|
Post by corab on May 31, 2005 19:11:24 GMT
Right, here's something I started off on another forum - keep your hats on, no shouting, and most definitely no slapping I'm not asking for a change, much less advocating it - I'm just curious. What is the reason for UGLE's position that women should not be initiated in the Craft? I'm not looking for "Because it's always been done that way", I'm looking for the reason why it has always been done that way. Don't worry about Political Correctness - I'm not one of those women who'll bite your head off for stating a fact;) I know that in the past women weren't thought capable of conceiving big, deep thoughts, and my guess is that has something to do with it - so feel free to speak your mind! Looking forward to your points of view, Cora
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on May 31, 2005 19:13:28 GMT
To me thats a bit like asking why cant men join the WRVS ?
|
|
|
Post by corab on May 31, 2005 19:14:49 GMT
To me thats a bit like asking why cant men join the WRVS ? Humour me - what's the WVRS? Cora
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 31, 2005 20:15:12 GMT
www.wrvs.org.uk/The Women's Royal Volunteer Service (curiously, the website creator seems to have forgotten to explain what their initials stand for) does good work wherever needed in the community, the same kind of work done by any other (i.e., non-gender-segregated) volunteer service. Indeed, there is no good reason why men cannot join it. CoraB, there is furthermore no good reason why women cannot join Regular Freemasonry. Indeed, considering how forward-thinking the Craft has been in other areas, historically anyway, it stands to reason that if the Craft were being constituted today, it would not occur to anyone to make it single-sex. Accordingly, the reason - the only reason - why Freemasonry is not coeducational, is because the sexes always used to socialise separately in the 18th and 19th Century, and most of the 20th, too. In the 21st, however, it just looks silly. I'm not disputing that groups of males and groups of females can, do, must and ought to socialise separately from time to time, when certain immutable rites of passage are enacted, to which only members of the one sex can be admitted. Nowadays, these rites have such names as West Ham Versus Ajax, Away, and The Chippendales On Tour; and while the occasional laddish girl may join in on one, and guy friends with great dress sense sometimes go along to the other, these little exceptions still prove the general rule. That said, in the aftermath of the 18-30 holiday, the time of lastminute Easyjet two-weekers in Ayia Napa, the death of the work ethic and the guaranteed marriage-for-life, and the concomitant deep slide toward oblivion of working men's clubs, golf and carpet bowls, and fraternal societies in general, the idea that men would choose to socialise without women if given the choice, is a certified bad idea.
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on May 31, 2005 20:22:15 GMT
In Brighton we have recently seen the Bangkok Lady Boys .
So why cant a woman be a Lady Boy ??
Simple its for men only
Maybe im just playing Devils advocate
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on May 31, 2005 20:39:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Jun 1, 2005 10:48:51 GMT
To me thats a bit like asking why cant men join the WRVS ? OR the National Federation of Women's Institutes, OR the Women's Engineering Society, OR Women's Aid, OR the Deaf Womens' Health Organisation, OR Engender, OR Nehanda, OR the Peterborough Women's centre, OR Women into Computing, OR the National Women's Register To name but a few. Bottom line, there are many organisations which do not wish to mix genders, Freemasonry is just one of them. GP
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jun 1, 2005 18:50:36 GMT
So basically it boils down to this:-
(1) When Freemasonry was first conceived, women weren't thought capable of deep, religious thought, so naturally it wasn't envisaged that they would ever seek to be part of the fraternity; (2) Whether single-sex or mixed, the atmosphere of each type of Masonry is completely unique, and many members find that particular atmosphere catering for their needs, so have no interest in a different type of Masonry; (3) Over the centuries, the male of the species has grown accustomed to being in a position of power, and the thought of females entering that very special, exclusively male environment, is unsettling, if not frightening
In other words, the position generally held by UGLE that women should not be initiated and that there should be no "inter-discipline" contact is born out the times and climes Freemasonry was conceived in, and has subsequently grown to be an aspect inherent to male-only Masonry.
That about right?
