In the 21st century, why does Freemasonry still discriminate against women ?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It really is and long has been a man's world, which when you look at the benefit of that, cheifly that we have a specific group to blame it's problems and failures on, certainly does absolve others of the lion share of the responsibility.

It had been a world of equal gender roles for far longer before it descended into patriarchy and the commoditisation of humans, women primarily. Prior to settled existence, and for a good time after, men and women, were judged equally on merit and ability.

Besides, as quaint as your outlook may be, I am perfectly able to take responsibility for my own actions and do not require a legal guardian.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I can't honestly say if we would be better off or worse off if it were a woman's world, because hypotheticals like that are so hard to attach real evidence for one way or the other.

Matriarchies preceded patriarchy. They weren't any better. I don't seek a 'woman's world', I have equal rights, so I don't actually seek anything myself, I request that everyone, regardless of gender, has the same rights that I do. Currently the women of the US do not, not in a fundamental way that is integral to their national identity, in terms of the constitution, they are still chattel. But they are also, the women of the US, perfectly capable of fighting for those rights themselves, they live, after all in a democratic republic.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I will say this though, that more men are becoming better in touch with their feminine side, and more women appear to becoming intouch with their masculine side.

Feminine and masculine primarily being those gender roles the an individual society constructs.

Therefore a society, such as yours, that promotes gender stereotypes, would be inclined to think in terms of a 'feminine side' or a 'masculine side'. Nonsense. My gender does not exclude me from doing anything that a man can do, my physical size may do, but not all women are small framed, and nor are all men bigger than all women. Biodiversity. Your society, and mine to a less recent extent, excluded women from certain positions not because of capability but because of economics. Women have a very rich history in all the artisan crafts, and there are accounts of women blacksmiths, masons, carpenters, coopers, cordswainers, merchants, bankers, soldiers and brewers, to name but a few, throughout the middle ages, and across all of europe. The rise of the town, gave men and women alike, the opportunity to escape serfdom and become 'freemen' and 'freewomen'. By the beginning of the 1500s, women were achieving positions of power and influence again. Things didn't go so well for a while after that, many of those rights gained, were removed.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
So I think overall both sexes are benefiting from that additional ballance, but as long as there are phsyical differences, and we aren't exclusively breeding by test tube, there will continue to be some real friction between the sexes and as a result a desire to segregate when it comes to certain activities or environments.

I certainly enjoy the intellectual company of women, often at large gatherings where men and women tend to segregate themselves along those lines of sex, I will abandon my fellow men to hang out with the women, because I do often find the variety of topics and depths of the discussion to be more stimulating.

I do have to say though, of course I spend a little bit of time chatting with the guys too, and they really are conversations that seem to exist in two different worlds amongst almost two completely different species.

As long as that's the case, I think there will always be that desire to segregate when it comes to certain topics of conversation and interests.

Men and women are different, and personally I think that's a good thing, it creates another vantage point, that when and where the sexes do effectively communicate lead to a much more healthier, balanced and productive individual.

Conversely in a completely integrated world, it would likely be a world where everyone had the same vantage point and that might create more drawbacks than benefits.

I know I have benefited immensely from my desire and willingness to seek out the feminine perspective in relation to all manners of aspects of life that many men don't bother to seek out.

Would that feminine perspective still be there in a totally integrated society, and would we be better off as a whole, with one homogenous take and perspective and vantage?

I don't think so, simply because nature didn't seem to think so. I could be wrong of course, but how likely is it that nature is wrong?

Men and women are different and personally I think that's a good thing.

I don't think in those terms. People are diverse, and covers can be misleading. Especially, if you ascribe 'values' or definition to what is or isn't feminine and masculine.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

I don't think in those terms. People are diverse, and covers can be misleading. Especially, if you ascribe 'values' or definition to what is or isn't feminine and masculine.

Feminine and masculine are not simply societal constructs, and religious constructs, but personal constructs, in fact if you identify yourself in any way that is not ‘a’ sexual, or ‘pan’ sexual then you yourself have your own unique definition of the sexes as they pertain to you, whether you recognize or care to admit it or not.

