|
Post by brandt on Aug 8, 2007 18:34:15 GMT
I am a member of "male craft" lodge. It is okay to disagree with the rules - they were not written by God.
"Lets remember that tolerance and understanding thing that gets mentioned in our ritual once or twice..... "
Indeed, let's remember - but apply it universally.
There is no need to be bitter about it at all, we are just talking.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 8, 2007 19:17:49 GMT
No offence taken at being "singled out" Bro Bod as I suppose I am a bit of a rare creature having gone from UGLE to LDH.
Now as far as I am aware my Obedience would not permit me to visit a GLFWM Lodge not that I would wish to anyway!
As regards RGLE, I honestly don't know as I don't think the question has arisen but I was under the impression that both RGLE and GLAE are Male Only Grand Lodges so they would be unlikely to allow a Co-Mason such as myself to visit. Perhaps Rui and Peter can clarify this matter on behalf of their respective GLs?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 9, 2007 3:31:26 GMT
Just thought I'd chime in . . .
I don't know if my jurisdiction (or Bro. L's, for that matter) restricts me from visiting *any* lodge (I'm a Fellowcraft. What could I possibly know about such things). However, I would say it would be inappropriate, not to mention impolite, for Bro. L to try to visit a Femalecraft lodge. Likewise, it would be impolite for me to try to visit a Malecraft lodge. For to knowingly do so would, I think, disrespect the workers there in their choice to work at one pole.
I, likewise, think it would be bad manners for a Malecraft lodge to close its doors to Bro. L, just as I think it would be bad manners for a Femalecraft lodge to bar my visit. But that's where we are. It is impolite and unbrotherly, but it *is* done.
I will say, however, that I would like to visit at Femalecraft lodge. I hear the energy is different when only one gender is present. The same work done no better or worse, only different. And, in this way, I envy Bro. L. For he has seen it done at one pole and, now, sees it done at both poles.
However, this option isn't open to me, just as it now isn't, for the most part, open to Bro. L. Just as it isn't open to many of the BB. And we are, all of us the poorer for it.
I don't think it's at all bitter to recognize what *is*, but yearn for what c/should be.
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 9, 2007 10:47:08 GMT
An excellent response Bro Karen! And I find myself in agreement with it all, I would love to visit a co-masonic lodge to experience the differences, and you are right, we are poorer for the restrictions. Bro brandt, yes, I can think the rules aren't right, but I still have to comply with them, what honour do I have if I don't?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 9, 2007 14:04:18 GMT
Brother bod, We may be talking past each other. That can happen from time to time with electronic mediums. I am not suggesting that we don't comply but the track that some take of if you don't like it get out is a bit much for me. I don't think that you meant you comments in that spirit. I can't do good for my organization outside of it. On the inside of it I can at least work towards positive change. Rather or not I will be successful in any of my endeavors is still yet to be seen. I love the Craft and will continue to work for its benefit. We do need to come into the 21st century, so I am working on that. If I have exhausted all options then I will, as you suggested, leave. Until then I will continue to work.
Brandt
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Aug 9, 2007 14:11:16 GMT
Does sound like we are broadly in agreement brother, and I may well have been a bit strong in my choice of words, the situation as it exists isn't ideal. It would be great if there could be more co-operation, and if there could be some form of compromise found. Personally I dont see it as a matter of coming into the 21st century, after all, women can become masons in the organisation that they find most suits their needs, whether it is OWF, HFAF or one of the co-masonic constituents. I do feel that we would be causing irrevocable harm to the fraternity as a whole if we take the line that the single sex fraternities MUST open up to the opposite sex, mainly because of the number of people who are happy with the status quo, and would be very unhappy about being forced to accept women in the lodge room that they attend. More co-operation I would say yes to, wholesale forced adoption of co-masonry for all GL's would not be good.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 9, 2007 16:54:46 GMT
It would be improper to compel a female only lodge to accept men, or a male lodge to accept women. I am a strong proponent of lodge sovereignty. A lodge should be able to decide.
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 9, 2007 17:11:54 GMT
"I am a strong proponent of Lodge sovereignty. A Lodge should be able to decide."
Bro Brandt, I could not have put that better myself!
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 9, 2007 18:21:37 GMT
I think perception may well be the issue. Malecraft Masons, on this forum and others, have apologized to me (and other women Freemasons) for preferring their Malecraft tradition. Which always puzzles me. I don't see a problem there, so why apologize.
While it's never safe to generalize, I think they feel a need to apologize because of the perception that Co-Masonry cannot be recognized without eliminating the single-sex tradition. This just isn't so. I mean, as I understand it, in France there are Malecraft lodges, Femalecraft lodges and Co-Masonic lodges; everyone recognizes each other; men go to Co-Masonic and Malecraft lodges; women go to Femalecraft and Co-Masonic lodges. It works. No issue.
