# Organizations Discriminating Based on Gender **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 26, 2004, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700 "2004-12-26T19:42:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/121 "2004-12-30T17:46:46Z")
To the Masons: if it seems like you’re being singled out for criticism, I suspect it’s because you’re an organization that has secret meetings and rituals. If your organization does not admit women, some women are going to wonder what it is that you think they shouldn’t be allowed to participate in or even observe just because of their sex. I attended a women’s college myself so I’d be in no position to criticize anyone else for seeking out a single-sex environment. However, when it comes to single-sex schools, gyms, or casual girls’/boys’ nights, people of the opposite sex are not kept in the dark as to what is really going on. People are studying at single-sex schools, working out at single-sex gyms, etc. And single-sex schools, at least, are not even truly single-sex. There were plenty of male professors, staff members, visitors, and even a few male non-degree students at mine. Nothing special went on that men were forbidden to witness. (Except for our regular Satanic lesbian orgies, of course.) This is one reason why the Masons are not analagous to a women’s-only gym or a golfer’s-only club, because with those there’s no mystery as to what non-members are missing out on. You shut people out of your cool secret stuff solely because of their sex. That’s your business and I’m not suggesting that the law should step in, I’m just attempting to explain that this is bound to cause some resentment. > [@MGibson](#): > > Uh, men and women are different. One group lactates, gives birth, and of course we have different sexual organs. (Viva la difference) It seems perfectly intuitive to make such distictions when it comes to language. In fact, is there any language that doesn’t make any distiction based on sex? Lots of languages do not have different sets of pronouns for men and women. If you really mean _any_ distinction and not just pronouns like **Devil’s Advocate** was talking about then there may not be – every language I’m familiar with at least has a different word for “mother” and “father”. But plenty do not have an equivelant to the English “he/she” distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Wrath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ee7513/32.png) [@Wrath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrath)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/122 "2004-12-30T18:08:16Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > You shut people out of your cool secret stuff solely because of their sex. As has been stated before, gender is not the sole criteria for excluding folks from being made a Mason. We do not admit athiests, young men under 21 (or 18 in some places), convicted felons, and those with questionable intent and character. ---
**Author:** ![Devil\_s\_Advocate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Devil\_s\_Advocate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Devil_s_Advocate)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/123 "2004-12-30T20:09:04Z")
> [@Devil's Advocate](#): > > That seems to be the (largely unspoken) consensus among a large number of people, such that racism is acceptable in ways that sexism is not. That should have been “such that sexism is acceptable in ways that racism is not”. Or equivalently, “such that racism is unacceptable in ways that sexism is not”, although the former was what I _meant_ to type. Dammit. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/124 "2004-12-30T20:42:51Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > As has been stated before, gender is not the sole criteria for excluding folks from being made a Mason. We do not admit athiests, young men under 21 (or 18 in some places), convicted felons, and those with questionable intent and character. \*But a woman who believed in a Supreme Being, was over 21, not a convicted felon, and had no questionable intent or character would be barred solely because of her sex, right? Because that’s all that I said, that there are people excluded solely because of their sex. I never made the entirely different claim that sex was the sole reason anyone could ever be excluded from membership in the Masons. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/125 "2004-12-30T22:14:13Z")
On second thought, I see how my earlier post could have been confusing. However, all Freemasons may rest assured that I am already aware that you’ve got membership guidelines that are stricter than just “MEN ONLY! NO BROADS!” ---