While I agree first and foremost all humans are humans, from there we start breaking it down along not just societal constructs, and religious constructs, but familiar and personal ones too.

Pretending otherwise is simply pretending otherwise, if it’s part of your identity and validation process, it’s part of your identity and validation process.

Besides, as quaint as your outlook may be, I am perfectly able to take responsibility for my own actions and do not require a legal guardian.

As far as your view on history, there does not seem to be much text book history to support your beliefs, though the lack of that certainly does not mean this was not the case.

It just hasn't been on display in any prevelant way in the last several thousand years.

Matriarchies preceded patriarchy. They weren't any better. I don't seek a 'woman's world', I have equal rights, so I don't actually seek anything myself, I request that everyone, regardless of gender, has the same rights that I do. Currently the women of the US do not, not in a fundamental way that is integral to their national identity, in terms of the constitution, they are still chattel. But they are also, the women of the US, perfectly capable of fighting for those rights themselves, they live, after all in a democratic republic.

Technically it's a representative republic which is in fact not a democracy. People get to make some selections in pre-screened candidates for office who then make laws entirely at their own discretion regardless of the will of the people.

In reality everyone residing in the United States is chattel as incorporated entities under the State they were born, the State's being incorporated entities in the Federal Government.

All citizens are equally encumbered legally in what is in essence a statist system of free range slavery, with officers of the Corporation and it's armed henchmen granted a degree of additional protections and priveleges.

Rights as opposed to liberties are those indulgences of freewill a human being exercises and takes responsiblity for, liberties are the priveleges extended by contract through and by the corporate government and it's charter.

Women as human beings do in fact have equal right to exert their freewill though depending on the circumstances they may be held to a different degree of accountability for the same acts committed by a man, in some cases enjoying greater consideration by the corporation and some cases enjoying lesser consideration by the corporation.

Therefore a society, such as yours, that promotes gender stereotypes, would be inclined to think in terms of a 'feminine side' or a 'masculine side'. Nonsense. My gender does not exclude me from doing anything that a man can do, my physical size may do, but not all women are small framed, and nor are all men bigger than all women.

Absurd and simply a disregard of anatomy, no you can not do everything a man can do because nature has not provided you some of the physical anatomy required to do so, likewise I can not do some things that a woman can do, bodily functions are bodily functions, and hormones and dna are hormones and dna.

Scientific categories may appear to be stereotypes by they are simply accurate renderings of the overall state of being that encompasses a closed and known entity.

Men and women are different.

Fact.

Your society, and mine to a less recent extent, excluded women from certain positions not because of capability but because of economics. Women have a very rich history in all the artisan crafts, and there are accounts of women blacksmiths, masons, carpenters, coopers, cordswainers, merchants, bankers, soldiers and brewers, to name but a few, throughout the middle ages, and across all of europe. The rise of the town, gave men and women alike, the opportunity to escape serfdom and become 'freemen' and 'freewomen'. By the beginning of the 1500s, women were achieving positions of power and influence again. Things didn't go so well for a while after that, many of those rights gained, were removed.

Interestingly enough Victorian England and it's Rule of Thumb were societal constructs under a Female Monarch while I do agree with you that economic factors are a prime impetus regarding shifting constructs in gender roles, religion too often plays a part.

Personally I believe it's best that people do what comes naturally to them and define for themselves what it means to be a man or a woman, since that is what they are afterall inclined to do.

It is not likely any two men or any two women or any two people are going to agree on what is a singular perspective as evidenced through the eyes and life experiences of one person.

As far as which came first the Chicken or the egg, that's a yet to be solved debate.

I like women, I am in favor of keeping them.

All things being egual.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Feminine and masculine are not simply societal constructs, and religious constructs, but personal constructs, in fact if you identify yourself in any way that is not ‘a’ sexual, or ‘pan’ sexual then you yourself have your own unique definition of the sexes as they pertain to you, whether you recognize or care to admit it or not.

While I agree first and foremost all humans are humans, from there we start breaking it down along not just societal constructs, and religious constructs, but familiar and personal ones too.