It is an issue only where it's made to be an issue.
Now, having said that, I'll also point out that one troubling part of the Malecraft tradition, historically, has been the denial that women can even be Freemasons, despite their ever and continual call to the Craft. There have been many, many instances, on the part of Malecraft Masons, of diverting/barring women from their path and of censuring and punishing those Male Masons who don't divert women from their path.
THAT in mind, Bro. Bod, you say women "can" become masons in the organization that they find most suits their needs. While true, this is so largely because of the dogged determination of a minority of Freemasons to, over the centuries, do what is right. And they have done so, despite continual and overwhelming opposition. My gratitude to them is immense because they have juuuuuuust managed to keep open a very narrow crack in the wall thru which some women, who manage to find their way, can pass. So, while it's possible, it continues to be very difficult for many women.
For each woman who manages to find her way to the crack in the wall, there are many, many more who don't; or who do but are too intimidated to pass thru it.
So, yup, I am whole-heartedly against the forced integration of single-sex lodges. And I recognize lodges are, in fact, sovereign, though this sovereignty often is usurped. However, I also believe that the single-sex tradition should grant me the same courtesy, recognize my tradition and end the wholesale attempt to drown those Freemasons who do right in flood of wrong.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Aug 9, 2007 19:19:42 GMT
my dear Brother Karen, I am drinking a toast to you tonight. Outstanding, though you constantly remind us that you are just a FC you have wisdom of one who has worked in the Craft for a lifetime.
Brandt
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 9, 2007 20:00:48 GMT
(little blush)
Thank you, Bro. brandt.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 9, 2007 20:15:18 GMT
I do feel that we would be causing irrevocable harm to the fraternity as a whole if we take the line that the single sex fraternities MUST open up to the opposite sex, mainly because of the number of people who are happy with the status quo, and would be very unhappy about being forced to accept women in the lodge room that they attend. I repeat my opinion that the "No Women!" rule represents an unprincipled indulgence of prejudice.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 9, 2007 21:03:46 GMT
Bro. Philip, *I* repeat that this is a point upon which you and I don't agree. But we don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Aug 9, 2007 21:13:06 GMT
Bro Tamrin. I have come to the realisation that in my lifetime it is highly unlikely that any of the better known Anglo-American Malecraft GLs etc will ever admit women into their Lodges. However as we have perfectly viable Co-Masonry , and Women Only Freemasonry, Females are not prevented from being Masons.
Now all I would ask of the likes of UGLE would be a Declaration similar to that given in respect of HFAF and OWF that Co-Masonry is Freemasonry. If as is most likely UGLE etc wished to continue to forbid its Brethren from attending Co-Masonic Lodges then that is its affair and it is for such Brethren to obey or not as their Light leads them.
If there is something which does get my temper raging it is to be told by some of the more closed minded Makecraft Brethren, "You aren't a Mason" and when pressed to tell me why that should be so, all they can do is to say lamely and without any real thought , "Well my Grand Lodge says you aren't!" In the words of John Huss, "O sancta simplicitas"
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 9, 2007 21:17:46 GMT
Bro. Philip, *I* repeat that this is a point upon which you and I don't agree. But we don't have to. B ro. Karen, I am also of the opinion that, overall, this issue is one for principles, rather than relativism.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 9, 2007 21:20:45 GMT
Now all I would ask of the likes of UGLE would be a Declaration similar to that given in respect of HFAF and OWF that Co-Masonry is Freemasonry. Bro. Lauderdale, That would be a welcome step.
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 9, 2007 21:37:45 GMT
In the words of John Huss, "O sancta simplicitas"Huss, as I recall, was burned by brothers who should have known better. So, yes, I think an apt reference B ro. Karen, I am also of the opinion that, overall, this issue is one for principles, rather than relativism. My dear Bro. Philip, I would never dream of dismissing your position so simply and unfairly. So, likewise, will I not answer. Peace.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 9, 2007 21:50:30 GMT
I would never dream of dismissing your position so simply and unfairly. Bro., Karen, You have, however, described it as being "evil"!?
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Aug 9, 2007 22:01:06 GMT
And so I believe it is.
You don't.
We don't agree.
We don't have to.
But I would never suggest my conclusions are more principled than your's. Nor would I dismiss your conclusions as being born of relativism. The former is an oversimplification. The latter is unfair. Both are unkind.
And so it goes.
Peace.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 9, 2007 23:24:38 GMT
Bro. Karen,
You appear to say my position is principled but evil!? (Like wanting to have your cake and eat it too). In doing so, you seem to regard accusations of evil more glibly than do I: For me, it is like an elephant standing between us. I suggest you state the principles upon which you base your position and I will repeat and elaborate those on which I base mine. We may find our respective positions are not too far apart.
|
|