|
Post by thesixthnapoleon on Jul 21, 2007 23:39:39 GMT
I started a new thread because "Groupthink" started to veer, so here goes:
I can't help but add that I am, generally, bitterly opposed to Affirmative Action, and I actually believe it tends to WORSEN problems of racial/gender divides rather than improving anything. To me, I have only ever seen it increase bitterness between different "demographics," and it is insulting to minorities.
A better system to extinguish systematic racism, to me, is that of double-blind applications. For instance, rather than stressing ethnicitiy or gender on college applications, it should be forbidden to make mention of your gender or ethnicity. After all, why does it matter?
Ethnicity doesn't even really exist. It is an artificial creation of man's kneejerk tendancy to divide. There is actually more scientific, genetic difference from individual to individual than between "races." For this reason, I find it woefully ridiculous to base anything, ever on race.
On the other hand -- and I say this hesitantly, for fear of being misconstrued -- there are real, deep, biological differences between genders. I do not throw this out haphazardly, nor do I do so in an effort to divide or imply the superiority of either. There simply is no denying that, biologically, men and women are different. Surely, there are men who behave more "feminine" and women who are more "masculine," and this is *perfectly acceptible." But it's absolutely silly to deny that the "natural tendancy" is for women to be different than men.
I'm sure this goes into the potpouri of reasons in my heart that I very much prefer malecraft Freemasonry, but it doesn't explain everything. For instance, I wold have no trouble with a gay man joining my lodge -- none whatsoever! I just believe, in my heart of hearts, without any reservation, that sometimes cultural divisions are healthy and even beneficial, if they are just and never made from a standpoint of distrust nor feelings of inequality. I believe women are perfectly equal to men, and I bare them no grudges for ever having the desire to form groups of their own which bar men (i.e. the Red Hat clubs which are popular throught America, right now).
I even have, in specific instances, sympathy for "culturally" exclusive organizations. I say "culturally" because, again, I have no belief whatsoever in the concept of "race." But I do know that, for instance, it would be preposterous to propose that I, as a man from Western culture, be accepted into a Native American tribe. I also see with reverance and awe the fellowship that men in "Black fraternities" have with one another.
These distinctions are not made, in my mind, out of any sort of feeling of "racial superiority." I knew many men in black fraternities in college and I *know* that they trusted and respected me as a white man. They simply share a common cultural experience and feel strengthened and united by their unique CULTURAL experience in the South, and more power to them! I would never in a million years ask them to allow me gain admission.
I've noticed that "white" organizations DO tend to be built on a foundation of racism, and I would like to muse on that a while.
"Black" culture in America is, indeed, a culture, and not really a race. There are "black-cultured" men and women with light, brown, yellow, etc. skin who have shared this cultural experience. "White" culture, on the other hand, has no real historical or societal precedence. Thus, it seems to me, people never really take much opposition to "Irish" organizations or "Italian" organizations. That is because Ireland has a unique culture, Italy has a unique culture. Similarly, I see the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy or the Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution (neither of which am I affiliated with nor even particularly knoweldgable of) are formed on the basis of shared experiences and cultural inheritance.
I'm not sure exactly what the point of this meandering post is, other than to spark discussion and defend my belief that sometimes it's okay for us to unite from a standpoint of shared experiences, i.e. with Malecraft Lodges, as long as it is not made from a position of perceived superiority, i.e. with the KKK or in a workplace environment.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 22, 2007 0:26:19 GMT
Bro. Napoleon, I too would welcome double blind applications, but have difficulty imagining how they would handled with petitions for Masonic initiation, (up to and including the time of ballot). I fail to see how gender differences are Masonically relevant and instead see discrimination on that basis as being contrary to fundamental Masonic principles. I also wonder why men and women commonly work, study and worship together, serving in governments, armed services and charitable organisations, but cannot assemble as Masons in many Obediences. To the extent that one does not discriminate against others, I support an individual's freedom of choice. For example, in an official history of the UGL of NSW & ACT (Kellerman, v.iv, p.157), we are told of a lady, addressing the wives of newly invested DGIWs, in 1980. On the matter of closer relationships allowing women to become Masons Mrs Folkard said, "I am not at all in favour of this. I think men need to get away from women occasionally. Our greatest asset is our femininity, which they appreciate. Likewise the support which we can readily give them in so many ways. I am happy to see the men go to Lodge, to help prepare their Installation Banquets and, when they come out, feed them." While I have difficulty understanding such willing subordination, I support this lady's right to do so: However, where she seeks to impose her choice on others, I am reminded of Harriet Beecher Stowe's character, Uncle Tom.