Pretending otherwise is simply pretending otherwise, if it’s part of your identity and validation process, it’s part of your identity and validation process.

No, you are misunderstanding me, or rather I am inadequately communicating my perspective. I believe all humans, are fundamentally individuals, within a societal construct. I consider preferences and predispositions, in terms of gender and sexuality to be 'private' and not matters that should be used as prejudgement of an individual's capability. I believe only their ability should be considered.

What is or isn't 'feminine' or what is or isn't 'masculine', is a value judgement based upon the OPINION of another or of another group of individuals, due to their preferences, and should not be imposed on the individual. So, what I oppose, is the immediate exclusion of me (as representative of 'woman'), from what one person may consider a 'traditionally male' profession, simply because I am a woman, and not even allowing me to be judged on my ability. Or even accepting that I am capable of realising that I will have to work twice as hard as my male counterparts to achieve a degree of success. I do not ascribe special deference for women, just that they have the ability and freedom to choose for themselves what they want to be when they grow up.

As I have previously stated, I have access to those rights and do not take for granted the processes and personal sacrifices of those that earned me those rights. These 'rights', equality, has nothing to do with whether you perceive me to be feminine because I bake a cake, or masculine because I build a fence, I either can or can't do those things. Having a penis or vagina is no qualification to being able to labour physically, just as it isn't for tapping in words on a key board or for holding, to bring it back into context, public office.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
As far as your view on history, there does not seem to be much text book history to support your beliefs, though the lack of that certainly does not mean this was not the case.

It just hasn't been on display in any prevelant way in the last several thousand years.

There is not a vast body of historical research into 'her-story' if that is what you mean, and it is mostly confined to academic works. The stories that get repeated for mass consumption tend to involve concubines and courtesans. Sex sells, hard honest graft does not. But given that in feudal lordships, the lord 'owned' all unmarried women and had to give his permission for them to marry, often taking the right to deflower themselves, it is understandable that amongst the peasant classes, many women chose to take up the cry from the towns to gain their freedom. If after living for one year and one day in a town, without their former lord claiming them, they could be granted freedom of the city, and take up a profession. The only other escape, or for those women who sought education, was the convent. Many women chose not to marry, or remarry after widowhood, because they valued their freedom to chose for themselves the work they engaged in and to retain ownership rights as an individual.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Technically it's a representative republic which is in fact not a democracy. People get to make some selections in pre-screened candidates for office who then make laws entirely at their own discretion regardless of the will of the people.

In reality everyone residing in the United States is chattel as incorporated entities under the State they were born, the State's being incorporated entities in the Federal Government.

All citizens are equally encumbered legally in what is in essence a statist system of free range slavery, with officers of the Corporation and it's armed henchmen granted a degree of additional protections and priveleges.

Rights as opposed to liberties are those indulgences of freewill a human being exercises and takes responsiblity for, liberties are the priveleges extended by contract through and by the corporate government and it's charter.

Yes, but under such a system, even under my own constitutional monarchy, the individual has the right to generate support and institute change. Patience and persistence, are a requirement of course. Whether the will is exerted is down to the will in question.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Women as human beings do in fact have equal right to exert their freewill though depending on the circumstances they may be held to a different degree of accountability for the same acts committed by a man, in some cases enjoying greater consideration by the corporation and some cases enjoying lesser consideration by the corporation.

I am sure they can handle equal responsibility, don't worry your pretty little head about it, they don't need special treatment or any sweeteners, just equality in the law and the constitution.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Absurd and simply a disregard of anatomy, no you can not do everything a man can do because nature has not provided you some of the physical anatomy required to do so, likewise I can not do some things that a woman can do, bodily functions are bodily functions, and hormones and dna are hormones and dna.

I can't piss standing up admittedly, I don't have a penis. I have a womb and ovaries, and I have successfully (and to perfection), reproduced. I don't need an anatomy lesson. I am not claiming that I can do all the things that some men can do, I am not even claiming I can do all the things that some women can do, but I can do the things that I can do, and I don't need anyone to tell me that I can't do those things because I am feminine and shouldn't do those things.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Scientific categories may appear to be stereotypes by they are simply accurate renderings of the overall state of being that encompasses a closed and known entity.

