|
Post by tonym on Jul 27, 2008 17:23:02 GMT
Brothers, For those of you who don't know me, my name is Tony, I'm a member of Euclid Lodge #3, GOUSA. I was recently having a discussion with my girlfriend about Masonry. She is bothered by the fact that there are sill male only and female only lodges. She feels that because men and women are equal, all lodges should be mixed gender. She is not a Freemason. I am having a hard time explaining to her why we still have male and female only lodges. Can anyone advise me on what to say to help her understand why things are the way that they are? Thanks, Tony
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 27, 2008 18:26:12 GMT
She is bothered by the fact that there are still male only and female only lodgesNot true. There is Le Droit Humain (LDH), which is Co-Masonic (men and women), and has been in existence for more than 100 years and has branches in most Democratic countries . Herewith a link to our UK which gives details of the countries in which we have Lodges. www.droit-humain.org/uk/index.htmland for the USA www.comasonic.org/
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 27, 2008 20:33:51 GMT
She is bothered by the fact that there are still male only and female only lodges
Not true. What are you saying? That there are no longer still male only and female only lodges The existence of mixed lodges has not eliminated the gender exclusive ones.
|
|
|
Post by tonym on Jul 27, 2008 21:23:51 GMT
I need to clarify. I am aware of the fact that there are mixed lodges, as is she. However, what bothers her is that not all lodges are mixed lodges.
prometheus, You make a very valid point. Perhaps I do need to step back a bit and let her find her own truth.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 27, 2008 21:55:04 GMT
Bro. Prom is right, she needs to come to this understanding on her own. As for the clarity bit . . . well, I'm hardly an expert but maybe I can help. You do not need to pass this onto her, K? I know you already understand but there are folks who visit here who don't so . . . Some folks get it into their heads that their preferred way of doing things is the best way, especially when their preferred way was suppressed and persecuted for rather a long while. Trouble is, t'ain't so. The preferred way is just that: one's preferred way. And what's best for one person ain't necessarily what's best for everyone else. I am a Co-Mason and, in my very most biased opinion, mixed Masonry is the best there is. However, in my most objective opinion, I know the truth: that it's the best for me and the mileage of others may vary. The example I like most is the problem some folks have dealing with members of the opposite sex on anything but a sexual level. These folks find sitting in lodge with the opposite sex very distracting. Often, they even blame that other sex for their own failure to subdue their own passions. Quite a few folks have argued that point with me but I think I'm right in calling it a serious character flaw. However, such a flaw, I think, should not bar anyone from the Light. Instead, these folks, if they are called to Masonry, should seek out gender-based lodges (preferably their own gender ). I very quickly add that the vast majority of gender-based Masons I know do not so suffer this character flaw; quite the opposite. However, many who don't do, none the less, prefer to work in the Craft with Brothers of their own sex. They should be permitted to do so. There also are those - and I am one of these - who want the option to working mixed and, at least on occasion, with a gender-based lodge. I've been in a Femalecraft lodge only once and I found it a wonderful experience. I don't have the option of doing this regularly because the nearest Femalecraft lodge is on the East Coast in the US (I live on the other coast) but I would be happy to have the option more often. Clearly, my male Co-Masonic Brothers do have this option and many do so participate. Then there are those, like me, who prefer their Masonry mixed and don't care at all to attend a gender-based lodge. That's cool, too. What all this boils down to is a very basic principle of Freemasonry: freedom. Free folks are not forced to do anything and it is wrong of them to force anyone else to do anything. Therefore, the use of this kind of force in Freemasonry - called "intolerance" - is unMasonic. What your lady is advocating - unintentionally I'm sure - is the forced integration of gender-based lodges. As the use of force among the Brethren is wrong, forcibly integrating these lodges is as wrong as forcing mixed lodges to segregate. It's better, and far more mature, to exercise the very Masonic ideal of tolerance. Those who prefer mixed lodges should be happy in their lodges while still allowing for the happiness of those Brothers who prefer their unmixed lodges. I know you have no trouble grasping this but it does seem difficult for others. Your Lady isn't there yet. She may well be, one day. Until then, she should be permitted her opinion, to which she has every right, but viewed with compassion; much like watching a child fall when they are trying to walk. I'm glad you enjoy such a relationship with her that you can have such conversations
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 27, 2008 21:56:57 GMT
"However, what bothers her is that not all lodges are mixed lodges."
Tony that is unlikely ever to happen, nor in my opinion should it. There is room in Freemasonry for Mixed, Women Only and Male Only Lodges.