|
|
|
Post by thesixthnapoleon on Jul 22, 2007 0:34:13 GMT
Of course I know your stance comes from a very noble place, but I must ask -- do you not support my freedom of choice to enter and sustain a malecraft Lodge? Perhaps one day I will feel comfortable with comasonry, but in the meantime my Brothers and I feel more comfortable with our decision to remain male-only. I could go on and on with reasons and defenses, but at the end of the day I don't feel the burden of defense rests with us. We have made this decision, it is what makes us happy, and just as we do not wish to impose our wills on any other Order, we hope that we will be left to our own decision without malice or judgement on the behalf of others.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 22, 2007 0:59:12 GMT
...do you not support my freedom of choice to enter and sustain a malecraft Lodge? Bro. Napoleon,I am genuinely sorry, but no, I do not: Not while your choice would allow gender to override personal merit. By analogy, nor would I support a choice, in a Masonic context, to limit membership on the basis of race, because, hypothetically, whites like to get away from blacks and meet together as whites. My position is not so strong that I would actively oppose all gender exclusive organisations. I simply see Freemasonry as being perhaps the last organisation which should discriminate on irrelevant grounds. Freemasonry teaches that we are all sprung from the same stock, partakers of the same nature and sharers of the same hope. We hold ourselves to be a model of inclusion on the basis of race, politics and religion. Imagine, how alien, how "other" one must feel to be excluded from such an "all encompassing" organisation. Imagine too how, when told Freemasonry is a model which we are encouraged to apply to the wider society, how the "No Women!" rule may influence the application of that model. Where one can demonstrate the lack of historical justification, the violation of fundamental Masonic principles and an incompatibility with contemporary social mores, I feel the burden of proof has been satisfied.
|
|
Tony Grimwood
Member
Asst. Steward, Lodge Howick No. 314
Posts: 190
|
Post by Tony Grimwood on Jul 22, 2007 1:21:08 GMT
Freemasonry teaches that we are all sprung from the same stock, partakers of the same nature and sharers of the same hope. We hold ourselves to be a model of inclusion on the basis of race, politics and religion. Imagine, how alien, how "other" one must feel to be excluded from such an "all encompassing" organisation. Imagine too how, when told Freemasonry is a model which we are encouraged to apply to the wider society, how the "No Women!" rule may influence the application of that model. IMO, this is self-evident truth. I fully agree with you, Bro Philip, and I'm sure we will one day look back and consider these days dark indeed. However, the pragmatist in me says that the current situation will not be changed overnight. I tend to agree with the likes of Bro JMD who hold that the decision of whether or not to admit both sexes should be taken at lodge level. 'Natural selection' would do the rest; gender-specific Freemasonry would eventually be unable to attract enough new members and would cease to exist. Tony
|
|
|
Post by thesixthnapoleon on Jul 22, 2007 2:08:22 GMT
Bro. Tamrin,
Please don't apologize for your position! I can tell implicitly that you are speaking from a heartfelt and honorable standpoint. I hope at least that we can agree amicably to disagree. Even if you can't respect my position, know that I respect yours. Above all, I hope you don't feel that I in any way denigrate or consider myself superior to women! That isn't where my feelings on this issue come from, at all.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 22, 2007 3:00:54 GMT
Bro. Napoleon
Brother, I do not believe we are poles apart in our hopes and, as always: "That which is divine within me, respectfully greets that which is divine within you."
Namaste
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 9, 2007 20:34:11 GMT
While searching in relation to a similar topic, I found this astute article:
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 10, 2007 1:02:35 GMT
It hit my like a brick just recently that there is a down side to not retaining the current situation of having a choice between male only, female only and mixed Lodges.
I could see a situation arising where the partners joined 'just because' and then diluted the purpose of Lodges so that it becomes nothing more or less than another recreational avenue. And heaven help if a partner was denied admittance for one reason or another - no belief in God or whatever... the troubles that would cause.
The above is based on first hand experience in both Male Craft and Lions Clubs gatherings.
Just a thought.
Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 10, 2007 2:08:25 GMT
It hit my like a brick just recently that there is a down side to not retaining the current situation of having a choice between male only, female only and mixed Lodges.
I could see a situation arising where the partners joined 'just because' and then diluted the purpose of Lodges so that it becomes nothing more or less than another recreational avenue. And heaven help if a partner was denied admittance for one reason or another - no belief in God or whatever... the troubles that would cause.
The above is based on first hand experience in both Male Craft and Lions Clubs gatherings.
Just a thought.
Maat Bro. Maat,I am surprised at this concern being expressed by a Co-Mason, in whose Obedience this would, if it was a real and substantial possibility, already be a problem. I have not previously heard of it being reported as such, (indeed, compared with the mainstream, Co-Masonry appears to retain a stronger sense of esoteric purpose, despite the not uncommon involvement of partners). Moreover, I am curious as to how anyone (especially a woman such as yourself) would have "first-hand experience" of this in the Male-Craft.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 10, 2007 2:43:51 GMT
I am surprised at this concern being expressed by a Co-Mason, in whose Obedience this would, if it was a real and substantial possibility, already be a problem. I have not previously heard of it being reported as such, (indeed, compared with the mainstream, Co-Masonry appears to retain a stronger sense of esoteric purpose, despite the not uncommon involvement of partners). Co-Masonry, being very openly slanted to the esoteric side of Freemasonry, does not appeal to the vast majority. We do not socialize as a general rule, have fundraisers etc etc. our charity work is an outreach of our personal endeavours within the community. Many of our members volunteer in health areas. Our partners easily recognise where our interests lay, and unless they are naturally inclined along a similar vein they are quite happy to let us 'do our thing'. My husband is a senior Grand Lodge officer, and as such is expected to travel extensively. As his wife I am expected to accompany him and socialize, more especially with the women. I learn lots Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 10, 2007 3:00:18 GMT
PS - I would still see it most beneficial for the 'recognition' bit to be resolved. Everyone could visit everyone, so long as you were a Mason.
