Here’s a question. Why would a woman want to be part of an all-male club like the Freemasons? If a bunch of guys want to form a little club with secret handshakes and the like, what business is it of anyones? They don’t seem to be hurting anyone.
By all means, Worshipful, feel free to educate them and point out my errors as well as any others.
The “undue feminine influence” is not part of any ritual, but it is a part of the thinking among many Masons. One of the things that brought me to Masonry is that there AREN"T women involved. I truly enjoy learning about Masonry from men, and believe it should always be that way. For men, by men. There are lessons inculcated that would be severly altered were a feminine influence be introduced, and I believe you know the ones I’m talking about.
Sure there’s history involved as to why it was established for men only, but there are reasons it continues to be so. Why else, do you suppose, is there a clause referring specifically to this notion in the obligation? Masonry is intended to endure as an organization for men.
Sorry if you feel my defense of the institution is hurting. I thought it was done in the spirit of the debate.
BTW, I’m also a PM.
Okay, I take it all back—your screed is no where near as wrong headed as that you linked to.
Perhaps the reason that I, and maybe some other Masons, are not putting up a particularly strong fight is that by doing so, we will be operating counter to our oaths and goals as Masons. We are encouraged by our rules, by-laws, and traditions NOT to embroil ourselves in arguments concerning the Fraternity. Hopefully, we live lives that exemplify our purposes, thus rendering arguments bootless. Hopefully, our lives are such that others, when observing us, find our behavior and demeanor such as to deserve respect and, possibly, emulation.
Masonry is a Fraternal organization and as such, prohibits the entry of women into membership. To admit women would be a violation of a core tenet of our Fraternity and, frankly speaking, it ain’t gonna happen and that is about as far as we can go in defending our decision to remain a Fraternal oganization. Frankly, I would prefer not to defend it at all, since it demeans me and the Fraternity to engage in what amounts to a public brawl.
I am baffled, frankly, by the hostility of some of the particpants in this fight; it would seem they would be content to destroy a Fraternal organization that contributes an average of ONE MILLION DOLLARS A DAY to various charitable organizations. That figure does not include contributions made by Shriners, by the way.
I hope it never happens to any of the SDMB members, or any of their loved ones, but if one ever had the need to avail themselves of the Burn Centers that are funded by Shriners (who are all Masons), they just might decide the organization is worth maintaining.
Worshipful (sorry about that),
I guess I just see it as playing into their hands. They want you to make a boys club for the sake of it being of boys club. Why this makes them feel better is beyond me, but it certainly seems to be true. Better (IMHO) to show them that there are reasons behind everything in Masonry and put the argument on them. They’re asking us to change, rather than defending what we do, make them explain why we should.
I completely agree that Masonry is an organization for men, but remember that the paragraph of the oath we’re talking about does not refer solely to women. There are, in fact, a number of men not eligible for Masonry. To me, the placement of the word “woman” almost strikes me as an afterthought or a (relatively) late addition.
As for the reasons it continues to remain exclusively male: For my part, it’s because I took an oath to keep it so, not any real desire to exclude women (although it is hard to imagine a woman going through the ritual as it is currently practiced).
Fraternally,
Zakalwe, P.M.
Well, certainly in the context of when the organization was created, that makes sense. We are, after all, talking about a culture where the standard, accepted wisdom held that women were intrinsically dumber, weaker, and less moral than men. The men who originally founded Masonry were not unique in this regard, and do not deserve any extra scorn for these beliefs than anyone else from the era. However, Western civilization has moved on from that era. Is it unreasonable to expect the Masons to keep up? Is it unreasonable to wonder why they haven’t?
But you do have that choice. You have that choice everday when you continue to support an oath which serves no purpose. You make that choice every time you indyct a new member and include it as part of your ritual. You made that choice when you decided, of all the civic organizations out there doing charitable works, to join the one that excluded over half the population of the planet.
Okay, how about you just stop requiring it for new members? Then you just wait a few generations for the old guard to die off, and Hey Presto! Masonry in no longer discriminatory, and no oaths have been violated. Or is there an oath against that, too?