**Author:** ![Devil\_s\_Advocate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Devil\_s\_Advocate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Devil_s_Advocate)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/126 "2004-12-30T22:27:56Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > There are plenty of clubs out there that exclude people for seemingly silly reasons. I read about a tall people club that requires females to be at least 6 foot and males to be 6’3" or 6’4". I have no idea why anyone would be intersested in such a club but apparantly some are. I don’t see why either. My point was that it seems strange to me that a club not specifically focused on, say, height, but that also concerns itself with what I would regard as more important things, would place such arbitrary restrictions on membership. I imagine a tall people club might discuss special difficulties faced by espicially tall people. Even then, I don’t see how it would be advantageous to disclude non-tall people from the discussion. It makes even less sense if a lot of their time is dedicated to improving their community or other non-tallness-specific things. On the other hand, it would still seem more worthwhile to me than, say, a golf club (no offense to golfers), and it’s not like I don’t do things I think are mainly a waste of time myself, so I certainly wouldn’t condemn them. It’s not that I think their restrictions on membership are wrong, just that they don’t make sense to me. But so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, I don’t see why people shouldn’t be able to set up whatever sort of club they want. If others want a similar organization that is more inclusive, they can certainly start one themselves. (Of course, as **Lamia** mentioned, that’s a bit difficult to do when the organization is secretive. However, I suspect that a lot of the Masons’ secret stuff is no less arbitrary than disallowing women, and that one could found a club with the same basic aims without being hampered by not inheriting a bunch of weird rituals. After all, if you believe in following tradition for tradition’s sake, then you believe the Masons should continue to exclude women, right?) > [@MGibson](#): > > Uh, men and women are different. One group lactates, gives birth, and of course we have different sexual organs. (Viva la difference) Well, of course. But these things are not relevant to most of the things I do in my life. I’m talking about the notion that gender extends beyond the physical and biological, such that a person’s _mind_ could meaningfully be called male or female. That, I believe, is the fundamental male/female dichotomy that seems so obvious to some people and almost incomprehensible to others. One may sort of grasp what people are talking about, but that doesn’t make the idea make any sense. (I have a similar relationship with the concept of “free will”.) > [@msmith537](#): > > But men and women are fundamentally different. It’s not like race where the differences are cultural and aethetic. There are biological differences. Mental and emotional differences. That holds true for 90% of the men and women out there. > [@Devils' Advocate](#): > > Yes, a large collection of traits may correlate well with sex, but an individual person is so much more than a random member of a very large group (membership in which is not even voluntary!). Should we judge the remaining 10% based on what we observe about that 90%? One could make the broad generaliztion, say, “Women are more emotional and men are more intellectual.” (I don’t have anything to back that up, but then that often seems to be the case with such generalizations - another problem I have with them.) But surely some women are more intellectual than some men, and some men are more emotional than some women. It would be absurd to treat individual people based on such generalizations. If I wanted to ask people to watch a football game with me, I would decide who to ask based on (what I knew about) whether they like watching football, not on their genders. (This is purely hypothetical; I find watching sports games to be dreadfully dull, frankly. :p) Of course, when approaching a stranger, I suppose one might make a few suppositions based on his/her sex. Are you saying that stereotyping has value in helping us decide how to deal with individuals we know little about? Perhaps _some_ value, but how often are such presumptions necessary? Given that they might be misleading, I should think that they should be avoided when possible. And surely after getting to know someone, one should treat that person as a distinct individual, not a generic member of his/her sex? > [@MGibson](#): > > It seems perfectly intuitive to make such distictions when it comes to language. In fact, is there any language that doesn’t make any distiction based on sex? You mean a langauge that doesn’t even have words for male or female? I doubt that. But if you mean gendered pronouns, no, they’re not universal. I seem to recall a Swedish (I think. Or some sort of Scandanavian, as I recall) poster saying that it was strange for him to have to know another poster’s gender to know which pronoun to use in reference to that person. I would suspect that such languages also don’t make distinctions like waiter/waitress, actor/actress, etc. Conversely, there are languages in which (almost?) all nouns have gender, whether they refer to a person (or animal) or not. (It is somewhat ironic that as “he or she” comes to replace the default “he”, traditionally male words like “actor” are being used to refer to women as well as men. In fact, it seems to be increasingly uncommon for a woman to be called a “heroine”, no matter how many lives she saves, or a “murderess”, no matter how many people she kills. Indeed, I suspect that some of the same people who would denounce the default “he” as sexist would also object to using some feminine words to refer to women. So the exact opposite stance of the one taken