Maat
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 10, 2007 5:36:17 GMT
Co-Masonry, being very openly slanted to the esoteric side of Freemasonry, does not appeal to the vast majority. We do not socialize as a general rule, have fundraisers etc etc. our charity work is an outreach of our personal endeavours within the community. Many of our members volunteer in health areas. Our partners easily recognise where our interests lay, and unless they are naturally inclined along a similar vein they are quite happy to let us 'do our thing'. I suggest the comparison with the 'Male-Craft' is overstated. After all, the involvement of both genders, including with partners, is normal in the wider community, without your scenario being considered a barrier. I suggest we should allow that Freemasons, who are selected on their personal merits and are expected to keep their passions and prejudices within due bounds, would at least be no worse than members of the wider community. My husband is a senior Grand Lodge officer, and as such is expected to travel extensively. As his wife I am expected to accompany him and socialize, more especially with the women. I learn lots Even so, you would not have had the opportunity to see your particular scenario in play as, by definition, it does not occur in the 'Male-Craft.' My experience with the OES, which would be a fairly close approximation, suggests it is not a significant factor.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 10, 2007 6:04:28 GMT
Bro. Tamrin, Please don't apologize for your position! I can tell implicitly that you are speaking from a heartfelt and honorable standpoint. I hope at least that we can agree amicably to disagree. Even if you can't respect my position, know that I respect yours. Above all, I hope you don't feel that I in any way denigrate or consider myself superior to women! That isn't where my feelings on this issue come from, at all. Bro. SN, I'm very glad to see you post in this way, that you speak amicably with Bro. Philip despite a disagreement on this point. I am, likewise, glad to see Bro. Philip is willing to accept these sentiments from you and is not determined to attempt, by any means necessary, to bully you away from your position. It is important, I think, for brothers to be able to agree to disagree. I commend you both for doing it.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 10, 2007 6:20:36 GMT
I suggest we should allow that Freemasons, who are selected on their personal merits I think Freemasons should be selected on their personal merits too. I think Freemasons should be able to choose an Order that suits them and their situation. I think that if you force the situation you might find some unintended negative results. But I could be wrong. Maat
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Sept 10, 2007 6:21:40 GMT
My experience with the OES, which would be a fairly close approximation, suggests it is not a significant factor. I'm just pointing out something obvious . . . The OES, so far as I've heard, is a worthy path for many. It is, however, not Freemasonry. The organization does not claim to be Masonic and I understand it points out, in its own ritual, that it is set up to assist Masons, not to make them. Again, I hear it's a worthy path for many. It is not mine.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 10, 2007 6:30:34 GMT
I am, likewise, glad to see Bro. Philip is willing to accept these sentiments from you and is not, upon this occasion, determined to attempt, by any means necessary, to bully you away from your position. Bro. Karen,That was a very back-handed compliment. I am sorry if you think I have tried to bully you away from your position, "by any means necessary." I have expressed how I genuinely feel, if you wish to maintain that my heart-felt position is 'evil,' that is your choice, but please accept that I not unnaturally consider that, in doing so, you have personally maligned me.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 10, 2007 6:36:43 GMT
The OES, so far as I've heard, is a worthy path for many. It is, however, not Freemasonry. The organization does not claim to be Masonic and I understand it points out, in its own ritual, that it is set up to assist Masons, not to make them. I suggest my comparision, in relation to the participation of partners, remain valid.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 10, 2007 6:45:05 GMT
I think Freemasons should be able to choose an Order that suits them and their situation. I think that if you force the situation you might find some unintended negative results. But I could be wrong. Bro. Maat,My point was to address your concern about the participation of partners. You are now taking a different tack: Fair enough, just so long as we all know. I suggest you read my opening post under the ' "Forcing" the Issue' thread, where I make it clear that my preferred option is generational change.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 10, 2007 7:24:51 GMT
My point was to address your concern about the participation of partners. I still have some concerns about the participation of partners, when/where the partners are not suitable for Freemasonry nor Freemasonry for them. Has nothing to do with their value as a person, but rather their inclination towards the tenets of Freemasonry. I have met some mason's wives who would not be not suited to Freemasonry, but who, because they know other mason's wives, might be inclined to join for that reason alone. And it is pointless to say that they would have to prove they are good material because history shows that peer pressure is a mighty heavy load, many buckle under the pressure and rules are softened. That is all I am saying. Maat
|
|