And adherence to tradition for no other reason than tradition’s sake is every bit as useless. Surely, you do not need an argument to convince you of the importance of gender equality in any other sphere of life. Why, other than tradition, is Masonry excepted? What postive purpose is served by excluding women from Masnry? What negative consequence is avoided, other than the abscence of change?
Sorry, not really.
Actually, my question is “Why would a man want to be part of an organization like that?”
Okay, I’m better than Jack Chick. That’s not saying much, but at least it’s a baseline. 
In some areas, certainly. In others, not so much. This particular debate is more about the latter. The idea of an organization - any organization - that excludes people because of some factor about themselves over which they have no control, offends my basic sense of right and wrong (although, again, not my sense of legal and illegal). Being aware of the numerous good works done by Freemasons across the globe, this particular moral blindspot stood out to me like a smear of dogshit on a marble floor. Several of the posters I’ve seen defending Masonry are posters I generally respect, so I was (and remain) curious as to how they defend this particular part of Freemasonry.
I have to admit, I’m rather disappointed that the best reason put forward so far is, “That’s how it was in the fourteenth century.”
I don’t see anyone advocating that the Freemasons be destroyed. And I genuinely don’t understand how allowing women to become Masons would “destroy” Freemasonry. That entire notion is utterly bizarre to me. Are you saying that the prescence of women at a Masonic ritual would be so odious to the current membership that they would all quit en masse?
It seems to me that doubling the potential pool of membership for the Masons by opening the organization to women are doing more to maintain the organization than those who wish to limit who can join. The more people there are practicing Masonic rituals, the longer those rituals will stay alive, no?
So you’re saying the traditions and rituals and oaths can be changed? If they were once changed specifically to exclude women, then why can’t they be changed include them now?
The ones where you have to pee standing up?
I’m not a Mason, nor am I an authority on Masons. As it has been explained in this thread the Masons are a fraternal organization devoted to making men into better men. If women become part of this fraternal order the organization will no longer be for men. Is it not unreasonable to assume that men might have different interest and concerns that they feel more comfortable addressing with other men rather then women?
When you introduce the opposite sex to any social situation the dynamics certainly change. I can attest from personal experience that sometimes this is certainly for the best. I don’t see how including women would make the Masons a better organization.
Marc
I do - it would make them an organization that doesn’t exclude based on gender when there is no self-evident reason for it.
Not all things which can be reasoned out are self-evident. There are health clubs that limit their membership to women. The reasons are not self-evident as most workout equipment can be used by either sex. I imagine that a a gym specializing in women may be better able to serve the needs of their members. Maybe many of the women feel more comfortable working out in an environment without men for whatever reason.
Marc
There is also no self-evident reason for us to suddenly include women.
Why don’t you mount a huge campaign to force the Masonic Fraternity to allow women to become members? If you are successful, you will have destroyed an organization that has been a force for good over several centuries. You will have upheld your principles, though, so any harm you work is not to be considered. Why don’t you simply leave Masons alone, and we promise we will not attempt to forcibly integrate any women only societies so long as we all shall live.
I generally feel that, if you want to prevent someone from doing something, the onus is on you to explain why they should be prevented.
How will allowing women to join the Freemasons “destroy” Freemasonry?
What the heck, let’s run with your premise. Let’s say that women are allowed to join the Fressmasons, and all Masonic lodges everywhere are, for what ever reason, disbanded as a result. You’re saying that the people who were so giving and charitable when they were Masons will suddenly become stingy and Scrooge-like when they no longer have a club through which they can exercise their charitable inclinations? Surely, a person who quits the Masons and joins the Rotarians does not suddenly cut back on how much time and money they donate to charitable causes.
Who here is forcing Freemasons to do anything? Who here is advocating that they be forced to do anything? No one here is doing anything to Freemasonry outside of questioning some of its tenents. If you want the people in this thread to leave you alone, all you have to do is stop posting to it.
Well… yes, at least as far as I can tell. Can you give me an example of one of these concerns? My earlier reply to msmith was not simply rhetorical. I genuinely do not understand the interest in joining an exclusionary organization, of any sort.