over pronouns is taken over some nouns. But not all. I haven’t heard anyone using, for example, “waiter” as gender-neurtral, despite the fact that a person’s gender is really not relevant to waiting tables. Of course, there are areas where gender certainly could be relevant – say, acting. Argh. The simple truth is that the English language, or at least the way we use it, is just plain goofy. Sexism is just a tiny part of it.) > [@MGibson](#): > > There are a lot of groups based on race that we don’t think of as bad. There clubs based on being Greek, Slavic, Irish, Italian, or having other backgrounds. All of these clubs are pretty much made up of white people by default. Yes, but that’s like a breastfeeding group only admitting people who breastfeed – it’s not really their fault that that only includes women. I would say that those clubs are really “based” on “ethnicity”, not “race”. There are plenty of other of example of widely accepted sexism I could list: for example, it’s unlikely that the U.S. will see a draft soon, but if there was one, I’d bet only men would be drafted. In fact, the U.S. military still has a policy not to put women on the front lines, right? I suppose one could make an argument that so many women are physically unfit for combat that a case-by-case evaluation would be wasteful of resources, but I find that doubful. Hmmm… I guess that the best examples I can come up with, like separate athletic competitions (or restrooms, or pronouns) do seem kind of unimportant, if telling. Certainly they tend to be of the “separate but equal” variety. Most people seem to generally be OK with sexism as long as it’s even-handed, and it often is. Maybe that’s why it isn’t being fought like forms of discrimination that historically were _not_ even-handed. ---
**Author:** ![Sofis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Sofis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofis)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/127 "2004-12-30T22:43:46Z")
> [@Devil's Advocate](#): > > I seem to recall a Swedish (I think. Or some sort of Scandanavian, as I recall) poster saying that it was strange for him to have to know another poster’s gender to know which pronoun to use in reference to that person. You’re thinking of Finnish. We have gendered pronouns in Swedish, alas. We have gendered nouns, too, though in that case the gender division does not involve male/female. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/128 "2004-12-30T23:33:12Z")
I really do not understand **infamousmom** ’s and **Miller** ’s vehemence on this. I’m not a Mason, so I won’t address them specifically, but private clubs are **private** clubs. You can set up a club for whomever you desire. What’s the big deal? A woman I work with has lingerie parties. Women come to her house and look at all the frilly underthings she has for sale. No men allowed. Why not? I buy frilly underthings for my wife. Answer: some of the women wouldn’t show up if men were allowed. There’s a women-only reading group in town. I can’t join. Why not? Because they are more interested in other women’s perspective on the books they read. They don’t want men there. If there was a women-only equivalent to the Masons, I wouldn’t have any need or desire to join. I might be curious about what they do, but I wouldn’t go cry in my coffee about being excluded, and I certainly wouldn’t become insulting, condescending, and rude, as **infamousmom** repeatedly has. I’d just find a group that met my needs and allowed me as a member, and forget about the one that excluded my gender. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/129 "2004-12-31T15:30:00Z")
> [@infamousmom](#): > > In any case, despite the “It’ll never happen” blither, there are Masonic orders, practicing the full Masonic rite, that do admit women and always have. The fact that the Grand High PoobaLooba of Masonic WhumptyDiddle doesn’t officially recognize this doesn’t make one whit of difference, and the perceptive among us have taken note that the world has not yet come to an end as a result. LOL, good one, **infamousmom!** That was choice! I wonder if the female Entered Apprentices have to show titty? Seriously. The boys do. I theorized that was the reason why Masons thought they would have to alter the initiation ritual if they let girls play, the reason which our Masons here were too coy to come out and say plainly. In fact… maybe… the Masons instituted the bare-breast part of the ritual deliberately to ensure that no women slipped in in disguise? It reminds me of Mongolian wrestlers’ jackets. The wrestlers in Mongolia wear specially designed silk jackets that cover the back and arms, but expose the bare chest. There’s nothing in front but an abdominal band. The reason for this design? The story goes that centuries ago, at tournaments in Mongolia, a mystery wrestler appeared, challenged the champions, and beat them. Then it was revealed that the mystery wrestler was actually a _woman_. The macho Mongolians were so humiliated and traumatized at having been beaten by a woman that they started requiring the frontless jackets to make sure no woman wrestler could ever disguise herself as a man again. This story has the ring of truth. It isn’t the sort of story the men would just make up, as it humiliates them. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/130 "2004-12-31T17:11:34Z")
