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

The Freemason Fraternity is a "Fraternity" As in any other "Franternity" at any college in the USA, a Fraternity is made up of men. There is a "sister" group or "soroity" if you will called the Order of the Eastern Stars, which is only for women.

Saying ''it's a fraternity'', is as much of an ethical justification for their bigoted membership rules as a bunch of white people forming a group and declaring it a ''caucasianity'', prohibiting non-whites from joining.



Ok so youre saying all of the hundreds of "Fraternities" all throughout the US are bigoted? And all the "Soroities" all through the US as well? Is it not possible that men and women sometimes need 1 place where they can go and just be around people of the same sex to get away from the issues that we all have to deal with when dealing with the opposite sex?

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

I agree with you. I think we should let women in. I bet the Senior deacon's spot would be the most sought after post. What with receiving the candidates and all.

I stand by my initial post. You help me get into a sorority and I will help whichever women you want get into masonry. You understand of course that my chances of accomplishing this task are only slightly better than your task of getting a 42 year old guy into a sorority filled with sexy young college girls.

Who's with me?

Hint: Just look for the advertisements that say "In Call Only"

Remember dues can be pretty expensive for these sororities and they are not as known for their charitible works!

Naturally this might require you only participate on a 'limited' basis.

However your dedication to equality and harmony between the sexes is quite admirable and perhaps even something your brothers can help support you in through a raffle or other event to help defray the cost of this all important outreach and integration program you bravely and selflessly want to embark on.

This is also a intrinsic part of the successful practice of Reganomics and a trickle down economy that if frequently pursued could restore America to it's former vitality and result in real growth!

If not you then who, if not now then when?

To bravely endeavor to perservere, to seek out and go where no man has gone before, to become the epitome of nothing ventured, nothing gained, I would dare say, is perhaps the greatest thing any man can do.

Carry on, and God's speed!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


you have brought this into a whole different light so to speak. I would be helping the economy as well as being a leader in the economic stimulus of a nation in trouble. I feel empowered after you post. Just wow! Thanks Proto!

(in call only)

reply to post by network dude


If you find a source of funding, please don't forget your brotherly obligations. I am willing to make this sort of sacrifice in the name of goodwill and community outreach. My funding has always been an issue in the past, but if we get over that hurdle, I am more than willing to make the sacrifice and join you in your efforts!

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

you have brought this into a whole different light so to speak. I would be helping the economy as well as being a leader in the economic stimulus of a nation in trouble. I feel empowered after you post. Just wow! Thanks Proto!

(in call only)

Well as one of your Brother's has been known to say "I have a profound talent" for seeing the possibilities.

Thankfully I see the Masons as a bastion of hope and progress dedicated to building a better and healthier society so I am always happy to encourage those noble pursuits, during these dark days, where men of principle and high moral fibre are under constant attack from all direction, besieged by a mediocrity designed to incorporate them into the lowest possible common denominator.

If such people had their druthers, discretion and the better part of valor would become a thing of the past, and gentlemanly pursuits and the chivalrous concepts that were once the halmark of a civilized society would fall into the dustbin of history and obscurity.

Clearly if this thread is saying anything at all, it is that women in particular have the need for and guidance of Masons and wish to be closer in real ways to the Brothers, and while fools rush in where wise men fear to tread, we must remember that neither wisdom or masculinity is involved in that effort.

So it then does become contingent upon you to respond by making yourself more available while at the same time adhering to your principles of charity and love!

Problem...solution, reach out and show you care!

Eastern Star is an appendage of Freemasonry. Women are not discriminated against in Freemasonry. They are free to join the order specifically meant for them. Some things are meant for men, and some things are meant for women. It is what it is, there's nothing discriminatory about it.

Originally posted by vinay86
if freemasonry is a charitable organization than why it does not actively participate in charitable activities

It does. Each Lodge, District, etc. has its own favourite charities and causes and direct their efforts accordingly. On Raising, new Master Masons are reminded that the purpose of charitable acts is not recognition. Perhaps this explains in part why you may not be aware of Masonic participation in charity

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
It's the principle, though.

I'm a man, and I've had two potential opportunities to join the Masons in the last 5 years, but I declined for this reason only.

It wouldn't sit with my conscience.

Maturity is also expected of candidates for Masonry. Somehow having a sig line that reads "Severe pwnage numero uno !" suggests that a lack of women in a fraternity isn't what's motivating your screed. I would expect something more from someone who asserts himself to be at least 25 years old.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Despite my probing questions, four pages on, there has not been an argument to justify the sexual discrimination in their membership criteria.

This is telling.

You seem to be the only one claiming that fraternities and sororities amount to sexual discrimination. Adults of both genders on the main would disagree with your position. Live with it. Your opinion is infallible truth to you only

I have received a warning for some of my posts in this thread.

I would like to apologise if I offended anybody and went too far with some of my comments. My intention is not to upset or antagonise people, but some things just need to be said.