No, not at all, you're getting yourself all confused now. We require two genders to reproduce. Mammals, unlike all the other lifeforms, do not have the ability to self-replicate. We form a whole from two halves. One individual from components from two individuals. That individual will, usually, be born with either male or female genitalia. That is as far as medical and scientific definitions go in terms of definition of gender. I have no problem with that.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Men and women are different.

Fact.

Yes, they are, well done. Physiologically speaking at any rate.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Interestingly enough Victorian England and it's Rule of Thumb were societal constructs under a Female Monarch while I do agree with you that economic factors are a prime impetus regarding shifting constructs in gender roles, religion too often plays a part.

Well, Victoria didn't have a high opinion of her own gender, and though a reasonably charming and intelligent woman, able statesman, she was totally dependent on her advisors and government, as well as her husband. She had been bred that way. I don't think she thought all that much of 'us' plebs at all and just signed whatever she was told to. The City of London was driven by increasing expenditure in The Great Game, combined with increased poverty in both urban and rural communities, high unemployment, poor sanitary conditions, combined wth increasing levels of prostitution and infanticide. By increasing the level of policing of those crimes, they were able to provide men and women for the colonies, they had done this the century before, but they conducted a wholesale clean up of urban crime spots and sent them all out to Van Diemen's Land and the such like, thus cleaning up the country, cheaply and effectively and providing the man power to hang onto and fully exploit those new world assets. Whole boatloads of convicted prostitutes were sent over to even out the balance. Stealing an orange in Victorian England, could get you hanged, or transported to Australia for life.

Women therefore, became encouraged to act modestly and to ignore sexual temptations for fear it would lead to their fall from grace and transportation to the other side of the world. Propaganda, in the form of penny fiction, told tales of fallen women, not too unlike the same titilation/guilt tactic Goebbels used in his units films, Jud Suss, and the Wandering Jew. Of course this was all for the peasantry, or working classes as we are now called, the elites continued bed hopping licentiousness as before, as the collections of erotic from the period attest to. Women of the working classes were seen as 'bad' if they took work outside the home, or 'bad' if they didn't wear the black and veil of the widow for the rest of their lives, 'bad' if they left their husbands, 'bad' if they drank, 'bad' if they enjoyed male company...in fact it was just 'bad' to be a woman in Victorian England, because it is women that lead men astray evidently and everything that is female about us needs to be hidden away and a married women should be at all times in the home. Which is the ideal if you are then going to try and get all the men to leave the women and go fight wars in some places they have never even heard of. They want to know that their women are at home chaste, strong and true. The Officers got to take their wives with them, so they didn't need to worry about such things.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Personally I believe it's best that people do what comes naturally to them and define for themselves what it means to be a man or a woman, since that is what they are afterall inclined to do.

Exactly!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It is not likely any two men or any two women or any two people are going to agree on what is a singular perspective as evidenced through the eyes and life experiences of one person.

As far as which came first the Chicken or the egg, that's a yet to be solved debate.

Well if we're going to talk biologically, it's all female...but that goes to the wall when we get chemical, elementary I am afraid, and moot.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I like women, I am in favor of keeping them.

All things being egual.

It is certainly more interesting this way. I should imagine...although...hmmm? Definately more fun this way, my imaginings were interesting but not overly pleasant with regard to the alternative.

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.

AIN'T I A WOMAN?

by Sojourner Truth (Delivered 1851 at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio)


www.feminist.com...

We want to be something more than the appendages of Society; we want that Woman should be the coequal and help-meet of Man in all the interest and perils and enjoyments of human life. We want that she should attain to the development of her nature and womanhood; we want that when she dies, it may not be written on her gravestone that she was the "relict" of somebody

The last speaker alluded to this movement as being that of a few disappointed women. From the first years to which my memory stretches, I have been a disappointed woman... I was disappointed when I came to seek a profession worthy an immortal being—every employment was closed to me, except those of the teacher, the seamstress, and the housekeeper. In education, in marriage, in religion, in everything, disappointment is the lot of woman. It shall be the business of my life to deepen this disappointment in every woman's heart until she bows down to it no longer.

en.wikiquote.org...