> [@Jomo Mojo](#): > > \I wonder if the female Entered Apprentices have to show titty? Seriously. The boys do. I theorized that was the reason why Masons thought they would have to alter the initiation ritual if they let girls play, the reason which our Masons here were too coy to come out and say plainly. In fact… maybe… the Masons instituted the bare-breast part of the ritual deliberately to ensure that no women slipped in in disguise? > \ Well, if _that’s_ the only reason for keeping women out - no problem. Here in Canada, women can walk around bare-chested in public if they want (not very many want to, but we have the legal right to do so if we choose.) So, maybe Canadian Mason chapters should start allowing women in. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/131 "2004-12-31T19:40:12Z")
I have some experience with a fraternal organization. Why exclude women? Now, I’m not saying I support this mentality, but from what I’ve seen, this is the best explanation of it I can come up with. From what I’ve seen, the answer generally seems to be a combination of several reasons stated so far: 1. Tradition for tradition’s sake 2. A chance to get away from your spouse for a while 3. A chance to engage in streotypical “guy stuff” without fear of offending or alienating women. Guy Stuff may include: Burping Cussing Farting Onoxiously drinking alcohol Eating pizza and nachos off paper plates instead of a nice meals with silverware Telling dirty jokes Talking with your mouth full Talking extensively about work, sports, video games, electronic gadgets, fixing cars, etc. Commenting on how “hot” certain celebrities or other women are Friendly yet shameless insulting of other guys in ways that might make many women feel insecure or offended if subjected to the same harsh yet jesting criticism (e.g., fat jokes, bald jokes, etc.). It’s where boys can go to be boys and “let loose” in ways that many of them wouldn’t in the precense of women. I’ve noticed that at some events where women are invited, all of the “Guy Stuff” is really toned down, and many of the guys see this as occasionally nice but less fun in many ways that it would detract from the experience of being a member if women were permitted to join. A lot of this stuff is too obnoxious for my tastes, but I think this is the appeal for many guys. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/132 "2004-12-31T20:50:20Z")
Well, all I can say after reading this whole thing is thank God someone got into detail about the “ritual”–it is much more benign than the things my imagination had cooked up! Left nipple? Is that all? I could do that in a heartbeat! I was seriously thinking (having no other info to go on) of strange acts involving penises–that being the only characteristic that would qualify in a “ritual” that would have to be modified for women. Unless y’all bench press say 150+ pounds as a way of bonding–and having met several Masons in my day, and any number of shriners–none of you are in that good of shape! (apologies to those who may be). While I really don’t care if Masons stays exclusive or not–I do see Miller’s point. Noone has really adequately answered the questions here --and the fallback seems to be “because we are male and it’s a tradition and it’s a secret, oh and it’s a really old, tradiional secret.” Noone is asking for the passsword or the handshake–just a rational reason. Exposing body parts is not my way of having fun and being social, but have it, by all means. But the “in my charge” nonsense, I do take issue with. If this is an example of the archaic language used–y’all need an update, stat. My husband is NOT in my charge, nor am I in his. Our children are, until they are fully adult–for some that is recognized as 18, in our family it’s 21. “In charge” is sexist and demeaning to women–and I would not thank ANY Mason for patronizing me in such a way. That is not chivalry or honor–it’s sexism. ---
**Author:** ![infamousmom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d6d6ee/32.png) [@infamousmom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infamousmom)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/133 "2004-12-31T21:43:50Z")
> [@Master Control](#): > > I shouldn’t have said abolish, I should have said, do you feel strongly about forcing all women’s clubs to accept men? There are some clubs that have a legitimate reason to exclude certain groups of people. Someone mentioned a social club for tall people, for example. Those exist so that people who are tall can find other people they can talk to eye-to-eye instead of having to bend over (as the mother of a son who’s 6’7" I can certainly understand this). That kind of physical requirement is logical and understandable and the purpose of restricting the membership to people who meet certain criteria is clear. However, saying that people of the other \*\*gender \*\*can’t join simply because they \*\*are \*\*of the other gender is a lot less defensible in the 21st century. And it is especially silly in the case of the Masons, where you’ve got a bunch of people whose connection to being “masons” is all a matter of semantic manipulation anyway (come on, fellas, could you build a stone wall if your life depended on it?). I suspect that if all one-gender organizations opened up their membership to people of the other gender, few other-gender folk would be at all interested in joining. But the various “businessmens’” outfits such as the Rotary Club, which fought tooth and nail against admitting women for years, have found that letting the ladies in the door in positions of equality instead of in some “women’s auxiliary” (separate but equal, suuuuuure, baby) has not brought the organization itself crashing down around their ears nor caused the world to end in fire or in ice. It would be the same with the Masons, at least the WhumpdyDiddle sort that don’t recognize that women \*\*have \*\*been Masons for centuries–the fact that they don’t happen to recognize it doesn’t mean it isn’t so. ---