I shall attempt to moderate my attitude in this thread, and will strive to post with a little more civility and decorum.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I have received a warning for some of my posts in this thread.

I would like to apologise if I offended anybody and went too far with some of my comments. My intention is not to upset or antagonise people, but some things just need to be said.

I shall attempt to moderate my attitude in this thread, and will strive to post with a little more civility and decorum.

Actually in reality no, some things don't need said. While Masosn are not postive of the exact point in time their craft originated it has been by all accounts at least several hundred yeas and possibly over a thousand or more.

It's always been a male fraternity so no you sure aren't telling them anything new that they weren't aware of themselves, that's its a fraternal order with an exclusively male membership.

Take the Viriginia Military Institute, one of the oldest private military colleges in the United States with a deep storied tradition.

It's a challenge being a young man there, very challenging, but women, worked and worked to get a couple of girls accepted at the school and you know what, to almost every last none they have absolutely hated it. It's meant to be incredibly challenging to men, and the women have to try to do the same rigorous and constant excersise, exude and display the same rigorous discipline, wear the same unflattering uniforms, with the even less flattering haircuts while at the same time achieving and maintaining some active degree of real academic achievement.

I on the other hand was choosing to part with playboy centerfolds in the Hollywood Hills during these crucial formative years, so I can't figure out why men, let alone women would want to go through this.

But the truth is the women who go to VMI not only face many crisis and difficult moments during their time at the school, but almsot all of them have to be recruited by women's groups, and put to them as if it's there duty for all of women everywhere and not one anywhere in their right mind wants to go there.

It's just important to make a political statement to men's groups.

Unlike most VMI Graduates they won't be going on into combat commands or important adjunct positiosn on officer's staffs. They will be the token woman too in some outfit, or post, or desk job.

So what's the real point here, just proving women can be pushy enough and obnoxious enough to insert themselves into a situation and a place where it truly makes no sense for them to be, just to prove what, they won't be denied?

Tradition be damned, so it really is just stupid politics and serving nonsense, where whole institutions are compromised by token elements who just go on to something else compromised as a result.

Meanwhile there is still be bucks to be made in the Betty Crocker Pie Cook Off, and honestly Hugh Hefner is not looking for a few good men, the Marines are.

So no it shouldn't have to be said, because somethings really are the way they are for a reason, and it really is a good reason, and just because some people want to compromise things for the sake of comrpromising things doesn't mean that is wise or even right.

You see what you don't get, is it's not about Masons not respecting women, it's about women NOT respecting that yes some men do enjoy and want some all male environments, and they want them for their own reason, and well any women who can't respect that, probably doesn't have much respect for herself or anyone else.

So really I don't understand why you honestly feel you need to speak one word on this subject. some would say our society has no cohesion any more and unity in any important political matter, because it's lost all of it's convictions and traditions.

It really is just another human being who can't respect and abide by some group's mutual desire to do things their way.

Does that really need to be said, I honestly don't think so.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Originally posted by HarmonicNights

Nowhere did I agree with tyrannical laws...

You most certainly did. Aren't you a slick one...you edited your post and erased your comment about how more discrimination laws should be enforced. You blatantly said something to the effect of "laws should be put into place stop this kind of discrimination", in reference to freemasonry.

People aren't ''forced'' to mingle; we are talking about morals and consciences here.

It WOULD be forcing people to mingle if you told a fraternity/sorority that they HAD to allow men/women into their club. There's nothing immoral about those with a similarity wanting to bond.

Btw, when you use talking points such as "archaic beliefs" or "get with the 21st century", you are simply saying that people should conform to whatever is popular at the time simply because it's the mainstream mindset.

I demand access to Female domestic abuse centers, in the name of equality. I demand access to female prisons, I DEMAND THE RIGHT TO BECOME A NUN!

I've been thinking about my reply on this thread. I actually came back and I read Sherlock's reply. You're right, my analogy didn't fully answer your beef with the fraternity (since what you're talking about is genetic). I think it comes down to the word "discriminate" - the word seems to always have a bad connotation no matter what the denotation might be. I discriminate all the time - in what I eat, where I go, who I talk to, what I wear and in almost all the choices I make. Those discriminations aren't prejudicially motivated though.

One might say that we discriminate against kids because we don't allow boys to be a part of the fraternity (although there's deMolay just as there's Eastern Star for women). And so, yes, we discriminate against boys. They're not allowed into our fraternity because the fraternity isn't directed to speak specifically to boys, just as it's not speaking directly to the needs of women. Could we refashion the whole fraternity and have it just be an organization (and no longer a fraternity) so that women could join? Sure. And I believe there are "co-masonry" groups around the world that do something similar. Those groups aren't officially recognized though as the fraternity has all these bizarre rules about what's "clandestine" or "irregular" which I still don't fully understand.

