|
Post by leonardo on Oct 12, 2007 7:20:25 GMT
I personally feel that there are those who use "the different energies" argument as an excuse to justify their prejudices against sitting with women in lodge. In my view there is nothing to prevent men and women practising their Masonry together if they so chose, and all this talk about incompatible energies is. well, just talk.
The energies we emit may have vibrational differences but this doesn't mean they can't and don't work in harmony in lodge and to suggest otherwise demonstrates a lack of understanding in the matter.
We may not always be aware of it but sometimes we allow our personal prejudices to cloud our sense of reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 12, 2007 8:21:40 GMT
Soon to be Bro Leo, from direct and personal experience I can tell you that the Male and Female Energies harmonise in Lodge rather than antagonise. I found this the very first time I visited Hexagon House and the rest is history.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 12, 2007 9:58:16 GMT
13 - 10 so far in favour of leaving it as it is. Ahhh, I get it you're not counting the 2 votes to "Close down, but leave topics for future reference" ;D M
|
|
|
Post by naphesh on Oct 12, 2007 10:51:33 GMT
I agree with Mike, surely as of today it is 14-12 in favour of remaining as it is?
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 12, 2007 16:55:21 GMT
Different energies in no way connotes incompatibility. Men and women do have different ways about them and engaging in same-sex rituals on an occasion does not in any way indicate that there is prejudice.
Perhaps studying the psychology and effects of different kinds of ritual in regard to gender roles will be in order. One may come across traditions (i.e. Aboriginal Australians) that are very, very strict with their occasional gender separation during ceremonies because they precisely believe that there are men's mysteries and there are women's mysteries. And some times we get together in a co-ed fashion for other ceremonies to maintain harmony. So it goes for many other cultures.
To dismiss it offhand as banal prejudice is to only see part of the story with subjective blinders and to disregard another's outlook that may hold some weight. As I mentioned in my other post, I feel this way but in no way regard women with disdain. I don't intrinsically care if women want to be masons; it's not the end of the world and I think that it can be a good thing but it's not something I worry about day in and day out as some here, it seems, do.
What I do care about is that there always seems to be a need to force those who appreciate the masculine rites to come clean and shed some imagined oppressive prejudice. The fact that the population of women that desire this is even lower than the men who do indicates that only some people (both men and women) are drawn to this particular tradition. We're not talking about a mass movement of men and women that are clawing at our doors.
Same goes for the thread/forum. If there are those that want it and use it, then keep it.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 12, 2007 21:13:12 GMT
For me there is no sound reason why men can't sit in lodge with women. You have given what you feel is one, but I don't agree with your defense. I believe it is simply a choice taken by some, but that's fine as I have no objection to male only lodges. My only objection is using the "different energies" argument to justify it.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Oct 12, 2007 22:56:07 GMT
Perhaps studying the psychology and effects of different kinds of ritual in regard to gender roles will be in order. One may come across traditions (i.e. Aboriginal Australians) that are very, very strict with their occasional gender separation during ceremonies because they precisely believe that there are men's mysteries and there are women's mysteries. And some times we get together in a co-ed fashion for other ceremonies to maintain harmony. So it goes for many other cultures. I do not intend to enter into any further debate here, on this or any subject. However, I feel the above statement needs some qualification and clarification. “What we touch, we tear.” No act is entirely neutral, even that of observation influences the subject. The following over-simplification may illustrate this phenomenon in relation to Aboriginal Australians (bearing-in-mind the extraordinary range and diversity of Aboriginal customs). When white settlers were establishing relationships with the original inhabitants, they sought out their Chiefs. Upon being told there were none, they assumed