**Author:** ![infamousmom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/d6d6ee/32.png) [@infamousmom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/infamousmom)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/134 "2004-12-31T21:46:20Z")
> [@Wrath](#): > > As has been stated before, gender is not the sole criteria for excluding folks from being made a Mason. We do not admit athiests, young men under 21 (or 18 in some places), convicted felons, and those with questionable intent and character. So you consider women to be in the same class as “convicted felons, and those with questionable intent or character”? I think the suffragettes made short work of that kind of logic well over a century ago. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/135 "2004-12-31T21:47:26Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > It’s where boys can go to be boys and “let loose” in ways that many of them wouldn’t in the precense of women. Quite a list you’ve got there, **Bearflag70**. Did it ever occur to you that some of us like being around other guys sometimes without doing or saying anything obnoxious, rude, scatological, or sexual? There are discussions that women have that (most) women are more comfortable having without guys around. These might include talking about relationships, menstrual cycles, sex, or whatever. Guys have subjects like that, too, but that doesn’t even have to be part of the evening. Think of it this way: There are things I enjoy that my wife doesn’t, like playing poker, smoking cigars, and so on. I’m a member of a fraternal organization that has poker games once a week, and I enjoy my “guys’ night out” when I play. We don’t drink or cuss much, and there’s no more belching and farting than there would be anywhere else. Very few dirty jokes, no talking with mouths full, and no gratuitious insults that we wouldn’t make in front of the wimmenfolk. My wife has no problem with my poker nights with the boys, but if I was going out to play with a bunch of girls every Wednesday, she would rightly wonder why I prefered the company of other women to her. If I’m going somewhere without my wife, I’m more comfortable in a male-only environment like that. Maybe she wouldn’t care, but it would make **me** feel funny leaving her at home and hanging out with a bunch of women. There’s no great conspiracy of exclusion here. It’s just a matter of being in an environment we find comfortable. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/136 "2004-12-31T22:46:09Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > Noone has really adequately answered the questions here --and the fallback seems to be “because we are male and it’s a tradition and it’s a secret, oh and it’s a really old, tradiional secret.” Noone is asking for the passsword or the handshake–just a rational reason. Are you reading the same thread I’m reading? Because I’m seeing that question answered repeatedly, and not just with the “fallback” strawman you’ve created. The simple fact is, there are situations where (most) men would like to be around only other men, for reasons of comfort and social dynamics. Just as some women prefer to only work out among other women, or per\*\* InvisibleWombat\*\*, going to women-only book clubs or attending women-only lingerie parties, there are times and situations where men prefer the company of other men – not because they are sexist or see women as inferiors, but because the social dynamic is different in mixed company. Really, Girls Night Out/Boys Night Out is a widespread enough phenomenon that I think it a safe statement to say that mixed genders change social dynamics. The fact that you don’t sense that change in mixed company makes _you_ the oddball, not the rest of the world. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2004, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/137 "2004-12-31T22:58:32Z")
> [@InvisibleWombat](#): > > Quite a list you’ve got there, **Bearflag70**. Did it ever occur to you that some of us like being around other guys sometimes without doing or saying anything obnoxious, rude, scatological, or sexual? Yes. I did not attribute the behavior of this particular organization to all fraternal organizations. I citied it as an example of why women are excluded in this particular group. **Dewey** summed it up well. Sometimes guys like to hang out with just the guys because it is often a different social dynamic. The group I referenced illustrates this, but I do not believe all fraternal groups behave like that. ---