Lucy Stone

(August 13, 1818 – October 19, 1893) was a prominent American abolitionist and suffragist, and a vocal advocate and organizer promoting rights for women.[1] In 1847, Stone was the first woman from Massachusetts to earn a college degree. She spoke out for women's rights and against slavery at a time when women were discouraged and prevented from public speaking. Stone was the first recorded American woman to retain her own last name after marriage.

en.wikipedia.org...

Lucy's 'support network'....

I have half-believed for a long time that you were preparing for a public speaker, though I hoped I might be mistaken. Not that I think I wrong in itself, but because I think it an employment a great many grades below, what I believe my only and dearly loved sister qualified to engage in. I don't hardly know what you mean by "laboring for the restoration and salvation of our sex" but I conclude you mean a salvation from some thralldom imposed by man. Now my sister I don't believe woman is groaning under half so heavy a yoke of bondage as you imagine. I am sure I do not feel burdened by anything man has laid upon me, be sure I can't vote, but what care I for that, I would not if I could. I know there is a distinction made in the wages of males and females when they perform the same labor, this I think is unjust, and it is the only thing in which woman is oppressed, that I know of, but women have no one to blame, but themselves in this matter. If as a general thing they had qualified themselves, as men have they would command the same price, but they have not, and the few who have are obliged to suffer on that account. I think my sister if you would spend the remainder of your life in educating our sex, you would do afar greater good than you will if you spend your noble energies in forever hurling "back the insults and indignities that men heap upon us." This I am sure you can never do "by the grace of God" for it is entirely contrary to his spirit and teachings. My sister commit your ways unto the Lord, and he will direct your steps.

Letter from Lucy's sister, Sarah Stone (1846-11-28)


Now Miss Lucy, you will hear what Mother thinks about your Public Speaking. Mother said she had rather you would marry and have a pair [of] twin babies every year. She did not say how many years. Mother cannot bear to think of your Preaching or Lecturing. She thinks it is a wrong course for you to take, says if you go to Lecturing you will fix it so you can’t keep school. Mother wants you should Teach, she thinks you would do the most good that way. You will want to know [my] mind. I don’t know what to tell you. You know it will make much talk in our quarter of the World. You will do that which seems right in your own eyes. I suppose, to be honest, I like mother’s plan better than yours. You are of age to [do] that which you think is your duty. Mother says she cannot find no place where Christ ever sent Women to Preach. We shall want to hear from you as soon as you get this, you will write what you think about Mother’s plan.

Letter from Lucy’s father, Francis Stone


The Bible says, “Let your women keep silence.” It is flying in the face of Providence!

Letter from Lucy’s mother, Hannah Stone


If you think you have got brass enough, and can do more good by giving public lectures than any other way, I say go to it. But Mother doesn’t like the idea.

Letter from Lucy’s brother, Frank Stone; to which his wife added a postscript: Lucy, if there should be any probability of your changing your mind, I hope you will let Mother Stone know it the first thing, for she feels dreadfully about it. Mother wants you to think carefully of it, and see if you cannot do more good teaching than by lecturing. And if you think you must lecture, she wants to know if you don’t think you could do more good by going from house to house...


I believe Sarah said in her last letter that if you intend lecturing she hoped you would not come into this State. I wish you to do what you think is your duty. If you violate your sense of duty to please your friends, you will lose more than you will gain.

Letter from Lucy’s brother, Bowman Stone

en.wikiquote.org...







TALITHA CUMI!

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (November 12, 1815 – October 26, 1902) was an American social activist, abolitionist, and leading figure of the early woman's movement. Her Declaration of Sentiments, presented at the first women's rights convention held in 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York, is often credited with initiating the first organized woman's rights and woman's suffrage movements in the United States.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

I asked them why one read in the synagogue service every week the "I thank thee, O Lord, that I was not born a woman." "It is not meant in an unfriendly spirit, and it is not intended to degrade or humiliate women." "But it does, nevertheless. Suppose the service read, 'I thank thee, O Lord, that I was not born a jackass.' Could that be twisted in any way into a compliment to the jackass?"

womenshistory.about.com...

