|
Post by mike on Sept 19, 2007 17:55:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 19, 2007 18:20:27 GMT
I read this with great interest and I think Theron should be applauded for making such comments. He is living proof that people can change and that women are becoming more widely accepted.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Sept 19, 2007 19:24:06 GMT
Bro Mike, once upon a time I too accepted the "received wisdom" that Women could not be Freemasons. However Fora such as this and interaction with Brethren such as Russell Holland, Stewart Edwards, JMD, and others and latterly Bro Cora caused me to open my mind, question what I had taken as "stated truth" and in time revise my opinion in the Light of Greater Knowledge and Understanding. For me the way to Damascus lay along Surbiton Hill Road and now I am happily a Co-Mason, a situation I would have laughed at had you predicted it some 5 years or so ago. My late Mother once said to me, "A closed mind ought to be opened to let some fresh air in" She was correct!
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 19, 2007 21:23:20 GMT
Bro. Theron Dunn's acknowledgment of the obvious fact that the term, "women Masons," is not a contradiction in terms, is a welcome shift from his earlier, extreme opposition and I congratulate him on this change. However, his new position is so limited and qualified that it makes no practical difference and could best be described as minimalist, with him basically advocating behaving towards women Masons as one would towards respectable non-Masons. Certainly his new position is still far, far apart from the unequivocal position expressed by W. Bro. C Shawn Oak or from that mandated by the international Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women and the proposed US Equal Rights Amendment. Bro. Theron states: “ We know that men and women think differently, work differently, and are surrounded by different energies.” Do we? And, if so, in what ways, to what extent, and how are such differences Masonically relevant? As Ivy Compton-Burnett said, “ There is more difference within the sexes than between them.” Bro. Theron also states, “ I like male only Freemasonry, and certainly have no personal interest in sitting in lodge with a woman. I enjoy our fraternity as it is, and with minor exceptions, I love everything about Freemasonry, and do not see any need to invite women into my lodge.” He is no alone in his preference, which is even shared by some women. 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." Please pause and imagine these same arguments being expressed in terms of segregation on the basis of race rather than of gender, and consider if they have any proper relevance to Freemasonry. I suggest not.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Sept 19, 2007 23:25:00 GMT
Personally, I think all steps taken in the right direction are to be applauded. We all know how hard is it just to say sorry sometimes, so how hard must it be to realise a change in thinking of some magnitude?
We know we have approached a Keeper of the Gate, or a Guardian of the Veil, when we find ourselves agonising over a thought or decision.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 19, 2007 23:49:53 GMT
Bro. Theron Dunn's acknowledgment of the obvious fact that the term, "women Masons," is not a contradiction in terms, is a welcome shift from his earlier, extreme opposition and I congratulate him on this change. However, his new position is so limited and qualified that it makes no practical difference and could best be described as minimalist, with him basically advocating behaving towards women Masons as one would towards respectable non-Masons. Certainly his new position is still far, far apart from the unequivocal position expressed by W. Bro. C Shawn Oak or from that mandated by the international Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women and the proposed US Equal Rights Amendment. Bro. Theron states: “ We know that men and women think differently, work differently, and are surrounded by different energies.” Do we? And, if so, in what ways, to what extent, and how are such differences Masonically relevant? As Ivy Compton-Burnett said, “ There is more difference within the sexes than between them.” Bro. Theron also states, “ I like male only Freemasonry, and certainly have no personal interest in sitting in lodge with a woman. I enjoy our fraternity as it is, and with minor exceptions, I love everything about Freemasonry, and do not see any need to invite women into my lodge.” He is no alone in his preference, which is even shared by some women. 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." Please pause and imagine these same arguments being expressed in terms of segregation on the basis of race rather than of gender, and consider if they have any proper relevance to Freemasonry. I suggest not. LOL ;D The words "point" and "missed" spring to mind M
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 19, 2007 23:51:20 GMT
Bro Mike, once upon a time I too accepted the "received wisdom" that Women could not be Freemasons. However Fora such as this and interaction with Brethren such as Russell Holland, Stewart Edwards, JMD, and others and latterly Bro Cora caused me to open my mind, question what I had taken as "stated truth" and in time revise my opinion in the Light of Greater Knowledge and Understanding. For me the way to Damascus lay along Surbiton Hill Road and now I am happily a Co-Mason, a situation I would have laughed at had you predicted it some 5 years or so ago. My late Mother once said to me, "A closed mind ought to be opened to let some fresh air in" She was correct! I remember Steve, I just wish I could rememeber that bleedin' french you used the other week. M
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 20, 2007 1:00:23 GMT
>do not see any need to invite women into my lodge
At the risk of restating the obvious: to whom does Masonry belong?