**Author:** ![LouisB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@LouisB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LouisB)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2005, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/138 "2005-01-01T02:18:13Z")
As has been mentioned in this thread a few times, there are organizations that call themselves Masonic and which do accept women as members. I don’t doubt that at least some of those organizations do duplicate the Masonic rituals and may even believe themselves to be Masonic. So, why don’t the women who want to be Masons simply join one or more of those organizations and leave the rest of us alone? ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2005, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/139 "2005-01-01T05:18:53Z")
> [@infamousmom](#): > > There are some clubs that have a legitimate reason to exclude certain groups of people. Someone mentioned a social club for tall people, for example. Those exist so that people who are tall can find other people they can talk to eye-to-eye instead of having to bend over (as the mother of a son who’s 6’7" I can certainly understand this). That kind of physical requirement is logical and understandable and the purpose of restricting the membership to people who meet certain criteria is clear. So you acknowledge that there’s a different between tall people and normal sized and short people, you don’t think that there’s a difference between men and women? > [@](#): > > However, saying that people of the other \*\*gender \*\*can’t join simply because they \*\*are \*\*of the other gender is a lot less defensible in the 21st century. And it is especially silly in the case of the Masons, where you’ve got a bunch of people whose connection to being “masons” is all a matter of semantic manipulation anyway (come on, fellas, could you build a stone wall if your life depended on it?). But if a private organization, which isn’t a business or place of learning, or a government agency, or receiving government money, why shouldn’t they have to right to accept or deny members for whatever reason they see fit? > [@](#): > > I suspect that if all one-gender organizations opened up their membership to people of the other gender, few other-gender folk would be at all interested in joining. But the various “businessmens’” outfits such as the Rotary Club, which fought tooth and nail against admitting women for years, have found that letting the ladies in the door in positions of equality instead of in some “women’s auxiliary” (separate but equal, suuuuuure, baby) has not brought the organization itself crashing down around their ears nor caused the world to end in fire or in ice. True, most or all single sex groups wouldn’t collaps if members of the other sex were allowed to join, but then, it shouldn’t make a difference. Again, if a non business, education, or government organization want’s to make rules of who can join, it should be able to , regardless of if the reasons are logical or not. > [@](#): > > It would be the same with the Masons, at least the WhumpdyDiddle sort that don’t recognize that women \*\*have \*\*been Masons for centuries–the fact that they don’t happen to recognize it doesn’t mean it isn’t so. I’m sure that people like Wrath know darn well that there are chapters that accept women. In fact, I’m sure he mentioned them. But that doesn’t change the fact that his chapter doesn’t, and he and his fellow members like it that way. And they should have the right. Yes, I’ll be happy when men only, women only, white only, black only, whatever only, clubs are a thing of the past, but I also value freedom of association. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700/140 "2005-01-01T19:56:46Z")
> [@LouisB](#): > > As has been mentioned in this thread a few times, there are organizations that call themselves Masonic and which do accept women as members. I don’t doubt that at least some of those organizations do duplicate the Masonic rituals and may even believe themselves to be Masonic. So, why don’t the women who want to be Masons simply join one or more of those organizations and leave the rest of us alone? I would imagine that it is because for many women there is no local chapter of these organizations, whereas there _is_ a local chapter of the Masons. Were we speaking of all-male sports clubs or something it would be a straightforward matter for local women to simply start their own. But if I were keen to join the Masons (I’m not) and there wasn’t any similar local group that admitted women, I’d have a rather difficult time starting my own. Apparently a big part of being a Mason is these secret rituals that non-members may not witness or even be told about, so I could hardly duplicate that! I guess I could invent my own secret rituals, but I doubt I’d attract a lot of new members to Lamia’s Cool Secret Clubhouse for Awesome Ancient Rituals I Made Up (est. this morning). If the Masons aren’t willing to give up the secrecy, you’re just going to have to live with outsiders pestering you to find out what the big secret is. That’s just the way people are. If your organization is set up to not only exclude people but to prevent them from even knowing what is going on, you’ve got to expect that they are going to feel excluded and wonder what is going on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/organizations-discriminating-based-on-gender/281700.md?page=8)