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jul 27, 2008 22:29:04 GMT
Hi Tony, She is bothered by the fact that there are sill male only and female only lodges. She feels that because men and women are equal, all lodges should be mixed gender. She is not a Freemason. There's no need to be bothered. Free choice is a wonderful thing. Neither men nor women are excluded from freemasonry; as a matter of fact both have two options: single-gender or co-masonry. Such a welath of choice! The fact that there are lodges that cater for these three varieties is down to the simple fact of freedom of conscience; freedom for each of us to experience our craft in the environment of choice. It's not a restriction. It's a celebration of freedom. S&F,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 27, 2008 23:41:49 GMT
"However, what bothers her is that not all lodges are mixed lodges."
Tony that is unlikely ever to happen, nor in my opinion should it. There is room in Freemasonry for Mixed, Women Only and Male Only Lodges. Not infrequently one encounters the argument that, " There exists today Freemasonry for men, Freemasonry for women and mixed Freemasonry, so my particular jurisdiction's wish not to admit women is hardly relevant is it?" Once when this peculiar argument was raised, our very worthy forum member, Bro. JMD, astutely replied:
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Jul 28, 2008 9:24:56 GMT
Life is already showing that forced integration is counter-productive as is its brother Positive Discrimination. Ideas such as "Busing" and "Quotas" cause resentment and animosity.
Bro Cora has already spelt it out by stating that each person has in effect two choices, Single Sex or Mixed Freemasonry.
Now what would happen if, for example, a Male Only Grand Lodge such as UGLE decided to admit women? Some Lodges would accept this change, some willingly, some grudgingly, others would probably secede from UGLE and form their own Male Only GL. What would have been achieved? Would it be necessary for the force of Law to be brought to bear? I for one would not vote for a party which brought in such legislation. We in the UK are already micromanaged and dictated to by the present Government.
The present system caters for all and it works. My only objection is to the ban on Intervisitation between the various GLs and the general matter of "Recognition" . These two contentious issues have been discussed many times on this and other fora and I do not think that there is much to be gained by covering old ground and as usually occurs with those particular topics generating a lot of heat, very little light and disrupting the Harmony of the Forum.
I for one am happy with the current situation of Mixed, Women-Only and Men-Only Freemasonry, and the various facets within each of these and would not wish to see a "One size fits all Freemasonry" which would soon start to spilt off anyway is is the nature of most human founded institutions.
|
|
|
Post by parisfred on Jul 28, 2008 10:17:56 GMT
"However, what bothers her is that not all lodges are mixed lodges." I really understand her, of course she is talking about ethic and moral while we are talking about traditions, landmarks... - If a lodge is just doing ceremonies it's ok to be male only,
- if a lodge study esoterism we need everyones point of view and insight
- if a lodge exchange on moral and ethical problem it can hardly segregate half of the population on the basis of sexual gender. Rome wasn't built in a day, male only lodges accepting sisters as a visitors during all meeting is maybe a necessary first step for some masonic culture.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Jul 28, 2008 15:50:26 GMT
I need to clarify. I am aware of the fact that there are mixed lodges, as is she. However, what bothers her is that not all lodges are mixed lodges. prometheus, You make a very valid point. Perhaps I do need to step back a bit and let her find her own truth. Thanks Tony. The best course of action I've learned to take when someone is bothered by something is to validate it by saying, "Yes, I see and hear that YOU are bothered by this. How do YOU plan to deal with it?" and then let go. P Well stated, Bro
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 29, 2008 0:29:39 GMT
Can anyone advise me on what to say to help her understand why things are the way that they are? Thanks, Tony As Topol would have said ... Tradition, tradition! Tradition, tradition! "And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: Tradition!" en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fiddler_on_the_RoofMaat loved revisiting some of the lines ... Villager: An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Tevye: Very good. That way the whole world will be blind and toothless.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 29, 2008 7:35:20 GMT
Oh, but I love that play Tevye: As the good book says, when a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick. Mendel: Where does the book say that? Tevye: Well, it doesn't say that exactly, but somewhere there is something about a chicken. Perchik: Money is the world's curse. Tevye: May the Lord smite me with it. And may I never recover.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Jul 30, 2008 0:42:17 GMT
New casting for Tevye...
Bill or Ruff?
But then again..
Tevye: As the good book says, when a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick. Mendel: Where does the book say that? Tevye: Well, it doesn't say that exactly, but somewhere there is something about a chicken.
that definitely sounds like me ... Maat (with a beard?)
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Jul 30, 2008 7:12:56 GMT
I think Ruff would make a good Perchik.
Bill . . . Lazer Wolf.