If it belongs the current members of any particular lodge then it is a human institution amongst many and the members are entitled to be as selective as they wish
If however, Masonry belongs to TGAOTU then perhaps we should ask him (her?) who should belong
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 20, 2007 7:07:29 GMT
Bro. Theron Dunn's acknowledgment of the obvious fact that the term, "women Masons," is not a contradiction in terms, is a welcome shift from his earlier, extreme opposition and I congratulate him on this change. However, his new position is so limited and qualified that it makes no practical difference and could best be described as minimalist, with him basically advocating behaving towards women Masons as one would towards respectable non-Masons. Certainly his new position is still far, far apart from the unequivocal position expressed by W. Bro. C Shawn Oak or from that mandated by the international Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women and the proposed US Equal Rights Amendment. Bro. Theron states: “ We know that men and women think differently, work differently, and are surrounded by different energies.” Do we? And, if so, in what ways, to what extent, and how are such differences Masonically relevant? As Ivy Compton-Burnett said, “ There is more difference within the sexes than between them.” Bro. Theron also states, “ I like male only Freemasonry, and certainly have no personal interest in sitting in lodge with a woman. I enjoy our fraternity as it is, and with minor exceptions, I love everything about Freemasonry, and do not see any need to invite women into my lodge.” He is no alone in his preference, which is even shared by some women. 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." Please pause and imagine these same arguments being expressed in terms of segregation on the basis of race rather than of gender, and consider if they have any proper relevance to Freemasonry. I suggest not. LOL ;D The words "point" and "missed" spring to mind M Priceless
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 20, 2007 8:38:23 GMT
The words "point" and "missed" spring to mind If that point is the "evolution" to which you have referred, then at this incremental rate, if the Craft somehow manages survives, we may perhaps be living up to our rhetoric in another 300 years or so
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 20, 2007 8:42:14 GMT
Personally, I think all steps taken in the right direction are to be applauded. I agree and I congratulated Bro. Theron in my earlier post.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 20, 2007 9:44:31 GMT
If that point is the "evolution" to which you have referred, then at this incremental rate, if the Craft somehow manages survives, we may perhaps be living up to our rhetoric in another 300 years or so The point was that while you sit there and claim that things aren't changing they actually are! I am beginning to feel for the earlier comments to do with martyrs. I agree and I congratulated Bro. Theron in my earlier post. Well sort of. You gave a left handed congratulation then fired off a right handed attack on why his position wasn't worth anything. At the end of the day and no matter how "qualified" you consider his statements to be, he is a man with influence on "grass-roots" Freemasons in the US due to his position on the Internet. There he is stating that his previously held belief about women in Masonry was wrong! He will reach far more readers than any of the dead 18th & 19th century authors that you may care to cite. I stand by my earlier comment, you will never find peace because you need a cause celebre, today Freemasonry tomorrow Monastic Orders. M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 20, 2007 9:53:57 GMT
If that point is the "evolution" to which you have referred, then at this incremental rate, if the Craft somehow manages survives, we may perhaps be living up to our rhetoric in another 300 years or so The point was that while you sit there and claim that things aren't changing they actually are! I am beginning to feel for the earlier comments to do with martyrs. I agree and I congratulated Bro. Theron in my earlier post. Well sort of. You gave a left handed congratulation then fired off a right handed attack on why his position wasn't worth anything. At the end of the day and no matter how "qualified" you consider his statements to be, he is a man with influence on "grass-roots" Freemasons in the US due to his position on the Internet. There he is stating that his previously held belief about women in Masonry was wrong! He will reach far more readers than any of the dead 18th & 19th century authors that you may care to cite. I stand by my earlier comment, you will never find peace because you need a cause celebre, today Freemasonry tomorrow Monastic Orders. M I object to your personal attack and would ask you to stick to the issue and to the rules of this forum.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 20, 2007 10:03:14 GMT
