|
Post by gipsyrose on Oct 6, 2007 15:36:48 GMT
I was pondering further on my previous suggestion (post #24) and thought that a development of the idea, that I prefer, would be to have a sticky on the co-masonry section stating that "Discussions regarding regularity, recognition, and whether women can be free-masons, are to be discussed in the general masonry section." I think this would help the co-masonry section be the place of light, beauty, strength and wisdom that I have often found it to be, and help it to be that more fully if it remains.
As a result of thinking about the co-masonry section I went visiting some forums that I had visited previously that do not have a separate section, and found as previously, that for some reason when I visit I do not feel as comfortable and welcomed as I do at this forum and at TFM. My experience of being accepted and welcomed as a female inquirer and then free-mason on these two forums may be independent of whether or not there is a co-masonry section, but as an initial visitor I think the co-masonry section helps create the impression from one's very first contact that women are welcome. I still have a concern that without a co-masonry section that may not be as obvious.
I like JMD's suggestion of renaming the section "New to Freemasonry (for those thinking of becoming a free-mason)" to "Thinking of Becoming a Freemason (for men and women considering joining the craft)" (post #27), whatever decision is made about the co-masonry section.
I don't think I like the idea of a section with a password for "slogging out" topics, that Lauderdale suggested (post #25), as I value the open nature of this forum, though I would be willing to consider this some more as I think that being able to express freely and hanging on in with a discussion can often create great insight.
|
|
|
Post by cezarek on Oct 9, 2007 13:30:20 GMT
Might be worth having ita as a borad for general non-UGLE amity freemasonry. There are a lot of us about!
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Oct 9, 2007 13:43:39 GMT
Might be worth having ita as a borad for general non-UGLE amity freemasonry. There are a lot of us about! Still suggests that those not in amity with UGLE are somehow 'different' or 'lesser' - and this is what prompted the discussions in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 9, 2007 14:50:44 GMT
It close.
The vote is now 10 to keep it and 9 to remove it.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 9, 2007 15:39:51 GMT
It close. The vote is now 10 to keep it and 9 to remove it. By my reckoning I believe that it is actually 10 to keep it and 11 to close it ;D
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 9, 2007 16:49:19 GMT
It close. The vote is now 10 to keep it and 9 to remove it. By my reckoning I believe that it is actually 10 to keep it and 11 to close it ;D It must have changed since I posted the above. Something to ponder: As Steve has since changed his position on this issue how should we now consider his vote? Steve!
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 9, 2007 18:11:28 GMT
Why not ask him
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 9, 2007 19:11:07 GMT
I feel that the Mods have already made their minds up, for the most part (there may be exceptions), to close that Section and to be honest if that is what they wish then that is what will be. I did to begin with take a stance that it should be maintained as it is, but after discussing by e-mail with another Freemason who is NOT a Moderator here but who's opinions I value I decided to withdraw my objections.
Do what you wish with my vote, I don't think it counted for a hill of beans anyway and that closing the Section was a "done deal".
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 9, 2007 19:45:35 GMT
Steve, rest assured it isn't a "done deal." The options were discussed at length within the admin section and it was decided it would be fairer to everyone if the final decision was left to the membership and that the majority vote would carry - whatever it was.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 9, 2007 20:37:41 GMT
Shal we atke a vote on if it should be 10 or 11 ?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Oct 9, 2007 21:00:43 GMT
Greetings, I am not a Mason, but would like to comment, if I may. I have always regarded traditional Masonry as Male only, and nothing is going to change that. If what was before Masonry was mixed then that is also ok with me. The point is that I believe that we should still respect the old guard traditional Male only membership and way of working simply because it is their personal choice. If someone is happier working with Co-Masonry then that should not be (or become) a problem either. Shal we atke a vote on if it should be 10 or 11 ? I have just voted to leave it as it is (from the choices) but would place it in a seperate part of the board, not because of personal choice one way or the other, just so that members here can go there directly (without looking too much) to make and place their comments and points of view etc. If one is not on the forum every day and reading everything, then it does get difficult to follow everything and through the different threads. I like to skim & scan through when I have the time, and am just not able to read everything in detail. If the subject has its own place then it cannot become a point of contention for those who have a problem with it. That said all forums have their ups & downs with different subjects because we each have our own way of seeing things and of expressing ourselves. Different experiences and levels of understanding etc. Now I would like to have my own section, please ;D
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 9, 2007 21:14:19 GMT
Shal we atke a vote on if it should be 10 or 11 ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Oct 9, 2007 21:15:14 GMT
Ah But sid if you had your own section you would take the chance of no one coming to talk to you.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Oct 10, 2007 8:01:52 GMT
I feel that the Mods have already made their minds up, for the most part (there may be exceptions), to close that Section and to be honest if that is what they wish then that is what will be. I did to begin with take a stance that it should be maintained as it is, but after discussing by e-mail with another Freemason who is NOT a Moderator here but who's opinions I value I decided to withdraw my objections. Do what you wish with my vote, I don't think it counted for a hill of beans anyway and that closing the Section was a "done deal". Steve I am dissappionted you have posted this! This Poll is a genuine attempt for MFoL to get the views of all its members on this subject, why would the mods already of made thier mind up? If that was the case I certainly would not of bothered to start the Poll and we would not of made an announcement in every section! Could you please confirm how you wish your vote to be cast? Do you want us to ignore your leave it as it is vote or not? If you want us to ignore it, Post your new vote here and we will do the neccessary.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 10, 2007 9:49:21 GMT
Bro Chris perhaps I am too cynical but my experiences of polls held by employers regarding work hours etc and of course our beloved leaders in both political parties have made me so.
As to my vote, leave it as it was originally, to retain the separate Co-Masonic section as is. I can see merit on both approaches but recent postings on the thread are tending to swing me back to my original position.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Oct 10, 2007 10:12:34 GMT
I presume the voting is only available to members, not visitors?
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 10, 2007 10:30:25 GMT
I presume the voting is only available to members, not visitors? That is correct, you have be registered in order to vote.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Oct 10, 2007 13:59:00 GMT
We do not have the ability as admin or mods to change peoples votes. This is a genuine attempt to satisfy some question that have been raised by members regarding the ordering of the board. Had we wanted to simply go ahead and change it we would have done without any pretence towards gathering opinions. The voting remains open until the date first mentioned. After that point and following further discussions amongst the mod team things will happen (or not....) If anyone wishes further clarification please leave a message here or PM one of the team.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Oct 11, 2007 21:38:39 GMT
13 - 10 so far in favour of leaving it as it is.
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 12, 2007 5:08:37 GMT
Ok, but as a masculine mason, I've never considered women anything but an equal. I feel that it's important for men to have their own outlet. This is why I love the idea of pure feminine rites. For those that like co-masonry, have at it!
I think that you'll find that many of the younger men (at the very least) became masculine masons out of a sincere interest in learning and exploring the temple of masculinity and the Gentleman. We do not exclude women because they are deficient. We prefer a masculine energy.
I have belonged to other groups that are co-ed. Totally different and I like having both outlets. But my lodge excluding women simply because they are women? Hardly.
So, there is a difference--in energy. I would like to vote to keep it separate. Also, having a separate forum discourages the spill-over arguments that seem to happen on all fora.
|
|