Cora
|
|
|
Post by a on Jun 1, 2005 19:17:23 GMT
The funny thing about all of this is that if you believe in reincarnation, as more than a few Freemasons appear to do, then other things being equal, by excluding women, or men for that matter, you are in essence denying yourself the possible opportunity of benefiting from Masonic membership in a future human life. Unless you happen to live near a comasonic lodge of course.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jun 1, 2005 19:35:22 GMT
Hi Stewart, The funny thing about all of this is that if you believe in reincarnation, as more than a few Freemasons appear to do, then other things being equal, by excluding women, or men for that matter, you are in essence denying yourself the possible opportunity of benefiting from Masonic membership in a future human life. Unless you happen to live near a comasonic lodge of course. You're going to have to illustrate that one for me ... Surely the benefits of Masonic work, either in single-sex or mixed sex setting will have a lasting effect on the Soul? Are you saying that all those who have gone before us have wasted all that hard work just because they haven't shared it with women? Cora
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jun 1, 2005 19:38:03 GMT
Corab, In the nicest possible way - looking over your shoulder or over the brick wall of UGLE , there is a danger of losing the beauty and wisdom that Freemason offers you. It is not difficult to see and understand why general freemasonry was almost totally male exclusive for a couple of hundred years from 1700. That was just a reflection of Society. The continuation of the UGLE’s desire for separate Masonry is a reflection of the desires of a Majority of them. The reasons again are a reflection of a generation look at the average age of the members. When you become a Co-mason, gender is totally a non-issue. You become a Freemason, you are given the opportunity to learn about your self . Freemasonry for you will become your Freemasonry – you will be so busy working on your own “Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth’ you won’t have time to worry about the UGLE’s interpretation of .Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.- it is for them to judge themselves as it is for you to judge yourself HGW
|
|
|
Post by a on Jun 1, 2005 20:17:55 GMT
Hi Cora One would hope so. Proper Masonic work should have a lasting effect, after all it helps you take one further step in your own evolution. No. I guess that i was not clear, please accept my apologies for that. Whatever work you do in one lifetime will I am sure have a direct bearing on your next. Consider it this way. You are born male, and benefit form male only Freemasonry. What do you do if next time around you incarnate as a woman, and there are no comasonic/ladies lodges nearby? Take a different path, which in terms of balance is wonderful, but in terms of havig access to a known "home" is perhpas not so good. After all one of the beauties of Freemasonry for some, I am sure, is that it is there for them time and time again, as they take further steps, until they really do find their way home. Is that any clearer? Or am I just mumbling like a madman? Which is entirely possible.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jun 2, 2005 0:24:46 GMT
So basically it boils down to this:- (1) When Freemasonry was first conceived, women weren't thought capable of deep, religious thought, so naturally it wasn't envisaged that they would ever seek to be part of the fraternity; (2) Whether single-sex or mixed, the atmosphere of each type of Masonry is completely unique, and many members find that particular atmosphere catering for their needs, so have no interest in a different type of Masonry; (3) Over the centuries, the male of the species has grown accustomed to being in a position of power, and the thought of females entering that very special, exclusively male environment, is unsettling, if not frightening In other words, the position generally held by UGLE that women should not be initiated and that there should be no "inter-discipline" contact is born out the times and climes Freemasonry was conceived in, and has subsequently grown to be an aspect inherent to male-only Masonry. That about right? Cora Cora I think the real problem is none of the above. I think we have inherited male lodges from the separation of men from women when at prayer in the synagogue. Apparently there was concern that the men would be distracted by the presence of women. I suspect there was also some undertone of women as not being quite so spiritual as the easily distracted men. This situation relates to the apron as the badge of innocence. The use of an animal skin to insulate the lower chakras makes a brother's turbulence in those centers less a problem in the lodge. Hence the brother properly clothed is energetically similar to a genuinely innocent brother - particularly if not distracted by women. So perhaps mixed lodges are only comfortable where the brethren have learned to control their lower passions. Cheers Russell
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Jun 2, 2005 8:32:32 GMT
Corab, In the nicest possible way - looking over your shoulder or over the brick wall of UGLE , there is a danger of losing the beauty and wisdom that Freemason offers you. I've got to ask, WHY is this statement UGLE specific? Have all the hundreds of other Grand Lodges around the World opened ther doors to women then? Bearing in mind that a fair majority of them have no allegiance to the UGLE having been formed under the jurisdiction of GLoS or GLoI. GP
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jun 2, 2005 8:52:25 GMT
Prbably 'cos UGLE is recognised both inside and outside of freemasonry as being the oldest GL in existence and is perceived by the lay person as being the 'governing body' of freemasonry - yes, you and I know that is not the case - but the person in the street doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jun 2, 2005 10:03:58 GMT
What is the aim of Freemasonry?
Should not freemasonry bring people together? Was not the aim of british masonry to link its colonies and dominions with the motherland? Was not the aim of freemasonry to set and keep up high moral standards and values for the whole society, especially in the new colonies where new societes were forming itselves? Wasn't freemasonry a good link to unite people on a emotional basis, when state authorities like judges, policemen etc. were not stablished yet
Did UGLoE ever expell or refuse eductated or powerful people in the british colonies? No, even if they were black or half-black or hindus, muslims or whatever, they were initiated and linked with the empire.
Why no initiation of women then?
If you do not want to initiate women in your lodges - which is your right to do so - why not accepting them and not visiting them in women-only lodges or co-masonic lodges?
Acception means recognition!!
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Jun 2, 2005 11:15:12 GMT
Edited due to new thread.
Back on track now, the whole question of whether females are initiated is not a matter for UGLE it would be a matter for ALL the male-only Grand Lodges (I include PHA in that) in the World.
GP
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jun 2, 2005 12:21:38 GMT
Ingo
Freemasonry pre-dates the British empire - while you're twisted logic is entertaining it isn't anywhere near factual
|
|
|
Post by a on Jun 2, 2005 13:05:48 GMT
neither Whistler or Stewart can be really described as "man in the street" can they, yet everything that they perceive as "wrong" seems to be laid at the door of the UGLE. GP, it may appear that way, but this is far from the case. If you want to persue this either pm me or start a thread, I will be happy to explian.
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Jun 2, 2005 13:53:01 GMT
Was not the aim of british masonry to link its colonies and dominions with the motherland? No there wasn't a British Empire in the 17th century. In fact there wasn't even a Britain as you may understand it as Scotland was still a seperate country until 1707. Freemasonry even then was seperate and distinct hence the fact of the GLs of Ireland, Scotland and England (including Wales) No, it just happened to travel with the Regiments of the British Army wherever it went in the 18th Century. No, when the British Empire was being formed, quite some time after Freemasonry, the Army carried out these functions. YES, you should research the history of the Prince Hall Association. Why? Since when did LDH want or require recognition from male-only masonry? and why? GP
|
|