|
Hey, so I'm one of the jerks that showed up in the last thread flailing about the whole situation with women joining up and-- Well, me and the Spouse read the spoilers, basically. I won't go into any details for obvious reasons. I'll just say that, even as someone who doesn't flip out easily, I can completely, totally understand now why incorporating women is implausible, and how the authentic experience would be completely turned on its ear if it was altered. My apologies for making flailing motions.  fake edit: really not being sarcastic, here, I actually do get it. Old Boot fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Dec 20, 2012 |
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Carbolic posted:I haven't presented any argument. I'm asking questions because I'm curious whether members of a particular fraternity (the Masons) see any parallels between a fraternity and a "whites only" organization, and whether they think that posterity will view fraternities in the same light as "whites only" organizations are viewed by most of society now. I don't believe these questions been asked in this thread before. I agree with Lovable Luciferian that these can be considered loaded questions but I can't really think of a more polite way to ask. This is, after all, an "Ask us" thread. Hey I can actually answer this one!  First: 100 years down the road... well. If the Masons are being looked at now as discriminatory, they'll still be looked at as discriminatory. I think that's just a price they pay for having secrecy so deeply embedded in the culture in the first place. It's a shame that it can't be explained without appearing a bit high and mighty about it (which, i have to admit, was a little off-putting in the last thread, but there were plenty of cases of non-head-patting responses that I appreciated, and I realized that 'high and mighty' was just my read on it), but considering what people join Freemasonry for, I can understand that it's seen as an equitable trade-off. It's just a necessary evil, basically. It's also not really comparable to the racist side of things that were prevalent for so long. To wit: If you're female, and have no intention of trying to join a clandestine lodge, and aren't going to dickishly ruin the first three degrees for any dude friends you have, I'd recommend just looking up the rituals themselves. The moment you do, you get a very clear picture for why women aren't being allowed. Without going into details, what would basically happen is this: - Since there is secrecy about what a degree entails, there can't be any advanced warning. In the case of a woman, this could be read very, very badly. I won't go into more details on what this means, since you can look them up yourself if you're that curious, just, like I said, try not to ruin it for other people. - If a woman gets (understandably) freaked out by this, she could conceivably take someone to court over it. Masons that are called to the stand would then be forced, under oath, to either uphold their sworn secrecy to Masonry and face severe penalties for it (doesn't seem likely, all things considered), or spill the beans on the entire ritual. I mean, I asked about the sexism thing, too, but after I decided to look into it (since I am a woman and am not going to try and hunt down a clandestine lodge for shits and giggles, it's just not economical for me, nor am I that motivated), I got a good idea of what the point was. It's not saying that all women are prone to have shitfits over something like that, or that none of them can handle it, but given the current climate of gender relations in American society at the very least, well. I have to admit, I'd probably be more than a little uncomfortable, if not a little/a lot frightened for my safety given the disorientation involved, no matter how many reassurances I got. It's just that kind of thing. Men are more comfortable with it, don't need to think as much about that aspect of it, whereas women probably wouldn't be. I think society itself, and its views on gender, as well as the culture of harassment and possible abuse, would have to level out a whole lot more before this would be a Thing That Could Be Done without overhauling the degrees, which, understandably, Masons would not want to do, nor should they. Besides that, I can't say it's unhealthy for guys to want to do guy things. There are plenty of times I'd rather just have a group of women to chill with, completely away from male influence, and I do have a couple groups that are exclusively female and not particularly inclined towards letting dudes in. So it's not like it's a malevolent choice. In some cases, yes, absolutely, there are stodgy old coots who have been there for ages who still think women should be barefoot and pregnant, and some young assholes who think the same way, but that's peripheral, it's not representative. Again, tell me if I need to edit anything out. I just figured that as an outsider who asked this myself, I could at least contribute my thoughts on the matter. EDITED for more context/stuff. Old Boot fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Apr 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Aureus posted:Interesting... Specifically I find these two quotes very interesting. I just want to say that this is really heartening to see. Makes me wish the same attitudes were taken up here, since, in spite of the fact that I've been understanding about the fraternity angle, this is exactly what I'd want to see in terms of women in masonry. Not a co-ed lodge, just the ability for a women's lodge to be recognized without having to be strictly Christian. Thanks for sharing the quotes.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2013 12:11
|
|