there was a misunderstanding and presented the most vocal elder in each tribe with a brass breast plate, indicating their leadership status. In doing so, they created a position where there had been none. Likewise, the Aboriginal understanding of the special relationship with "their" land was wrongly interpreted by white settlers with European notions land tenure. Similarly, when explorers and early anthropologists were reporting on ceremonial customs, it was they who sought out and purportedly found rigid divisions between “secret men’s business” and “secret women’s business.” In this they were guided by European experiences and assumptions typical of the period and, in communicating those assumptions, there may well have been some influence on subsequent Aboriginal ceremonials, (or on the way they were described to researchers, who were told what it was found they wanted to hear). In examining the ceremonials of tribes least influenced by white settlement we find that, while the “coming of age” rites for pubescent boys and girls were different, (as is appropriate for their different experiences of adolescence), both men and women participated in the Rites (see illustration below). When considering the relevance of such Rites to those of Freemasonry, I further suggest we should consider that the latter are conferred long after puberty. Moreover, there is a common legend of Aboriginal Rites recognising and facilitating the passage from childhood to manhood, having being "stolen" from the women and, after the once wide-spread ordeal of sub-incision, the name given to each male initiate meant "possessor of a vulva," i.e., in a sense, he was considered to be a woman. Subsequent ceremonials, including the “making” of men and women of "high degree," tend to be inclusive. Robert Lawler, Voices of the First Day, 1991, p.191
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Oct 13, 2007 2:20:59 GMT
I am for leaving it as it is - Co Masonry has different rituals and history to Malecraft - it is good to have it separate. Also as to many Co-Masonry is unheard of it is good to have a heading to attract and inform. I hope the Anti CoMasons don't use this Poll as an excuse to Bury Us
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Oct 13, 2007 4:00:17 GMT
I have to disagree with you on this Bro whistler: Co-Freemasonry's rituals are far more similar to the dominant forms of male-only Freemasonry than the diversity found amongst male-only Freemasonry. Also, the history of Co-Freemasonry is 'different' in what way? its history is certainly unique, as is the history of each and every constitution.
In itself, LDH and its offshoot splits is no more different in orientation than male-only Freemasonry and its various offshoots.
On a discussion forum such as this, the conversations can be about the more exoteric aspects of Freemasonry, about specific customs that have developed around geographically-specific locations (such as the 'one-day' programmes in various parts of the USA), or about specific influences by individuals (whether Guénon, Besant and Leadbeater, Crowley), about directions for the future given current states, or about its symbolic, allegorical and hence also esoteric aspects.
None of these are specifically exclusive to a broad and very diverse 'masculine-only' form of Freemasonry, nor to those constitutions that include individuals irrespective of gender.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Oct 14, 2007 1:35:03 GMT
OK JMD I will come clean. Millions of Masons, plus ordinary men and women have never heard of Mixed Gender Freemasonry. I like the thought that if they graze upon our forum and see on a Freemasons Forum, a section labeled Co-Masonry, they may just stop and inquire and begin to understand. That is why I will be sad if the section is merged -
|
|
|
Post by gipsyrose on Oct 14, 2007 3:50:55 GMT
I have decided to vote to leave the co-masonry section as it is for similar reasons to whistler. However, as I said in earlier posts, I would prefer discussions about regularity, recognition, and whether women can be freemasons to occur in the general masonic discussion section.
I was also thinking that I would prefer a minor modification of some form to the title so that the section was inclusive of women's orders and mixed orders that are not called co-masonry.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Oct 14, 2007 7:08:48 GMT
I was also thinking that I would prefer a minor modification of some form to the title so that the section was inclusive of women's orders and mixed orders that are not called co-masonry. Gipsyrose - what an excellent idea - Mods How about it ?
