|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 3, 2009 9:27:41 GMT
Now as stated many a time and oft I have no problem with there being three types of Freemasonry in the membership sense, (There are far more in terms of Ritual etc), viz. Co-Masonry, Male-only and Female-only.
However I find this statement difficult to believe.
"First, there is no continuance of a "no women" rule within "our" Masonry"
May I ask you what Grand Lodge etc "your" Masonry may be? AFAIK most of the GLs which call themselves "Regular" (another word I do not like in the Masonic sense) in particular those in Amity with UGLE not only have a very definite continuance of the "no women rule" but some consider it to be an Ancient Landmark.
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 3, 2009 9:53:56 GMT
Something which I thought of as well. Has anyone got any real evidence regarding women wanting to join and making any sort of stance regarding "regular", (sorry Steve), freemasonry. To me this whole recognition thing is a white elephant. The only problem I can invisage is the lack of lodges for women to join in particular areas of whatever country. Leo and his good lady is a classic example, (sorry Leo for the spotlighting , as they have to travel virtualy the lenth of the island of Ireland to enjoy their meetngs. However in saying that Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'm sure in time things will change. Could I suggest that perhaps those involved in the "struggle" for allowing women to join male only lodges could channel their efforts in assisting their lady friends to find an appropriate body. I certainly would go out of my way to help an woman who wished to join the craft. I don't mean to sound patronising, but I think this topic is just going round in circles.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Dec 3, 2009 10:18:40 GMT
Mr Mason I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I think this topic is just going round in circles. Yep sure is. What is the burning need of Recognition I am a Freemason, my wife is a Freemason, Lauderdale is a Freemason, so are Leo and his wife, I assume you are a Mason - what is the big deal. We have all been initiated into the craft, each of of our Masonic credentials are valid. I am sure none of us would be so arrogant as to claim our Masonic credentials are better than another - that would be very unmasonic
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Dec 3, 2009 10:45:00 GMT
If we believe Freemasonry echoes society and society is ever evolving, so must Freemasonry evolve.
There is no doubt for a woman to practice Freemasonry 100 years ago was an extremely difficult thing to do. However in 2009 it is not only easy but also actively encouraged everywhere.
As Mr Mason has stated the main problem as I see it is the small amount of Lodges compared to Masculine ones, but that again is changing.
I wonder if there would be any argument if........... There were more Feminine or Co-Masonic lodges than masculine ones?
I am lucky enough to participate in ritual work involving women, it does make a difference, I am also involved in ritual work that should not (officially) be able to work unless women are involved but it does, you just have to be aware of the feminine/masculine.
The only difficulty I have is trying to understand what good members believe would actually come out of forcing male only lodges to accept female members? We must all be aware of what happens when you force something on somebody who does not wish it to done?
To me in my simple understanding it is a no brainer!
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 3, 2009 10:55:03 GMT
Mr Mason I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I think this topic is just going round in circles. Yep sure is. What is the burning need of Recognition I am a Freemason, my wife is a Freemason, Lauderdale is a Freemason, so are Leo and his wife, I assume you are a Mason - what is the big deal. We have all been initiated into the craft, each of of our Masonic credentials are valid. I am sure none of us would be so arrogant as to claim our Masonic credentials are better than another - that would be very unmasonic Hi Whistler, When you say "Yep sure is" do you mean going round in circles or patronising. If it's the latter then I apologise. My post being is that there is no big deal, which is my whole point. What I get fed up with is UK GL's and those in amity constantly being picked on by members from other obediences regarding their regulations. We (UK amity lodges), are constantly the brunt of having accusations thrown at them regarding who we allow to join our lodges, ie, women. If would be better for all round if everyone concentrated on promoting their own constitution and stopped worrying about others. Nowhere did I say that I, or my constitution, was better than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 3, 2009 10:59:54 GMT
As Mr Mason has stated the main problem as I see it is the small amount of Lodges compared to Masculine ones, but that again is changing. Thanks for clarifying that MP. My grammar was never that eloquent ;D
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 11:02:42 GMT
And curiously, why do I find more men obsessed with this particular subject than women? Something which I thought of as well.
Has anyone got any real evidence regarding women wanting to join and making any sort of stance regarding "regular", (sorry Steve), freemasonry.
To me this whole recognition thing is a white elephant. The only problem I can invisage is the lack of lodges for women to join in particular areas of whatever country. Leo and his good lady is a classic example, (sorry Leo for the spotlighting , as they have to travel virtualy the lenth of the island of Ireland to enjoy their meetngs. However in saying that Rome wasn't built in a day, and I'm sure in time things will change.
Could I suggest that perhaps those involved in the "struggle" for allowing women to join male only lodges could channel their efforts in assisting their lady friends to find an appropriate body. I certainly would go out of my way to help an woman who wished to join the craft.