Bottom line is that yes, we discriminate against women, but it's not in a prejudicial way, no more than the NFL will likely never have any women players. Is that a bad thing? Should women be allowed to play in the NFL? I don't think so. Personally, I couldn't care less about football, but it is what it is and if someone wanted to change it you'd have to wonder why they really wanted the change in the first place.

You're obviously a passionate person. I like that. I like it when people believe in something enough to speak up. It means you care. You obviously care a lot about women and women's rights. I do too. I've been married to a wonderful girl for nearly 20 years now. We have 2 gorgeous daughters that are my life. I think every person on this planet needs to treat women with the same grand respect as their own mother or sister or daughter. Maybe your post is a good reminder to us all to evaluate how we treat the women in our lives and in our world.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I have one quick question for you that you will need to find the answer to online.

How should a candidate be prepared for the degree of Master mason?

Originally posted by network dude
How should a candidate be prepared for the degree of Master mason?

I would want to be Senior Deacon forever.

Me and my, er, sharp instrument.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
You realize, don't you, that prior to the 20th century the primary usage of the word "man" was to mean (from the Oxford English Dictionary) “a human being (irrespective of sex or age).”

You realise, don't you, that you are talking utter twaddle?

A dictionary is a record of 'published' or 'printed' words, indeed, the standard once was that to appear in the OED a word had to have first appeared in three seperate publications. As a written language, English is relatively young, and was not standardised, by print, until the rise of the London Print industry in the mid 1500s or thereabouts. And, the first large circulations in English were largely prayer books, and then the Authorised English Bible.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, 1 because she was taken out of Man. 2

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Mt. 19.5 · Mk. 10.7, 8 · 1 Cor. 6.16 · Eph. 5.31

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

www.bartleby.com...

For the majority of the English speaking world, that was the only book that they ever read, or more likely that was read to them. Everyone who had read that book knew what a 'man' was, as opposed to a 'woman' and would be far less likely to know the 'academic' or 'legal' terminology. It does not matter that the word, as meaning the male of the species, did not appear in enough publications to qualify for entry into a dictionary, what matters is that it appeared in the only publication that all had access to and therefore what the word meant to the 'majority' of people.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
All men created equal means all humans created equal. That was what it meant when they wrote it. It wasn't until 200 years later that the idea of "men" meaning only males became the dominant definition.

You're more than welcome to insult your own intelligence, but I really would rather you wouldn't extend the insult to mine.

When John Adams wrote those words he knew what they meant, his wife, Abigail had told him as much...

Adams was an advocate of married women's property rights and more opportunities for women, particularly in the field of education. Women, she believed, should not submit to laws not made in their interest, nor should they be content with the simple role of being companions to their husbands. They should educate themselves and thus be recognized for their intellectual capabilities, so they could guide and influence the lives of their children and husbands. She is known for her March 1776 letter to John and the Continental Congress, requesting that they, "...remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation. [1]

She was met with a response almost as feeble as yours.

John declined Abigail's "extraordinary code of laws," but acknowledged to Abigail, "We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Adams knew exactly what 'men' meant when he drafted the Massachuset's Constitution, and besides, he would have used a capital M, had it been denoting species, or he should have to avoid ambiguity.

The Adams were friends with Mary Wollenstonecraft, who following the French Revolution wrote a number of pamphlets criticising firstly the establised elitist hierarchy, 'In Vindication of the Rights of Man', there clearly denoting species, and later, 'In Vindication for the Rights of Women' when she realised that here too the women were once again going to suffer relegation now their purpose and support had served.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Don't believe the current OED? Go back to older dictionaries on Project Gutenberg... An old Webster's, definition #1 for Man "A human being; — opposed to beast

I am more than happy to trust the EOED, always, all other dictionaries are inferior by comparison. But dictionaries have limitations, one has to follow the root and trace the etymology because until 200 years ago very few people in the British Isles read, let alone wrote, and then it was most likely French or Latin, sometimes Hebrew. The People, the peasants, working classes, spoke English. 'Man' found it's way into English before the French influence, via the Saxon settlers, the nobility (or the Court) of England spoke French from the Norman conquest through to about early 1500s. Latin continued to be the language of education and law until the 1700s. Man, as meaning species, was the borrowing of a word meaning 'male' or more specifically 'husband', and the adaptation of meaning to most closely translate from a Latin or Greek word, not the other way around.

So, why, if it is a meaningless term, why all the feet dragging over the ERA? If 'men' doesn't really mean 'men' and means 'humans', why not let the ERA go through and change it to just that?

Because clearly, very clearly, some people want it that way? The dictionary says, that Man, meaning species, is 'archaic'. I tend to agree.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


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.

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.

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.

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.

Because you don't know much about Freemasonry beyond what some self-righteous Freemason wants you to trick you into believing.

That's like going to Georgia and asking why Blacks are not allowed to join.