around their husbands' Malecraft brethren. . Again I know quite a few Masculine Masons whose spouses are feminine Masons. They have no problem telling their Bro.s and no do thir wives. How else would I know? M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 8:26:18 GMT
Do you ? Now I find that far more curious! I am taking what you say at face value which is why I am questioning your intentions. Bro. Mike,While you may enjoy "gaslighting" (no offense intended Bro. Gaslight) you will need to find another target: I don't want to play. Please bear-in-mind that all I am proposing is the possibility of being free to choose members on individual merit rather than being forced to exclude half of humanity based on category, with a view to men and women sitting together in lodge. I suggest this is not a revolutionary or appalling prospect in the context of an institution which espouses the principles of meeting on the level and parting on the square. Already the "right" time is way, way overdue. By contrast, when do you imagine your "evolution" will have run its course?
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 8:42:18 GMT
Thus, if Masonry is a profound spiritual path, on what basis does any GL refuse access by half of the human race? J.S.M. Ward made a similar point in, Freemasonry: Its Aims and Ideals, (1923, pp.108/9): ...I was myself forced to face mentally the problem of women in Freemasonry by the remark of a highly respected and very prominent Grand Lodge Officer. I had been arguing with him that Freemasonry was a great world-wide organisation, with a glorious heritage from the past, and a great spiritual lesson for the human race. To my surprise, for he was a very keen Mason, he tried to discount all I said—in short, to belittle Freemasonry! Knowing that he had practically devoted all his life to Freemasonry, I could not understand his attitude, till suddenly he looked me straight in the face, and with a significant expression, said:
"Don't you see where your arguments are leading you? If Freemasonry is the great institution with the wonderful spiritual meaning which you think it has, what right have we to exclude women?" His question gave me a start. The logic was complete!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 8:53:33 GMT
If mainstream Masons visit co-masonic lodges and GL gets to know about it, would that necessarily result in Masonic charges? In most jurisdictions I guess it should, but does it? Two brothers were expelled from UGL NSW&ACT in 1994, for refusing to cease visiting a Co-Masonic lodge.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 18, 2007 10:40:16 GMT
While you may enjoy "gaslighting" (no offense intended Bro. Gaslight) you will need to find another target: I don't want to play. I freely admit that I have no idea what the term gaslighting means, so I may be guilty of that, although I rather suspect that it's not a nice thing and that I'm not. Please bear-in-mind that all I am proposing is the possibility of being free to choose members on individual merit rather than being forced to exclude half of humanity based on category, with a view to men and women sitting together in lodge. Oh that's what you're proposing? Not the forced acceptance of females into masculine lodges with only Mixed and Feminine Masonry being your desired result? I must have misread you somewhere along the line I suggest this is not a revolutionary or appalling prospect in the context of an institution which espouses the principles of meeting on the level and parting on the square. Well I'm afraid that I find your particular approach to be appalling, due to the disharmony that it would cause amongst existing brethren. Already the "right" time is way, way overdue. By contrast, when do you imagine your "evolution" will have run its course? Like most people who wish to handle a task with some kind of decorum and consideration for the people who would be affected I recognise certain "givens": I recognise that my Grand Lodge has traditions that, however much they appear to be at odds with the popular and uniformed world of non-Masons or even Masons from other Constitutions, still deserve some respect. I recognise that my Grand Lodge being neither a statutory or corporate body is only answerable to its own members and therefore would only set deadlines if they demanded them. I recognise that if there really was such a clamour from "half the world's population" to be made Masons that, Co-masonry and Feminine Masonry would already be equal (at least), in size and distribution, to Masculine Masonry. I recognise that if members of masculine Lodges really feel that they were being forced to discriminate against "half of humanty" they would also be swelling the ranks of Co-masonry. I also recognise that evolution, by definition, will never have "run its course". As well as all that I notice that you didn't address the idea of you chartering a Co-masonic Lodge in your own location. Any partcular reason for that? M
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 18, 2007 10:51:10 GMT
While you may enjoy "gaslighting" (no offense intended Bro. Gaslight) you will need to find another target: I don't want to play. I freely admit that I have no idea what the term gaslighting means, so I may be guilty of that, although I rather suspect that it's not a nice thing and that I'm not. Ouch! I wasn't aware that my Member ID had a negative connotation. I just spent an enlightening (?) few minutes reading the relevant entry on Wikipedia. Interesting!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 11:29:32 GMT
While you may enjoy "gaslighting" (no offense intended Bro. Gaslight) you will need to find another target: I don't want to play.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 18, 2007 11:33:48 GMT
Ouch! I wasn't aware that my Member ID had a negative connotation. I just spent an enlightening (?) few minutes reading the relevant entry on Wikipedia. Gaslight, thank you for the link. Although I am now left in a state of disbelief, I can't quite get my head around what Philip has chosen to accuse me of, for the benefit of anyone interested: "Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse. It uses persistent denials of fact which, as they build up over time, make the victim progressively anxious, confused, and unable to trust his or her own memory and perception.