I object to your personal attack and would ask you to stick to the issue and to the rules of this forum. Ha ha ha ha ha, oh you are so funny. I had to clean my coffee off the keyboard before I could reply. "Personal attack" Where's that then? You seem to have a perspective issue! Me stating the truth as I see it is somehow a "personal attack" on you and against the rules, whereas you actually accusing me of being a "gaslighter" is all fine and dandy. I take it you're aware of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Grow up will you. M
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 20, 2007 10:13:28 GMT
I object to your personal attack and would ask you to stick to the issue and to the rules of this forum. Ha ha ha ha ha, oh you are so funny. I had to clean my coffee off the keyboard before I could reply. "Personal attack" Where's that then? You seem to have a perspective issue! Me stating the truth as I see it is somehow a "personal attack" on you and against the rules, whereas you actually accusing me of being a "gaslighter" is all fine and dandy. I take it you're aware of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Grow up will you. M My "gaslighting" comment was an aptly descriptive reference to a specific instance of your questioning of my intentions, i.e. a personal attack. I wish to draw the Moderators' attention to these ongoing attacks.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 20, 2007 10:19:11 GMT
I wish to draw the Moderators' attention to these ongoing attacks. As do I! I shall await an adjudication. Mike
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Sept 20, 2007 10:28:07 GMT
I wish to draw the Moderators' attention to these ongoing attacks. I personally do not see Mike's responses to you as personal attacks, other mods or admin may take a different view. Your reference to "gaslighting" on the other hand as been seen as highly insulting. Mike is simply, and rightly in my view, pointing out that for someone such as TD to make the statement he did is a very big move and will carry more weight than much of what was written before. We must genuinely appreciate the stance TD has made here. To some it might not appear to be that much but for others it is seen as a major shift in a previously held opinion.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 20, 2007 10:44:40 GMT
... there seems to be something all too personal in your words... However, if your real agenda, as mentioned in the other topic, is just the destruction of masculine Masonry, I see no peace for you even if you were to succeed. Do you ? Now I find that far more curious! I am taking what you say at face value which is why I am questioning your intentions. Bro. Mike,
While you may enjoy "gaslighting" (no offense intended Bro. Gaslight) you will need to find another target: I don't want to play.I am beginning to feel for the earlier comments to do with martyrs... I stand by my earlier comment, you will never find peace because you need a cause celebre, today Freemasonry tomorrow Monastic Orders.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 20, 2007 11:18:38 GMT
Seemingly some regard the term "gaslighting" as being more vulgar than do I. While I had felt it had a specific and appropriate meaning, I have no problem with withdrawing the term and do so unreservedly. What I had meant to suggest was that I felt I was being baited and my express intentions questioned in a way that no response of mine would have been satisfactory. I was therefore not prepared to participate.
Good night.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Sept 20, 2007 12:14:25 GMT
Seemingly some regard the term "gaslighting" as being more vulgar than do I. While I had felt it had a specific and appropriate meaning, I have no problem with withdrawing the term and do so unreservedly. What I had meant to suggest was that I felt I was being baited and my express intentions questioned in a way that no response of mine would have been satisfactory. I was therefore not prepared to participate. I really was not going to comment on this further until a few Moderators had had their say on whether I was being justly accused or not. However, this blatant attempt to divert attention from what was, in fact, a personal attack on me beggars belief. While you may enjoy "gaslighting" (no offense intended Bro. Gaslight) you will need to find another target: I don't want to play. If your use of the term was so innocent why did you feel the need to pre-apologise for any offence that your use of it may have caused another user? I think that your hollow attempt to withdraw it now that a Moderator has pointed out its offensivess when I had already done so 2 days ago is, to be frank, beneath contempt. What actually happened was that someone (me) called you on the validity of your claims and rather than attempt to supply some 21st century substance you resorted to name calling. Probably because you realise that you cannot lay the claim of "mysogynist" at my feet. Which to all intents and purposes you seem to have implied about Theron's comments with your very selective excerpts. Anyway I shall await the fall of the hammer. M
|
|