|
Post by maximus on Jul 19, 2008 14:44:32 GMT 10
I would posit that men and women are complementary.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 19, 2008 18:02:39 GMT 10
I would posit that men and women are complementary. Agreed, at times: At other times, I would posit that any distinction is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by jmd on Jul 20, 2008 10:06:03 GMT 10
Of course there are differences.... but to state that there are differences, and then to conclude, as though this somehow logically follows, that women should therefore be excluded from either football games (as in Iran) or from Freemasonry is plain nonsense!
|
|
|
Post by siontific on Jul 20, 2008 19:55:45 GMT 10
You are probably all right and all wrong, depending on what particular point you are discussing in a moment of time. But, why is, particularly in England, malecraft Freemasonry so much more popular than Co-Masonry. Most of the Members will be in relationships with women, probably married. Yet they don't go off together and join in something they can both share. Perhaps grouping, sometimes, needs to be with your own type, for a whole complex range of reasons; Bonding, Familiarity, Embarressment, Freedom .. I am sure you can thousands of reasons to this list and find a reason to argue with some of them. But when given the choice, men and women tend to group together, not with each other.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 20, 2008 22:43:25 GMT 10
But when given the choice, men and women tend to group together, not with each other. In my experience of the wider community, segregation is more the exception than the rule: At work; at leisure; at worship; and in the family (where husbands and wives often join in activities they can share). Also, I wonder how many Freemasons were even aware of the existence of mixed lodges before joining (I wasn't)? As for male bonding, let those who want homosocial outlets do so, I just think using Freemasonry for that purpose is an abuse of its inclusive and egalitarian principles.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 24, 2008 10:29:40 GMT 10
Not infrequently one encounters the argument that, "There exists today Freemasonry for men, Freemasonry for women and mixed Freemasonry, so my particular jurisdiction's wish not to admit women is hardly relevant is it?" Once when this peculiar argument was raised, our very worthy forum member, Bro. JMD, astutely replied:
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Jul 25, 2008 1:51:56 GMT 10
What we know to be true (even if we do not wnat to admit it) is that times are changing. Like it or not Co-Masonry is a growing reality and it will continue to be so. Someday the barrier will break and it will take a pioneering force much like the Masons who came before us to blaze those paths.
Increasing compitition will force "traditional" GL's to either adapt or go extinct. When we look at the numbers in the USA, there will be no "Mainstream" Masons left in 8 states by 2025. They will have to do some drastic adaptation in order to survive.
Just look at the I.O.O.F. for an example. For a 60 year period the numbers within the I.O.O.F. where larger than even mainstream Freemasonry in the United States. In fact in the early part of the 20th century they where almost double. During the "fraternal boom" of the 1950's they enjoyed enormous success.
They got big, really big with their own cemetaries, retirement homes, kids organisations etc. Sound familiar? And in just one generations time their membership nationwide fell 80%. In rder to survive the I.O.O.F. in some states became Co-ed. Others followed and now they are growing in membership. In large states like California where I.O.O.F. membership has always been strong they remain a male only institution, but they have to accept visiting female members from out of state. How long before they join their fellows in moving foward?
It's only a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jul 25, 2008 20:00:36 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 13, 2008 19:44:11 GMT 10
Interestingly, once mathematics was considered to be one of the 'hard' subjects at which males 'naturally' excelled. Now that some structural inequities have been corrected in our educational system, teachers are searching for ways to improve what has become the disproportionately poor performance of boys!?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 26, 2008 6:29:48 GMT 10
Another aspect of the equation is that of personal freedom of choice. I am not advocating freedom to discriminate against others, but of freedom to choose in living one's own life. In an official history of the UGL of NSW & ACT (Kellerman, v.iv, p.157), we are told of a Monica Folkard, addressing the wives of newly invested DGIWs, in 1980. We read: On the matter of closer relationships allowing women to become Masons Mrs Folkard said, "I am not at all in favour of this. I think men need to get away from women occasionally. Our greatest asset is our femininity, which they appreciate. Likewise the support which we can readily give them in so many ways. I am happy to see the men go to Lodge, to help prepare their Installation Banquets and, when they come out, feed them." While I have misgiving about the wisdom of a person making that submissive choice for themselves, I support their right to do so: Where they seek to impose that choice on others, I am reminded of Harriet Beecher Stowe's character, Uncle Tom.
|
|