We do indeed expect it. We ignore most of it, plainly due to the reasons one can gather from reading this thread.
Let’s try this: Why don’t the women who want to be Masons post their reasons for wanting to join the Fraternity? Assuming there are other reasons than “just because I should be able to.” I would like to know the reasons and, who knows, you just might convince me.
Bolding mine. Wow.
I am so sorry that my having 2 X chromosomes is worrisome to you. What can I do to help you not “worry” any longer?
**Dewey’s[/B}“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.” makes no sense to me.
I didn’t state that I change or don’t change when in mixed company. So, Masons is just a Boys Night Out with strange, unspoken of, but alluded to many times rituals?
OK–have at it. But I do think that Masons must realize that people will question them and berate them and even make fun of them–because of the secrecy.
I read this thread b/c of curiosity. I now have a picture in my head of a bunch of guys sitting around, stroking one another’s egos and acting out God knows what and happy that they exclude half the planet. oh, and they give to charity. How any of this doesn’t or can’t happen without the secrecy or exclusivity boggles my mind, but perhaps, since I am female, the finer points elude me.
I don’t want to come to your picnics, thank you. The lack of any real answer here has made me take Masons from the Innocous Group I Knew Nothing About list to the Cranks list in my life.
This is the only one that makes sense to me. If both sexes can join, then one can get saddled with one’s spouse.
Of course, I wouldn’t join a women-only club because I would miss my spouse, but some people don’t like their spouses that much!
And, of course, it doesn’t mean that same-sex couples can’t still get saddled with their spouses.
I shouldn’t keep mentioning “saddled” in a thread that involves secret rituals. It’s making me giggle.
You couldn’t be more wrong if you made an all out effort.
well, then–inform me. If you knew nothing about a group, but found out that they don’t include half the planet b/c of tradiition, rituals and not wanting the “worry” of the other half of the planet, what would you think?
What is the purpose of the Masons? Why are they here? How have they lasted all these years?
Why would anyone want to be one? I’ve heard to avoid your spouse, to be a better man, to help men learn to care for those in their charge.
Why would such a group exclude women? I’ve heard that we are “worrisome”, that men don’t want to be around women sometimes, that rituals cannot be modified, that men aren’t comfortable with the public display of women’s left nipple (see ritual), because the weight of history and tradition demand that women not be a part of it.
And you think I’m being flippant? What kind of reasons are these?
And frankly, if you’re not supposed to engage in dialogue about Masonry–why defend it (defend what? ) with claims that I couldn’t be more wrong?
You are begging the question.
I hope the above has been helpful. If not, ask specific questions and if they are not in areas I cannot discuss, I will try to answer them as best I can. Here is a hint for you----the Masonic Fraternity holds the same ideals as those espoused by the French during their Revolution. Those ideals are the reason Hitler murdered several thousand of us, along with all the others who perished at his hands.
As an editorial comment, the United Nations is about as meaningful in this debate as an attempt to sell an Eskimo a refrigerator while speaking Sanscrit would be. Also, I honestly believe that the exclusion of women is vastly overshadowed by the positive contributions we have made, now make, and will continue to make to society.
Look…with all this nagging, does anyone still have any doubt about why we men like to have “guys nights out” and mens clubs? We don’t hate women or anything. It’s just that sometimes it’s nice to get away from the wives and girlfriends for awhile. And in the case of college fraternities, to set up organizations where we can meet our future girlfriends and wives who we will eventually want to get away from. If the girls lived in the house with us, it would just be awkward when we hook up with them. Guys just want a place where we can enjoy our sophomoric humor without it being brought to our attention how sophomoric it is.
Well, wait now. Are you now switching to berating the Masons because they have secret rituals known only to members? Because that’d be the case regardless of whether they admitted women.
And entire tomes have been written about humankind’s penchant for ritual, secret or otherwise. I’m not sure why you find this particularly strange.
Are you now saying you recognize the value of single-sex organizations given the way that social dynamics change in mixed company?
Would you quote back any message where I said I didn’t think there was any difference between men and women?
Ah, so the Masons aren’t business oriented and don’t teach anybody anything and don’t exist for any reason other than to let the guys get away from women? Is that what all those hundreds of years of ritual have been protecting? Really? Seems to me you wouldn’t have to study anything nor take any kind of oath if you *really *just wanted a night out with the guys. It’d probably be cheaper to go to the bowling alley, and you wouldn’t have to learn all that mumbo-jumbo and wear the silly hats. Bowling shirts do at least come in a wide variety of colors.
Uh, yeah, that’s exactly the point.
I’m a bit confused by some of the arguments here.
Why does there have to be a *reason * why Masons exclude women? Can’t that just be the arbitrary “rules” of the organisation? Sexist? Yep, sure, in that your membership criterion is solely that of gender. However, I just can’t see why you can’t start a men-only club if you want to. Yes, I understand that it’s discriminatory, but why shouldn’t we all get to choose with whom we associate?
Now you could, I guess, make a case that being a Mason does have some economic advantages (eg Masons might do a favour for other Masons in their business dealings etc) I’m not a Mason, nor do I know anyone who is, so I don’t know if this really happens or is just propaganda. However I think in that case you’d be better off going after the business organisation that allows such practices.
This is pathetic, contributes nothing to this debate, and doesn’t even come close to anything Masonic.