I don't mean to sound patronising, but I think this topic is just going round in circles. The involvement of men is not so odd. Most non-masons, men and women, assume (as did I before joining) there must be some sound and compelling reason for the rule and, if they bother to ask are often fobbed off with the "no women stonemasons" furphy. Few women who continue to investigate get to find accommodating Orders, partly because of the low profile of such groups in response to active, mainstream attempts at suppressing them in the past. Thus, it is mostly men who find there is no such reason. Also, to be frank, I began my research after discussions with Theosophical friends, who also happened to be Co-masons (none meet within my cable-tow and I also have some reservations); while they support my efforts for the general good of the Craft, they suspect it may be against their particular interests for women to be admitted to mainstream lodges. And, for the record, yes, there have been rejected applications from women to join. All one needs to do is raise the topic in public, in a positive rather than defensive manner. At a single meeting, I quickly gained signatories of aggrieved women for a petition. At the opening of the Australian Centre for Fraternal Studies (by a Past GM), the most enthusiastic applause was in relation to comments concerning my efforts. Even if only one woman wished to join, I would support her, not for her sake or for mine but for Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 3, 2009 11:45:31 GMT
Like its equally horrid twin Regularity this topic usually ends up the same way. Camps are formed, posts are hurled like shells at the opposition trenches, heat is generated and emnities forged ( I have made quite a few Cyber-foes over these issues) but very little good ever comes of it.
There seem to be the following parties to this argument.
1 Those who believe in integration by Force of Law if needs be. That some Brethren would dislike this and probably leave The Craft is just too bad to them as the end justifies the means.
2 Their direct opposites. To them it is enshrined in the Ancient Landmarks that women simply cannot be Freemasons - subject closed. Any GL etc which admits women is not REAL Freemasonry but a sham.
3 People like myself and some others on MFOL who accept that Freemasonry is big enough to accomodate Co-Masonry, Female Only and Male Only variants. and who would deplore the use of Courts of Law etc to coerce GLs to admit women against the will of the majority of their members. (Assuming of course they could ascertain the opinion thereof)
Not a lot of room for a meeting of minds there to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by mrmason on Dec 3, 2009 13:14:35 GMT
Like its equally horrid twin Regularity this topic usually ends up the same way. Camps are formed, posts are hurled like shells at the opposition trenches, heat is generated and emnities forged ( I have made quite a few Cyber-foes over these issues) but very little good ever comes of it. There seem to be the following parties to this argument. 1 Those who believe in integration by Force of Law if needs be. That some Brethren would dislike this and probably leave The Craft is just too bad to them as the end justifies the means. 2 Their direct opposites. To them it is enshrined in the Ancient Landmarks that women simply cannot be Freemasons - subject closed. Any GL etc which admits women is not REAL Freemasonry but a sham. 3 People like myself and some others on MFOL who accept that Freemasonry is big enough to accomodate Co-Masonry, Female Only and Male Only variants. and who would deplore the use of Courts of Law etc to coerce GLs to admit women against the will of the majority of their members. (Assuming of course they could ascertain the opinion thereof) Not a lot of room for a meeting of minds there to say the least. Hi Lauderdale, I also agree with you here and feel that I am in the 3rd camp, so to speak. I have no problem with women joining freemasonry, but for others to force their vews on specific insititutions I think is wrong. I like malt whisky,( as some here can vouch!!), now, say for example I drank Speyside malts, but was very partial to the odd smokey Islay version. Should I enforce my particular taste on to the shoulders of the directors who produce say,"The Macallan", and get them to change centuries of producing a particular product, or could I just change my tipple and move on to Islay malts!. After all it's still good old whisky, just with a different flavour!!
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 3, 2009 14:14:43 GMT
A very good analogy Mr Mason. I too like decent Single Malts and Oban and Jura are two of my favourites. Like yourself I would not wish to force the distillers of say Knoockandoo to alter it to resemble Lagavulin.
To be honest I do not like compulsory anything and that informs my choice of Religion and Politics but I will not go into those as most Masonic Fora do not like these two subjects to be discussed.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 3, 2009 14:19:56 GMT
Thanks for the clarification of "Our Masonry" I can go with that. I usually use the term "Freemasonry Universal" for that concept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2009 18:10:25 GMT
This topic really did get out of hand.
But like I said before co-masons and female masons are not really worried about recongnition, very few care about it.
There are more important issues they have to worry about.
As for male craft masonry, I just hope that when they meet a female mason or co-mason they can be a gentlemen about it.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 3, 2009 18:34:19 GMT
"As for male craft masonry, I just hope that when they meet a female mason or co-mason they can be a gentlemen about it."
