|
Post by corab on May 31, 2005 19:13:50 GMT
... and another bit of cross-pollination ;DIn the past few days I've come across a number of Lady-Masons who seem to have a somewhat militant attitude towards UGLE and all-male masons. I don't understand why. Although I don't understand why UGLE doesn't allow the initiation of women (and yes - that's another thread coming up), personally I couldn't care less that they don't. I'm about to join a Co-Masonic lodge, am really looking forward to it, and the way I look at it is that in the Lodge I will practice the same rituals and receive the same teaching as I would in a UGLE lodge, so I believe the effect will be very similar to that which a UGLE Mason would experience in his Lodge. If you're practising the same rituals and are receiving the same teachings, then what's the problem with UGLE insisting on an all-male environment? Or, to put it more bluntly - what's Masonry about: spiritual advancement or proving yourself equal to your male Brethren? Cora - ducking for cover
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on May 31, 2005 19:31:25 GMT
... and another bit of cross-pollination ;D [/i][/quote] Gah! Very confusing. I think I'll refrain from reposting from elseforum and just stick to one thread. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jun 1, 2005 7:37:17 GMT
Thanks to the many postings of Whistler, Yoki, Ingo, JMD and others both here and on "another forum" I have a more accomodating attitude towards Co-Masonry (I have never had a problem with Lady Masons- Women only Masonry).
As to Co-masonry becoming the normative situation, I doubt we will see it as the Three British Grand Lodges are implacibly opposed and are filled by Grand Officers who maintain the same attitudes and it is very unlikely that an experienced Brother who favoured the admission of women and thus Mixed Lodges would be given Grand Rank and if a pro Women Grand Officer "came out" as holding that opinion he would not be appointed onto any of the Committeees which run the show at UGLE.
The solution I would like to see would be a lifting of the ban of UGLE Freemasons attending the Meetings of Co-Masonic Lodges (as some already do, ignoring the Rules), and the establishment of OES here in England as in Scotland , but maintaining men only and women only Lodges as these are what the majority of Freemasons seem to want.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Jun 1, 2005 9:31:54 GMT
... but maintaining men only and women only Lodges as these are what the majority of Freemasons seem to want. Absolutely agreed. The differences between genders exist and they were not created either by Cora B. or by myself. Unfortunately we live in "politically correct" days, the best product of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by Bondi on Jun 1, 2005 10:09:22 GMT
Political Correctness is merely an excuse to complain about things, it is not correctness at all.
Regarding gender specifics in masonry, I joined a Male Only Fraternity because that is what I wanted.
If you want female only there is an organisation for that, if you want mixed there are organisations for that.
So why should any of them change, join the one that suits your needs and don't worry about changing those that don't.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Jun 1, 2005 10:39:13 GMT
Beautifuly put Bondi!
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Jun 1, 2005 11:29:34 GMT
It is interesting to note, with the emergence of some new wannabies in UK Freemasonry ( RGLE ) that the only un opposed group or Masonic organization that would not be directly opposed by UGLE would be Female or Co Masonry.
So if you want to make inroads the choice seems obvious?
|
|
|
Post by corab on Jun 1, 2005 18:53:38 GMT
So why should any of them change, join the one that suits your needs and don't worry about changing those that don't. I think you've misunderstood my question - I have no interest in changing the order of things; I just want to understand why things are done the way they are. Cora
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jun 2, 2005 9:51:11 GMT
Cora We live in a changing world. In 17. century and before, both men and women could join lodges. You can see that if you read charges which are older than the so-called "Old Charges" of UGLoE. But in 1717 the Grand Lodge of England changed the rules. That is ok for me, if freemasons can decide on their own and free, that means without the fear of being expelled, which lodge they want to join and which lodges they want to visit. But still in our days, freemasons of UGLoE and affiliated GLs cannot visit every lodge on this planet, because for UGLoE-Grandofficers, only men can be Freemasons. Or women can be Freemasons which join female-only lodges. These are total different women than co-masonic ones ;D BUT They still cannot be visited.... If tradition becomes a larger importance than the spirit.... Nobody of co-masonic lodges wants to change men-only lodges. They just want to recieve visits of the brethren and vice versa - not under the sword of Damocles!
|
|
|
Post by Bondi on Jun 2, 2005 17:30:25 GMT
Nobody of co-masonic lodges wants to change men-only lodges. They just want to recieve visits of the brethren and vice versa - not under the sword of Damocles! How exactly could a co-masonic lodge visit or receive visitors from men-only lodges, who are under UGLE, without changing anything? If there is no want for change then I do not understand this thread? If it is a question of why is there Men only and Women only apply it to any group which has these rules and not just Freemasonry you will answer your own question probably.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Jun 2, 2005 20:22:11 GMT
How exactly could a co-masonic lodge visit or receive visitors from men-only lodges, who are under UGLE, without changing anything? Bondi the answer to your question is very simple - iT HAPPENS A LOT - Such a visit doesn't cause any change at all - we just prove their Masonic status as we do all Masonic visitor and welcome them as a bro. - We do it often - No problem or disturbance
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jun 2, 2005 22:36:29 GMT
Bondi I did not say that I do not want to change anything - I just explained that I do not want to change men-only or women-only lodges into co-masonic ones or vice versa.