Your posts in this trainwreck of a thread have been especially venomous and especially uninformed. If a person attempts to join the Masons out of a desire to advance himself in business, he will not be allowed to join at all. What we learn by way of ritual is NOT mumbo-jumbo and Masons don’t wear silly hats or hats of anykind except when we are outdoors and the weather is inclement. If the Masonic Fraternity ever does admit women, I sincerely doubt you would ever make the cut.
[qyote]Now you could, I guess, make a case that being a Mason does have some economic advantages (eg Masons might do a favour for other Masons in their business dealings etc) I’m not a Mason, nor do I know anyone who is, so I don’t know if this really happens or is just propaganda. However I think in that case you’d be better off going after the business organisation that allows such practices.
[/quote]
Before becoming a Mason, a man must swear that he isn’t joining out of any belief that doing so will advance his cause in business dealings.
Interestingly, ancient Stone Masons’ guilds were established for exactly the purpose of business - young apprentices would learn from masters, and after a period of time and proven proficiency they’d advance and earn better wages. Operative Masonry was one of the few ways in which a man could become educated and earn a living, done within the framework of a moral code. Freemasonry was established to follow the same established and proven methodologies of stone masons, but instead of learning the operative trade, the same tools took on speculative symbolic meanings to inculcate lessons of a moral nature.
We don’t discuss politics or religion in the Lodge because they are divisive. We DO discuss bussiness, though not necessarily for the purposes of networking. Your business is your means by which you earn so that you may support your family and contribute to the relief of those distressed. Personal business, however, is not discussed in a tyled meeting. Hence women are NOT excluded from the networking that may occur from the fellowship after a meeting. If women participate in the dinners we serve before the meetings, for example (wives, sisters and daughters do), then they would be privy to all conversations and could potentially network.
No, I am not switching. I was answering your post re: the “oddball” remark. I personally, like Miller (?) don’t “switch” personalities when I move from same sex group to co-ed. I find it odd that others do. The rituals (which are constantly alluded to, but never explained–b/c of tradition) are another part of all of this that puzzles me. I have no problem with the need for rituals–a very human trait.
LouisB: First, thank you for replying to my questions. I cannot say answering, because I feel they are non-answers. Surely, you can understand that “to make me a better man” is vague at best and almost a non-sequitar? I don’t belong to any all-women orgs, but as far as I know, none of them espouse “to make us better women.” What does that mean? Better at what? Better in what ways? Are you thru Masonry, “better” than other men? Superior to other men? Are there minorities in the Masons? ( I would have the same issues with an all-women org if this is what they espoused).
This is what I am picking up here about Masons: a private club of men, working to improve their lives and the lives of those around them (including charity here). They like to do this in a secret, albeit flamboyant way(rituals). It sounds well and good–what could be the problem?
But see, I am also picking up some superiority, some sexism and some intolerance. That bothers me–I “smell” nobless oblige but w/o the public sanction, if that makes sense. You are the Chosen, the Special , the Leaders–but since y’all are self-appointed, secret and insular, I say: who are you to proclaim this for yourselves? Again–I don’t want YOU to have me “in your charge”. IMO, that smacks of male patronization. And to my mind, that is a mindset that should have gone the way of the Edsel. I don’t think I can explain it better than that.
By all means, have your group. But I also hope that within your group you are learning that women are equal, that you(men) don’t have to be “in charge”–I guess I am wondering if the roles taught via Masonry are outdated/outmoded?
As for msmith537–is it nagging to ask pointed questions about something that the more you ask, the less info you get? How very female of me.
The phrase “those in your charge” simply refers to the fact that you care for others. This goes for the entire family. This includes your parents, your spouse, your siblings, your children. It is not demeaning in any way. Were you to be sick, or in trouble, or in an altercation, WHO is the one person you’d want to count on, to help, to stand up for you, but your spouse? (and this goes for both men AND women). A man ought to be a pillar of strength in difficult, trying and distressed times - someone to reliable, someone trustworthy, whose word is his best stock, who will stand up and defend. Are these not good qualities to admire in a man? That is in no way meant to imply that women can’t also be similar in their character! Masons seek to charge men to stand up to duties and responsibilities. That does not mean to “be in charge,” but to care.
To “make good men better” simply means “better in character than they were before,” not unlike ANY self-help group - not unlike, for instance, Alcoholics Anonymous. Masonry implores a man in terms of SELF improvement and is not in any way an acknowledgement or advocacy of being superior to anyone else. No where, at any time, has anyone suggested that the Masons think of themselves as superior. In fact, we acknowledge that we are FAR from superior, hence, the objective of making men better than they are.
Becoming a better man, or person, or woman, or whatever is a journey and not a destination. And that’s it, I am outta this thread.
Uh, yeah, that is the point. If it makes no difference if the Masons are “integrated” or not, why ridicule them for it? It makes you look immature (and frankly, I’m vaguely surprised this thread hasn’t been moved to Pitville by now).
Given that I despise the notion of an intrusive society/government telling me who I must associate with, my sympathies are entirely with the Masons and any other privately owned and operated club, association or organization, even if for various reasons I couldn’t join most of them.
That is a very old usage for the phrase “in charge”. But thank you for explaining it. I realize that you might think–WTH? Isn’t this obvious?–but I assure you, it was not from the previous posts. So, I guess now I know something about the Masons!
I truly did not mean to offend anyone–I just wasn’t getting answers that added up to me. Thanks for your patience-- and yours, too, LouisB.