A variation of gaslighting, used as a form of harassment, is to subtly alter aspects of a victim's environment, thereby upsetting his or her peace of mind, sense of security, etc., such as was used by the Manson Family during their "creepy crawler" burglaries during which nothing was stolen, but furniture in the house was rearranged. [1]
Undue influence is a form of gaslighting is most often used to convince an older person that they are succumbing to old age and need to be placed in a retirement home or nursing home "for their own good." This is sometimes accomplished by a series of small thefts and/or a campaign of intimidation. This is usually done by con artists or "eager heirs" who covet the elder persons possessions.[1]"M
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 18, 2007 11:38:41 GMT
Bro Mike, he will not seek to charter a Co-Masonic Lodge in his area. for a start he is NOT a Co-Mason and it would take the minimum of Three Master Masons who are members to begin that process. Frankly, I do not see him taking that course as he would have applied to join LDH or some other Co-Masonic body long since had that been his aim. Others unhappy with Male-Only Freemasonry have done so. .....
Bro Mike, I feel you on the other hand have set out the sensible "Fabian" approach and experience has taught me in life that confrontation only serves to entrench long held positions. You are correct that as the old brigade die off that younger men such as yourself will rise through the ranks in UGLE etc and take a more enlightened stance towards other Masonic Bodies both Female Only and Mixed.
I feel that Bro Phillip has fully made, indeed exhausted, the point that he seeks Legal Confrontation with the Malecraft GL in his area. I think this will avail him of nothing but that he should go ahead, have his case listed and heard. He is I am sure fully aware of the consequences and costs if he loses, but will he truly achieve the results he desires should he win? Would Freemasonry Universal benefit from such an outcome? I seriously doubt it!
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 18, 2007 11:45:38 GMT
Mike, That's pretty much what I suggested in the "Forcing the issue" thread -- so far, to my knowledge, without response. If your concern is just that there isn't equality where you are and you are really concerned that women are being prevented from being made Freemasons, why don't you do something positive and apply to Charter a Lodge under LDH or the Eastern Order where you are and help in getting one started.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 11:56:46 GMT
The instance of "gaslighting" to which I referred was: Do you ? Now I find that far more curious! I am taking what you say at face value which is why I am questioning your intentions. Other comments speculating as to my motives or intentions, rather than addressing the issue itself, would fall in the same category. BTW, I am half expecting to be called upon to assist in establishing the Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in Australia. If so, despite my preference for GL governance, I will join and do what I can, but that is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Sept 18, 2007 12:11:03 GMT
Look what I found ... ;D ;D
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Sept 18, 2007 12:16:43 GMT
It seems that much has focussed on either personal strengths (that may also be our own weaknesses) and modes of presentation rather than on the important points also raised.
Perhaps by recalling that we are all brothers, each with our preferences and our sense of what is just and the means by which to encourage that in both ourselves and others, we may see past the various ways in which various brethren have been diminished by ad hominem comments (to which, for me, the 'gaslighting' comment appears similar to the 'evil' one)
Just on the Fabian approach, however... if my recall of history in not too imperfect a way, where the Fabian approach has been 'successful' has usually been because others who came to understand their cause adopted non-Fabian approaches to altering their social landscape.
This is not a comment about which is best, but rather a reflection that often, in social history, a combination of both approaches takes place. Perhaps those who adopt the more blunt vocal and legalistic sense in order to rectify injustices are indeed at risk of possible 'martyrdom', but that should not prevent a support of what is not so much their 'cause', but rather the often very lonely path that many others silently support, many others not caring one way or the other, and those who think that stand to lose oppose (of course, this does not mean that all who oppose are those who stand to lose - that would be an error in logic).
Perhaps, as suggested, it would be better to build a comasonry (LDH) rather than to seek to rectify a current injustice. To give an idea as to what is geographically at stake, however, we have in Australia (which is about the size of Europe or the USA) precisely SIX LDH Co-Masonic Temples.
The question also remains, why should my Lodge be prohibited from considering a worthy person from being initiated on grounds of gender (or religion or 'race')? It is this continued prohibition for which those who argue for the status quo are de facto arguing.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 18, 2007 12:20:09 GMT
Phillip, I am deeply saddened and disappointed that you should chose this approach. I feel you have much to offer but your comments of late are simply way off base. You are accusing extremely well respected members of the fraternity of "gaslighting" when all they are doing is expressing their views.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 18, 2007 12:29:31 GMT
Philip, I am deeply saddened and disappointed that you should chose this approach. I feel you have much to offer but your comments of late are simply way off base. You are accusing extremely well respected members of the fraternity of "gaslighting" when all they are doing is expressing their views. My "gaslighting" comments were in relation to unwarranted diversions from the issue, to hurtful speculations as to my motives and intentions, which I consider to be personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by gaslight on Sept 18, 2007 12:50:02 GMT
BTW, I am half expecting to be called upon to assist in establishing the Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in Australia. If so, despite my preference for GL governance, I will join and do what I can, but that is another matter. Reading this post, I recalled corresponding with some members of the Eastern Order of Co-Masonry in the US, but couldn't remember where it stood vis-a-vis other orders. I spent a few minutes browsing for information on the Web, but ended up even more confused. I think the biggest source of my confusion is the proliferation of similar and occasionally multiple names. Is this ever a problem for potential candidates seeking a Co-Masonic lodge?
|
|