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 15, 2007 17:02:27 GMT
Perhaps studying the psychology and effects of different kinds of ritual in regard to gender roles will be in order. One may come across traditions (i.e. Aboriginal Australians) that are very, very strict with their occasional gender separation during ceremonies because they precisely believe that there are men's mysteries and there are women's mysteries. And some times we get together in a co-ed fashion for other ceremonies to maintain harmony. So it goes for many other cultures. I do not intend to enter into any further debate here, on this or any subject. However, I feel the above statement needs some qualification and clarification. “What we touch, we tear.” No act is entirely neutral, even that of observation influences the subject. The following over-simplification may illustrate this phenomenon in relation to Aboriginal Australians (bearing-in-mind the extraordinary range and diversity of Aboriginal customs). When white settlers were establishing relationships with the original inhabitants, they sought out their Chiefs. Upon being told there were none, they assumed there was a misunderstanding and presented the most vocal elder in each tribe with a brass breast plate, indicating their leadership status. In doing so, they created a position where there had been none. Likewise, the Aboriginal understanding of the special relationship with "their" land was wrongly interpreted by white settlers with European notions land tenure. Similarly, when explorers and early anthropologists were reporting on ceremonial customs, it was they who sought out and purportedly found rigid divisions between “secret men’s business” and “secret women’s business.” In this they were guided by European experiences and assumptions typical of the period and, in communicating those assumptions, there may well have been some influence on subsequent Aboriginal ceremonials, (or on the way they were described to researchers, who were told what it was found they wanted to hear). In examining the ceremonials of tribes least influenced by white settlement we find that, while the “coming of age” rites for pubescent boys and girls were different, (as is appropriate for their different experiences of adolescence), both men and women participated in the Rites (see illustration below). When considering the relevance of such Rites to those of Freemasonry, I further suggest we should consider that the latter are conferred long after puberty. Moreover, there is a common legend of Aboriginal Rites recognising and facilitating the passage from childhood to manhood, having being stolen from the women and, after the once wide-spread ordeal of sub-incision, the name given to each male initiate meant "possessor of a vulva," i.e., in a sense, he was considered to be a woman. Subsequent ceremonials, including the “making” of men and women of "high degree," tend to be inclusive. Robert Lawler, Voices of the First Day, 1991, p.191 Thank you for this information.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Oct 15, 2007 18:30:10 GMT
I would like to remind everyone that voting on this Poll closes midnight 17th October.
I would urge anyone who has not voted to do so please.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Oct 16, 2007 4:49:18 GMT
I have voted for retention. And the reason is that Co-M in my experience has better rituals and better understandings about the purpose of Masonry
Hence I would like the existence of Co-M to be easily discoverable
Implicit in my statement is the proposition that in Masonry there is no fundamental need for separation of the sexes. That is not to say that male and female mysteries do not exist, but rather that cooperation may allow both to discover both. Thus we appeal to the supposedly male Great Architect while acknowledging our descent from The Widow Isis
Cheers
Russell
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Oct 16, 2007 5:48:56 GMT
There have been some really wonderful discussions as a result of this poll - though they have not altered my personal position, they have certainly added to important alternatives I had not considered... ...and personally gladly fully support the will of our communal decision at this time
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 17, 2007 5:08:45 GMT
There have been some really wonderful discussions as a result of this poll - though they have not altered my personal position, they have certainly added to important alternatives I had not considered... ...and personally gladly fully support the will of our communal decision at this time I agree wholeheartedly!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 17, 2007 19:16:03 GMT
In this perons humble opinion so should all say who profess Freemasonry, it is one of the first things you are asked to agree to.
Where there are differing opinions, none can not expect their personal preference to prevail at all times.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Oct 17, 2007 22:52:03 GMT
It is now 23.50 on 17th October, the Poll is now closed.
I will leave the thread open for discussion if required.
I would like to thank everyone for participating in the Poll, as you can all see 58.8% of members who voted wish to keep the Co-Masonry section. However as all good discussion do a few ideas and thoughts have been expressed, The Moderators will discuss these ideas and inform everyone thier decision.
However in the main, the result shows that we will be keeping the Board.
Once again many thanks for sharing your thoughts and taking the time to vote.
Middlepillar
|
|
|
Post by gasturb on Jun 5, 2008 22:19:27 GMT
a bit late.. i vote 'Leave it as it is'
|
|