In Europe we founded the European Union for free trade and free labour all over Europe.
Why don't we crate a masonic union with free intervisitation - in the first step the possibility for brethren of the UGLoE to visit co-masonic lodges without the fear of being expelled? ;D
|
|
|
Post by generalpike on Jun 2, 2005 22:41:44 GMT
Why don't we crate a masonic union with free intervisitation - in the first step the possibility for brethren of the UGLoE to visit co-masonic lodges without the fear of being expelled? ;D I think that Whistler illustrats this best, in his jurisdiction regular masons who want to visit his co-masonic lodge do so. Who is going to know or tell?? I think the reality is that masons who want to visit do. GP
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Jun 3, 2005 8:49:48 GMT
Yes, General Pike that is right. But always remember: If you want things to stay as they are, you have to change them from time to time because we live in a changing world.
The old charges forbid the initiation of crippels - politically correct: of diabled persons. But disabled are initiated to-day, not in every lodge, but in more and more. So also Blacks and so on....
|
|
|
Post by Hubert (N. Z.) on Jun 4, 2005 0:26:41 GMT
As this discussion continues, there does seem to be a "softening" of former established negativity to women within the Craft.
As a Comason, I strongly endorse the sentiment that none of us want to change the existing groupings.
Being a male, I would have liked to visit my kindred Brn. at their meetings, to see for myself how they opperate & what I could LEARN from them.
However I am committed to mixed gendger society, which surely is one of the main tenets of the Craft - Equality for all!
So I must presently accept the disadvantage imposed by so called "enlightened" Officers of the Male persuasion.
Cheers, hubert.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jun 7, 2005 16:12:24 GMT
How would this work in practice? Say for example there were a change of mind from the powers that be, and intervisitation was permitted, it's obvious that the male co-masons could visit without a problem, but we wouldn't really be able to accept visits from lady masons and lady co-masons....and male masons could happily visit co-masonic lodge, but it's unlikely the female only branch would allow male regular and comasons to visit, but femal co-masons could....head hurty!
|
|
|
Post by ceejay64 on Jun 7, 2005 17:13:45 GMT
Ooh...my heads hurts, too. Personally, I love my mixed Lodge. I am very happy as a co-mason. I just wish it had been a possibility to join the Lodge down the road (male only) instead of having to make a 4-hour drive each way to practice the Craft. I talked to the women's Lodge prior to becoming a Mason, but they were even farther away. That's one of the big obstacles that we women face when we discover that we are being called by Masonry. I think it also speaks to our commitment, too, though. I guess for me, I don't want to see any Lodge forced to take members that would cause disharmony to their brn (as our rules state). I would, however, like to see the idea of acceptance (read: recognition) catch up with modern times. Perhaps that could be a first step?
|
|
|
Post by a on Jun 7, 2005 21:57:05 GMT
Bod
Don't overcomplicate matters. Each lodge, if the GLs agreed, could easily do what it wanted, much as I am led to believe, and indeed comasons confirm on this forum, already happens at an individual level.
However I suspect that you will find bigger issues here. For example (sweeping generalisation warning) comasonry/other parts of Freemasonry, can I understand be quite energetic, spiritual, esoteric, which your powers that be may prefer to be kept in the esoteric side orders. If could be unwise to introduce a "mumbo jumbo" attitude Freemason to some of the more esoteric aspects, for the sake of the lodge and for himself. Not forgetting the bank accounts of the esoteric orders.
Clearly though I am just guessing.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Jun 7, 2005 22:16:15 GMT
True, if the lodges were held together in a loose federation as opposed to being 'directed' from a central governing body then they could set their own parameters. But that in itself then creates a further problem, at present in most parts of the world I believe you have 'rights' of intervisitation with lodges of your own flavour of masonry (i.e. LDH,OWF, ULGE - take your pick of the alphabetti spaghetti) - this means you can theoretically turn up to a lodge in amity and enjoy a lodge meeting, not the case if you fall outside of that particular lodges parameters....
See what I mean?
|
|
|
Post by a on Jun 7, 2005 22:29:05 GMT
Actually it gets a little more interesting than this.
In some cases, one fraternity (Frat A) may recognise another, but that recognition is not reciprocated by Frat B (hence no amity).
So a member of "A" can attend "B"s lodges without any fear. Assuming he can get past the tyler that is. And that fierce bearded tyler can attend "A" Lodge and be welcomed with open arms, though may get kicked out of his own fraternity for doing so.
A bit complex, but this is reality, though I don't want to use specific fraternity names.
|
|