Most are polite Lynn. I have encountered fewer than 10 who have been abusive and those mostly on the Internet.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 3, 2009 19:01:41 GMT
"As for male craft masonry, I just hope that when they meet a female mason or co-mason they can be a gentlemen about it."Most are polite Lynn. I have encountered fewer than 10 who have been abusive and those mostly on the Internet. You don't live in the USA. I know of a lodge of LDH in the midwest that have to change there locations everytime they meet due to physical threats. They are not open about their memberships because it is a small town and they are worried about their jobs etc. This is just one example of the "they have choices" argument being a half truth at best. If you have to go through all kinds of crap from other Masons to practice Masonry how in the world is that fair? Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by shemihaza on Dec 3, 2009 19:08:38 GMT
I know of a lodge of LDH in the midwest that have to change there locations everytime they meet due to physical threats. They are not open about their memberships because it is a small town and they are worried about their jobs etc. This is just one example of the "they have choices" argument being a half truth at best. If you have to go through all kinds of crap from other Masons to practice Masonry how in the world is that fair? Physical threats from whom, exactly? Also, if they aren't open about their memberships, then how would anyone be able to make threats if they don't know who the members are? This is a serious accusation; I hope you have some proof to back it up, otherwise it seems like so much smoke.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 3, 2009 19:36:41 GMT
That is very serious to say the least! Particularly given the First Amendment etc in the USA which I understand enshrines Freedom of Speech and of Association.
I have encountered on the Internet a very few posters who have been verbally abusive regarding Co-Masons and personally to me because I changed from UGLE to LDH three years ago but I have never been threatened with physical violence and I have not heard of any who have been rude to Female Masons be they Co-Masons or members of the Women-Only Masonic Bodies.
Most Malecraft Brethren I have found will react with curiosity but not hostility. A very few may say that Co-Masonry is not real Freemasonry but they tend to be the minority.
|
|
Augur
Member
Travelling salesman. Roamin' profit.
Posts: 184
|
Post by Augur on Dec 3, 2009 19:50:56 GMT
Most Malecraft Brethren I have found will react with curiosity but not hostility. A very few may say that Co-Masonry is not real Freemasonry but they tend to be the minority. I've had a similar experience. In fact, I've only heard of one person, who called themselves a Mason, threaten physical violence of any kind against another. It had nothing to do with 'regularity', 'recognition' or Co-Masonry, however. Just goes to show you that on the internet people can claim to be all sorts of things and act all sorts of ways - some completely deplorable. The best policy is to judge someone on their actions and words and not on their claims. Because it matters not if they've an apron, a fancy title, or a dues card from any Lodge on Earth, if you don't act like a Mason then a Mason you're not.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 3, 2009 19:56:18 GMT
I know of a lodge of LDH in the midwest that have to change there locations everytime they meet due to physical threats. They are not open about their memberships because it is a small town and they are worried about their jobs etc. This is just one example of the "they have choices" argument being a half truth at best. If you have to go through all kinds of crap from other Masons to practice Masonry how in the world is that fair? Physical threats from whom, exactly? Also, if they aren't open about their memberships, then how would anyone be able to make threats if they don't know who the members are? This is a serious accusation; I hope you have some proof to back it up, otherwise it seems like so much smoke. When they first founded the lodge they where "out of the closet" so to speak. What they got for that was a heaping dose of physical threats and intimidation. They have since become very private and secretive. Love and Light,
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Dec 3, 2009 20:00:29 GMT
A very few may say that Co-Masonry is not real Freemasonry but they tend to be the minority. I take it you haven't visited TSS, The Masonic Society, Freemason Pride, MySpace Cyberlodge #1, Masons of Texas, Golden State Masons or Mastermason.com recently ;D Bro.Steve, try an experiment. Join one of the above .Tell them that you are an LDH Co-Mason. I'll bet in record time you will get more that you ever expected in the way of total disrespect. Love and Light,
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 3, 2009 20:25:01 GMT
True, but what makes you think my post was about what you wrote. Your post cited and supported another (by Enki), which was in response to one of mine (both his and my words are contained within your post). You see it as blockage - a filtering out; I see it as accepting those into the organization that would best benefit from the environment that it makes effort to provide - a filtering in.
Prospective is everything. Candidates are filtered toward the organization the best meets their needs. That sounds pretty justified to me, and rightfully so. Your perspective discriminates on collective, irrelevant grounds rather than on individual merit. Oh! One of those clintonese "it depends upon what the definition of 'IS' is!" I'm glad that you brought this up. I refer to sex and an act; gender as a genetic makeup; role, well, that one is all over the map and can't be pinned down effectively, but your "social construct" does suit this well.
So, sex can cause accidents, especially when it is done on purpose. Gender is not an accident of birth, but it can birth a whole heck of a lot of accidents. Roles, well, this one's too complex to even begin to comment on - social constructs do this. Rather than being clintonesque, these are among those "look it up in a dictionary" definitions. "Sex", as an act, is a relatively recent, colloquial usage for coitus: Its precise meaning refers to maleness or femaleness. "Gender" does NOT refer to "genetic makeup" (that is part of "sex"): Rather, it refers to being masculine or feminine, terms not equivalent to being male or female. "Accident," in the philosophical sense, refers to the outcome of chance (whether good, bad or indifferent). "Roles", while not even mentioned in my post, are to do with "gender".
|
|