Me . . . the fiddler ;D
|
|
|
Post by astraia on Jul 30, 2008 15:51:53 GMT
Despite belonging to a mixed lodge and as there are no female-only lodges where I am (yet!), being immensely grateful for having the opportunity to participate in Freemasonry because of this, I'm oddly enough in favour of having all three choices.
I don't know whether it is so much a matter of sexual tension experienced by some individuals who have issues with mixed lodges, or rather a more subtle dynamic at play. Some male Brn:. (who belong to a mixed lodge) have sometimes said to me - and to be honest I can see their point - that as a system and structure Freemasonry is more geared to the masculine mindset. In terms of the structure of the discipline, in some lodges (mine included) military or chivalric overtones, and a more austere style of ritual preferred by UGLE lodges (as far as I am aware that is) all seem on some levels to cater more to a masculine dynamic (given that it was designed by men in the first place).
I'm beginning to wonder whether the enlightening discussion on another thread where I was asking about the differences in ritual between lodges might not have something to do with that - and apart from a more overt interest in esotericism, it may have been the feminine influence that gave rise to more elaborate detail being added/included in ritual symbolism?
We have a saying here in Greece which may not translate too well - we often say that men and women are not equal - they are of equal 'value'. What it essentially means is that we each have our strengths and weaknesses, and a strong, or alpha female is of equal value to an alpha male - but they are not the same thing - and the saying highlights, rather than denigrates, those differences - it's basically saying we are complementary but not the same.
My partner also follows another, pagan discipline, which accepts only men. In the 5 years we've been together I know only the slimmest of details about it and have never ever asked - what I do know he has volunteered. I have no problem with that and were I to join a different, feminine order which might require silence from me, if it met my needs and was right for me I know he would show the same respect. Yet we both share Freemasonry.
In the end, if Freemasonry is a shared, though, personal path, shouldn't each individual follow that path that he or she is most likely to grow within based on his/her personal preferences rather than get caught up in PC 'have-tos' and chauvinist/feminist diatribes?
Just my two cents...
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 1, 2008 13:49:41 GMT
"However, what bothers her is that not all lodges are mixed lodges."
I really understand her, of course she is talking about ethic and moral while we are talking about traditions, landmarks...
- If a lodge is just doing ceremonies it's ok to be male only,
- if a lodge study esoterism we need everyones point of view and insight
- if a lodge exchange on moral and ethical problem it can hardly segregate half of the population on the basis of sexual gender. Rome wasn't built in a day, male only lodges accepting sisters as a visitors during all meeting is maybe a necessary first step for some masonic culture. Thank you Bro. Fred for yet another, deeply insightful post.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 1, 2008 21:53:39 GMT
Following on from Bro. Fred's astute observation:
On the one hand, I guess living up to the inclusive and egalitarian principles espoused in our stirring ceremonies only matters if we want or expect Freemasonry to be meaningful, purposeful or effective.
If, on the other hand, we don't mind Freemasonry being irrelevant, hypocritical and discriminatory, then I guess it doesn't matter if the rhetoric has a hollow ring.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Jun 17, 2009 8:08:17 GMT
Brothers, For those of you who don't know me, my name is Tony, I'm a member of Euclid Lodge #3, GOUSA. I was recently having a discussion with my girlfriend about Masonry. She is bothered by the fact that there are sill male only and female only lodges. She feels that because men and women are equal, all lodges should be mixed gender. She is not a Freemason. I am having a hard time explaining to her why we still have male and female only lodges. Can anyone advise me on what to say to help her understand why things are the way that they are? Thanks, Tony IMHO she has every right to be bothered by it, we all should be. Now I get the majority of even the most liberal Freemasons see value in the three-tired approach. I do not and here is why. If we continue to segregate vased on gender and of that is deemed OK then we need to take into account reasons to segregate that are not gender based. The next thing you know we will have racial and religious segregation. The egalitarianism that was practically created as a Masonic virtue will become totally lost. This is a slippery slope that does not need to be there. 21st century Freemasonry means we need to practice within 21st ideals of the illuminated. I don't see where segregation fit's into those ideals. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by architekt on Jun 17, 2009 14:18:49 GMT
I doubt the Feminine groups of Masonry want integration. Co-Masonry has been in existence for over 100 years and still has a worldwide membership of under 50,000 it seems. The largest is LDH with approx. 27,000. Forcing all streams to be the same is not the answer even in the 21st century. This is only the personal agenda of a few people it seems and for their own reasons. As far as I am aware it is not what Co-Masonry groups want either. They only want to be acknowledged and not integrated with groups that are against it.
|
|