I don’t see how excluding women from the Masons makes it a better organization, either.
And I would be equally opposed to such a health club. Which, again, means that I’d question its necessity here on the boards, and not give it much thought in any other context.
Not unreasonable, just…silly. With all of the things out there to get upset about, this seems waaaaay down the list. Organizations exist. Those organizations generally make some formal or informal determination as to the qualifications of membership. Mensa chose IQ, masons chose men who believe in a Supreme Being.
Actually, I didn’t join primarily for the charitable works, but that’s neither here nor there. And we actually exclude well in excess of half the planet since a belief in a Supreme Being is required. Thus, gobear, who I respect greatly, is also not eligible for membership.
Actually, yeah, that is a part of it.
Gender equality does not necessarily mean gender equivalence. The sexes are not the same and never will be. And, honestly, for a large number of people, absence of change is a benefit. Part of what Masonry means is an unbroken chain going back hundreds of years.
Actually, yes. I for one would immediately resign my membership in any Lodge that allowed women to be raised. Maybe it’s a part of not really understanding Masonry, but the ritual would have to be signifcantly changed to allow women. It’s not just that one piece of the oath, there’s quite a bit that would have to change. More on this below.
I didn’t necessarily say they were changed, just that it seemed like an afterthought or a late addition. I honestly don’t know when the exclusion against women was added, I can’t find any reference that doesn’t include the prohibition.
With all that said, yes, the ritual is occasionally changed. But never the meaning. The landmarks and core tenets stay in tact. Quite a while back, the ritual was updated to remove a lot of archaic language (thee and thou and so forth). Great care was taken not to change the meaning and still there was controversy. There is also the fact that the writing of the complete ritual is a relatively modern invention and I’m sure over the years of verbal-only transmission there were inadvertent changes.
Fine, then don’t. But don’t make us change to suit you (or the other half of the earth’s population. Freedom used to include freedom from intereference when no one is harmed, now it means freedom to make sure that everyone else is happy with the way you behave.
Miller, I have to ask you (really), do you never have boy’s night out? Or a poker party where only guys are invited?
Beats me, I know that many of the females I know have concerns I do not have and communicate in ways I do not. Although I’m sure I have plenty in common with black males my age I’m not sure we always share the same experience or concerns. Why not form a club that serves their needs as they see it?
If the Masons are all about men making men better then how does including women improve their organization?
There are plenty of reasons women might want to workout in a gym without men. Maybe they don’t want to oogled, maybe they’re uncomfortable showing their bodies around men, or maybe they just have some odd reason for wanting to work out with women and not with men. I might not care one way or the other about their reasoning but I can certainly understand why they might want to be exclusionary. Honestly, I just don’t see anything wrong with it.
Marc
Miller, maybe you can’t understand why anyone would want to join an exclusive club because it isn’t in you to do so.
It is the assumption that everyone is created equal that I think throws you. While we are equal before the law, or should be, we are not equal in reality. Some are faster, some are smarter, some can have children, others can not. Myself, everytime I have joined an organization, or political party, have always ended up leaving it because I grew bored, or just tired of the same topic over and over again. Even on this board, I have been here quite a while and my post count is still below 500 even though this is about the most interesting place for discussions there is. Yet there are some here who have post counts over 16,000! Obviously there is something about this site that brings those people back in such a way I can’t conceive of. If I was to ask them why they spend so much time here would they give me an answer that made sense to me? Probably not enough to make me want to spend anymore time here than I do already.
Yet, some people have expressed an interest in spending time with their own sex away from the opposite one. You and I may not be interested in doing so, but they do. That is the difference between our personalities. What reason do they need other than that?
Now if I can only find an organization of bi-sexual horny playboy bunnies that needed a token male for the practice of sexual rituals (assuming it isn’t sacrificial, et al) with me being their specific choice for that role. I think that would keep my interest, uh, ‘peaked’. But, alas, I have not heard of such a club, nor have I been asked to join one. 