Freemasonry does not discriminate against women. They have their own Masonic groups----Rainbow Girls, eastern Star, Jobs Daughters, etc.

reply to post by Alethea

It would be ridiculous to talk of male and female atmospheres, male and female springs or rains, male and female sunshine . . . . how much more ridiculous is it in relation to mind, to soul, to thought, where there is as undeniably no such thing as sex, to talk of male and female education and of male and female schools.

womenshistory.about.com...

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Declaration of Sentiments, also known as the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments,[1] is a document signed in 1848 by 68 women and 32 men, 100 out of some 300 attendees at the first women's rights convention, in Seneca Falls, New York, now known as the Seneca Falls Convention. The principal author of the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who based it on the form of the United States Declaration of Independence. According to the North Star, published by Frederick Douglass, whose attendance at the convention and support of the Declaration helped pass the resolutions put forward, the document was the "grand basis for attaining the civil, social, political, and religious rights of women."[2]

At a time when traditional roles were still very much in place, the Declaration caused much controversy. Many people respected the courage and abilities behind the drafting of the document, but were unwilling to abandon conventional mindsets. An article in the Oneida Whig published soon after the convention described the document as "the most shocking and unnatural event ever recorded in the history of womanity." Many newspapers insisted that the Declaration was drafted at the expense of women's more appropriate duties. At a time when temperance and female property rights were major issues, even many supporters of women's rights believed the Declaration's endorsement of women's suffrage would hinder the nascent women's rights movement, causing it to lose much needed public support.

Men need to get away from women from time to time, plain and simple.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
reply to post by Alethea

 

It would be ridiculous to talk of male and female atmospheres, male and female springs or rains, male and female sunshine . . . . how much more ridiculous is it in relation to mind, to soul, to thought, where there is as undeniably no such thing as sex, to talk of male and female education and of male and female schools.

womenshistory.about.com...

Albert Einstein was not a fan of co-ed schools. He said the boys would not be able to pay any attention to his lectures with girls in the room, and the boys that were paying attention to him would not be worth teaching.

I do not understand how people can contend that there is not a difference in the sexes? Of course we are entirely different. Worse yet, we are entirely polar opposites, with immeasurable attractions to one another, and an impossible knack for misinterpreting one another.

No only that, but people that constantly seek to insert themselves into their spouses activities are often times suffering from codependency and it is not healthy for either spouse.

There is nothing wrong with "male" activities and "female" activities.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Albert Einstein was not a fan of co-ed schools. He said the boys would not be able to pay any attention to his lectures with girls in the room, and the boys that were paying attention to him would not be worth teaching.

OOOOoooooh! I see! Therefore, the answer to the OP, Sherlock Holmes, would be, that the Freemasons continue to exclude women because they, the Freemasons, are incapable as functioning, as human beings, when in the presence of said women.

So, while Freemasonry, can make good men better, that, is all that they can hope to be, men. Poor, pathetic, weak creatures. I almost feel sorry for you now. That is the saddest thing I ever heard. Bless.

Once they have become 'good men', then, and presumably only then, can they, freemasons, be deemed safe in the wider world and free from exploitation from the female sex. Or perhaps, the 33rd degree is when you are able to transcend your gentle sex, and become a full human being?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I do not understand how people can contend that there is not a difference in the sexes? Of course we are entirely different. Worse yet, we are entirely polar opposites, with immeasurable attractions to one another, and an impossible knack for misinterpreting one another.

I for one am not contending any lack of difference, not in the sense that you are proposing, and further, I am quite capable of learning in the presence of the opposite sex. Further I enjoy the competition of difference. On all levels.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
No only that, but people that constantly seek to insert themselves into their spouses activities are often times suffering from codependency and it is not healthy for either spouse.