Yes, but, see, there’s actually a reason Mensa only lets smart people join. Smart people want to hang out with other smart people so they can discuss smart things. This is hard to do if they have to keep interrupting their discussions on particle/wave physics to show someone how to operate a doorknob. I understand that. That makes sense. What I don’t get is what there is about Masonry that makes male exclusivity so essential. What does a Mason do that requires an entirely male context? What could a Mason not do if there were a woman on the register? Why can’t anyone answer what seems to be such a simple question?
Nor am I, for the same reason, and I have no problem with that. Masonry is an overtly religious organization. You want to discuss/practice your religion without having to preface it with a debate on wether there’s a God or not. That I understand. I’m just not seeing how this translates over into gender. How is masculinity a sufficiently common bond to necessitate an exclusive club?
I disagree. Sure, there are traits, behaviors, interests, and what have you that are statistically more common in one gender than the other. But to restrict a person from an activity because of the behavior of other people who happen to share some unrelated trait strikes me as antithetical to the concept of equality. I still have no idea exactly what it is you guys do that would be spoilt by the prescence of a woman. But let’s say it’s, I dunno… scratching yourself in public. Not to demean Masonry by the comparison, mind you, I’m just trying to think of something stereotypically male that men wouldn’t normally do around women. But there are some women, I am sure, who also like to scratch themselves in public. Why not let the women who scratch join, and keep the women who don’t out, and then all you like-minded scratchers can scratch together?
I know that’s a truly stupid metaphor, but you guys aren’t giving me much to work with, here. I hope it still gets the point across.
Which is another reason you shouldn’t want me to be a Freemason, and one that I respect, as I’ve got precious little time with tradition for tradition’s sake. But that’s an entirely seperate debate.
So you’d give up Masonry entirely, rather than have accept different version of it?
You’re right, I jumped the gun on that one. I doubt that the original oath would have even bothered to explicitly exclude women, as gender inequality was so deeply ingrained in that society that it would never have occured to the original Masons to specifically exclude them. Sounds more like something that was added when women first started demanding equal rights.
Where have I ever in this thread demanded that Freemasons change anything? I’ve argued against what I see as a stupid and backwards idea, but I’ve never suggested that you be prevented in any way from holding it. Except, I would hope, by your own conscience.
No, never. The thought of doing such a thing had never even occured to me prior to your asking. Why would I want to? I like hanging out with all my friends, and my friends do not all belong to the same gender. To purposely exclude some of them just because they’ve got tits strikes me as unforgivably rude.
Okay, fine, I grasp that basic concept. But what are the specific needs that Masonry fulfils?
I don’t know. I don’t even know what “men making men better” even means. Better how? Better than what? Better at what? Why is it necessary, or even desirable, that it be done only by men?
And does this whole thing strike anyone else as faintly homoerotic?
Okay, great. And the difference between this hypothetical gym and the Freemasons is that you’ve provided actual reasons for the seperation.
Look, if there’s really no other reason for this than, “That’s the way it’s always been,” then fine, I’ll drop it. I quite literally can’t think of a stupider rationale for doing something, so I’d been giving the Masons here the benefit of the doubt that there might actually be some thing more to it. But if that all there is, then there’s not really much of a point in debating it any further.
None at all, I guess. It just seems like such a picayune reason to keep an organization together for over 700 years. I didn’t realize that being a boys only club was the sole reason for the Mason’s exsistence, and the charities and religious work just a sideline.
Live and learn, I guess.
At the risk of muddying these waters further, if you substitute the word “negro” for “women” isn’t this pretty much what people said prior to the integration of blacks into U.S. society in the 50’s-60’s? And haven’t we come so far in the last 40 years that we (in many ways) understand now that discrimination based on skin colour just doesn’t make sense?
I disagree with you - I believe that women are harmed when they are excluded or treated worse than men for no good reason other than having a vagina instead of a penis.
Maybe what the Masons are too coy to mention explicitly is the part in the initiation ritual where the candidate has his shirt opened to expose the left nipple. Further, they are taking it for granted that they would be forced to modify or delete the nipple exposure in the case of a hypothetical woman candidate, thereby ruining the whole ritual. Nobody seems to have considered the possibility of running it unchanged for women candidates.