There is nothing wrong with "male" activities and "female" activities.

Look if the only way you can get rid of your missus is to go to an all boys club, fair play to you. Why should I have any objection to that? Or for the ladies who want to avoid their spouse and just want to hang with the girls...each to their own. However, I wonder, have you tried to explain to your wife that she is intruding on your space? Communication is key you know? Or do you become a gibbering wreck in from of her as well? How do you guys survive so long without exploding? How do you concentrate/function at work? It must be an incredibly debilitating condition to suffer from. I mean, these days, they let women go everywhere...

You, poor, poor boys.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Thank you, we have important business to discuss amongst ourselves as men, such as who has to clean the toilet or prepare the next month's meal, and we cannot conduct business in the presence of distracting sinewy legs, necks, backs, and abdomens! I'm glad you finally get it. Men are simple creatures, and we are easily distracted.

In all seriousness my response was just to your small quote that it is ridiculous to speak of male and female atmospheres or rain or etc.. When speaking of mammals, it is not ridiculous to speak in terms of male and female, because we do indeed exist, uniquely, and separately.

That discussion is probably tangential to the topic of the OP, which was about Masonry in particular, and I think I already posted earlier that we don't have any good reasons, other than tradition. Still, I believe tradition is as good a reason as any. I don't see any reason to change just for the sake of change. It would not be beneficial to the current fraternity or the women in any way, so why do it? If there were something that the women were missing out on, or some great privilege or knowledge, then perhaps it could be considered discriminatory, but that isn't the case. All the knowledge is available in any bookstore or internet, and the Order of the Eastern Star is equivalent to Freemasonry, so there just isn't a reason to throw away the tradition.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I think you just don't understand the males attention span. We can focus on the task at hand and make any adjustments we need to in order to have perfect success in repair or in the building of said task, but when we get distracted, we might.............Oh look, something shiny.

its a fraternity. it just is.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
In all seriousness my response was just to your small quote that it is ridiculous to speak of male and female atmospheres or rain or etc.. When speaking of mammals, it is not ridiculous to speak in terms of male and female, because we do indeed exist, uniquely, and separately.

As is each individual, regardless of gender. We are not slaves to our reproductive systems, as is almost every other mammal. Human females have a menopause and live considerably beyond their being reproductively useful, something almost unique amongst mammals, I think only a couple of species of whales do too. We have, in short, evolved to be 'useful' to the group, beyond our ability to reproduce. And we have been given pretty much the same tools as our male counterparts, we just have had, over the last 100 or so centuries, a little less time, let alone right, to exploit them. Thankfully though that is changing. Still, very slowly for some though.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
That discussion is probably tangential to the topic of the OP, which was about Masonry in particular, and I think I already posted earlier that we don't have any good reasons, other than tradition. Still, I believe tradition is as good a reason as any. I don't see any reason to change just for the sake of change.

Neither do I, not for the sake of it, and it, as I too have explained in this thread, causes me no offence.

What I do take offence at is the ignorance of the basis of those traditions. I can get a little bit niggly over that one.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

We are not slaves to our reproductive systems, as is almost every other mammal. Human females have a menopause and live considerably beyond their being reproductively useful, something almost unique amongst mammals, I think only a couple of species of whales do too.

It is quite possible that you females have out-evolved the males. Us males are still slaves to our reproductive systems. Our hormones rule our though patterns from age 15 to 99! Honestly, I am surprised we ever get anything accomplished. Maybe mine are worse than some others, and there are obviously men that deal with it more appropriately, but just take a look around at marketing and packaging and see what the number one driving factor is. It is always sex appeal!

I think you are probably correct, maybe even conservative in your estimate. Women are not only useful, they are absolutely necessary to keep things running smoothly.

Even among Masons, it is often the women that keep things organized behind the scenes. I could never have completed my year as Worshipful Master, or planned any of our major events, or pulled off our Installation Ceremony without the leadership of my wife!

Originally posted by getreadyalready

It is quite possible that you females have out-evolved the males. Us males are still slaves to our reproductive systems. Our hormones rule our though patterns from age 15 to 99!

Women have the same hormonal tendencies as men. We are slaves to our sex drives only if we allow ourselves to be so. Plato had a lot to say about that in the Republic.

Maybe mine are worse than some others, and there are obviously men that deal with it more appropriately, but just take a look around at marketing and packaging and see what the number one driving factor is. It is always sex appeal!

That's true, but again, only if we buy into it. The fact of the matter is, that while sex is enjoyable, it is outlandishly overrated in our society, as if it were the be all / end all of our very existence. As intelligent and rational beings, we have the ability to subdue our passions. Whether or not we actually do so is entirely a conscious decision.

Re: Kilgore, concerning the exclusion of females in Freemasonry:

I've heard some pretty wild explanations in my time. The history of the "men's house" in the various cultures, where a young man, upon coming of age, is staken by his elders into a secret place or sweat lodge, and then initiated in the traditions of his culture, probably strongly influenced early Freemasonry. Secondly, there is the Osirian symbolism in Masonry. If we interpret Freemasonry from a Kabalistic viewpoint, we see that the Society initiates candidates into the male/Osirian mysteries, whereas the female/Isisian mysteries would be more appropriate for women.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Even among Masons, it is often the women that keep things organized behind the scenes. I could never have completed my year as Worshipful Master, or planned any of our major events, or pulled off our Installation Ceremony without the leadership of my wife!

I am sure that when not helping you achieve greatness, she is also accomplished in many ways in her own right.

I'm reading alot about the 17th century at the moment, and it is interesting to see the emergence within both the upper and lower classes a drive amongst women to break free of roles that were predefined for them in way they were not for men at that time. A significant number of women chose to join the armies fighting in Europe, as well as the Navy, accepting like men, the chance to make something of themselves and earn some 'booty'. They had to relinquish their womenhood of course. There are reports of women showing great bravery and distinction in battle. Many more chose the convent so that they could continue their education, but they would only be allowed that course if they had no value in sex or marriage. Which is why many chose instead to run away to the military. At the very top of the heap, the royalty and aristocracy, a woman had no choice at all. They were bred purely for purpose. One family line I am reading about, 3 generations of royal mistresses, and in the second and third generations, that included cousins, courtesans by birth and parental design. Incidently that line includes both Diana, Princess of Wales and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall by the time it reaches the twentieth century.

In short, while many women gain satisfaction and always have done, in being a part of a unit, just as some men do, some women don't and some men don't. And while the latter has always been accepted, the former has not. And, in some countries, the status of women is far below that of women in17th century England. Which is my only gripe, since I'm alright in that respect and find it mind boggling that a human being can be considered someone elses property in this day and age. And although the women of the US have all the legal rights of their male counterparts, to all intents and purposes, the fact that the Constitution still holds them as not equal to men, is an affront to the contribution they made to the country. These documents are so often held up in these parts as defining what it is to be an American and yet they deny women equal status in freedom and personal sovereignty.

I don't understand why it has been so hard to get that small, supposedly insignificant little sentence ratified.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I've heard some pretty wild explanations in my time. The history of the "men's house" in the various cultures, where a young man, upon coming of age, is staken by his elders into a secret place or sweat lodge, and then initiated in the traditions of his culture, probably strongly influenced early Freemasonry. Secondly, there is the Osirian symbolism in Masonry. If we interpret Freemasonry from a Kabalistic viewpoint, we see that the Society initiates candidates into the male/Osirian mysteries, whereas the female/Isisian mysteries would be more appropriate for women.

From what I am reading at the moment, which has so far brushed up against a few future Freemasons, Alchemists and Royal Societers, that it really comes down to it being a matter of that being the way things were. Women were excluded from every realm but the home, or if let out, it was only for decoration. It would have been hugely radical of them to allow women, or like the Hellfire lot, scandalous, however decent or spiritual, their intentions. But, I doubt, given the type of men that some of them were, that it would have even crossed their minds.

The earliest enactments of the western mysteries were not segregated according to gender as far as I can tell. Anything post Abraham will obviously be segregated.