In the 21st century, why does Freemasonry still discriminate against women ?

There is a Gold's Gym here in town, and they also own a "Women's World" that is exclusively for women. Recently, they closed all the little daycare areas in the Gold's Gyms in town, and they expanded and improved the area at Women's World.

Big Problem! I am not a WOMAN! And I needed that daycare at the Gold's!

I've also noticed that I am unwelcome in the Women's restrooms where they have multiple stalls, little flower arrangements, and a much better smell, instead, I am required to stand at a trough with 10 other men and see smell all kinds of nasty stuff.

I'm just saying, to take a cue from your title, "In the 21st Century" why do people still believe that everything is supposed to be absolutely equal? It is ludicrous. There are plenty of clubs and organizations that are designed specifically for men, or women, or senior citizens. Hell, I don't like the little sign outside the Chick Fil A playground that says I am too tall to play. Why is that OK? Why should the kids get to have all the fun?

I'm just saying, why can't us Mason's have a "boys club?" If we have to change, then everyone has to change, I get to work out at Women's World, play on the playground at Chick Fil A and use the nicer smelling women's rooms!

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Why?

Because the idea is based upon discrimination and prejudice, and does not have a place in a modern, civilised society.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


sure I can start you on some track... I do not know any reasons why

www.medicaleducationonline.org...


www.google.com...=en&sugexp=evnsp&xhr=t&q=can+women+keep+secrets&cp=11&qe=Y2FuIHdvbWVuIGtl&qesig=Yh-IBJGPuxIJaDotd6lu6w&pkc=AFgZ2tk28JyeH_HzoS MTf7r-cFfGsKFsqUpQcPzw_rsFogTQMNQdbYNTEJYZSvPgXBkgglQMgf6qntx_RxLu5Z8A1bwsPns6Sg&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&site=&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=f&oq=can+wome n+ke&pbx=1&fp=241062ed1d424d73


www.dailymail.co.uk...


www.google.com...

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Women aren't recognised as equal by the constitution of the United States of America so it is not really a matter of discrimination, it is their right to exclude women under the constitution due to their servitude under the law. So there you go.

This is what I thought, but I didn't want to hit them where it hurts.

The religious-like devotion that so many Americans have for their constitution, despite the fact that the ''rights'' that were outlined in it did not apply to women or blacks, is something that I shake my head to on a daily basis on ATS.

Version 1.0 of the US Constitution in desperate need of an update so as it can effectively run on the 2011 OS !

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
...but a woman would have to want to have to join the Freemasons in the first place...and really I think we have better things to do and they're best off out the way where they can't get up to any real mischief ...

It's the principle, though.

I'm a man, and I've had two potential opportunities to join the Masons in the last 5 years, but I declined for this reason only.

It wouldn't sit with my conscience.

Originally posted by TheBorg
Order of the Eastern Star is what is known as a "concordant body", and it is in NO WAY clandestine. I think what you're referring to is what's call Co-Masonry, in which both men and women are able to join. These Lodges are not recognized by The Free and Accepted Masons of any nation. Masons are allowed into any concordant body, including Eastern Star.

Yes, my apologies in referring to the Order as ''clandestine''. I was mistaken in my understanding of the relationship that it had with mainstream Masonry.

However, the fact that regular Masons can join the Order of the Eastern Star does not alter the fact that a female member of this order can not join regular Freemasonry.

Sadly, the bigoted and prejudiced hypocrisy of Freemasonry can not brush off this fact.

Originally posted by TheBorg
One point that I'd like to make here though... There are Sororities out there too. You know that, right? Men cannot join sororities, just like women cannot join fraternities.

This is still the ''two wrongs make a right'' logical fallacy.

Originally posted by TheBorg
Let me end by asking you a question. Why would you be interested in joining the Freemasons anyway? Just to see what goes on behind the closed doors? I only ask because I'm genuinely curious.

I'm a man, and I'd be interested in joining the Freemasons when they enter the 21st century, and when they cease the bigoted criteria of their organisation.

I think the ''ideals'' that their members pay lip-service to would be something worthy ( if true ), and I wouldn't mind being involved in an organisation with that ethos and philosophy.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Men need places to socialize away from women, just as women need places to socialize away from men. In theory the masons could let in women, but it would not be the same.

And there is absolutely nothing that stops this.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
Imagine if a bunch of men were allowed to join your grandma's knitting circle. They would probably bring beer and hot wings, watch sports, and break your grandma's best china. If women were allowed to join the masons or any other all male group, they would alter the group dynamic.

And why would they want to do that ?

Surely grandmother could just invite the friends that she wanted to join her own knitting circle ?

Originally posted by bismos
haha can you not see? thats the kkk, any neo nazi groups and confederate groups. blacks have black panthers. its not illegal. deny ignorance pal.

Please read my post before offering your reply.

Nowhere did I say that it was illegal.

I mentioned ''ethics'' and other people's attitudes to analogous groups that discriminate along genetic grounds.


Please read my posts thoroughly before wasting my time with an irrelevant reply.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
That is purely a semantical arguement as women are afforded the same rights as men.

When was the US Constitution written and when did women get the vote in the USA ?

You'd think the Founding Fathers would have had something to say about that, if they believed in universal suffrage !


Why weren't black men afforded the same rights that were granted to them in the Constitution by the slave owners who wrote it ?


Stop defending the indefensible.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
There is a Gold's Gym here in town, and they also own a "Women's World" that is exclusively for women. Recently, they closed all the little daycare areas in the Gold's Gyms in town, and they expanded and improved the area at Women's World.

Big Problem! I am not a WOMAN! And I needed that daycare at the Gold's!

Men and women only gyms are based on privacy reasons, due to the physical nature of the activities that are conducted in them.

I don't see any reason why you couldn't find a daycare area somewhere else.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I've also noticed that I am unwelcome in the Women's restrooms where they have multiple stalls, little flower arrangements, and a much better smell, instead, I am required to stand at a trough with 10 other men and see smell all kinds of nasty stuff.

In an ideal and mature world, we would have unisex toilets.

However, in reality, humans are very sexually orientated, and any confined building where men and women get their bits out in public will lead to sexual tension and become an attractive area for perverts and deviants.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm just saying, to take a cue from your title, "In the 21st Century" why do people still believe that everything is supposed to be absolutely equal? It is ludicrous. There are plenty of clubs and organizations that are designed specifically for men, or women, or senior citizens. Hell, I don't like the little sign outside the Chick Fil A playground that says I am too tall to play. Why is that OK? Why should the kids get to have all the fun?

Freemasonry is ( supposedly ) a worthy and charitable organisation. There should be absolutely no reason to prohibit anybody from joining the society as long as they fulfil the regulations that are based on personal choice, not genetics.

It is telling that so far - 3 pages in to the thread - I have not received one logical reason that defends the sexual discrimination in Freemasonry.

All the ''arguments'' have been based on logical fallacies.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm just saying, why can't us Mason's have a "boys club?" If we have to change, then everyone has to change, I get to work out at Women's World, play on the playground at Chick Fil A and use the nicer smelling women's rooms!

You're not comparing like with like.

Originally posted by AtticusNoble
The thread question could also be rephrased as, "In the 21st century, why does Freemasonry still discriminate against atheists?"

Apples and oranges.

Believing or disbelieving in a supreme being is a personal choice, being male or female isn't.


Seriously, are there any Masons who can attempt to justify their bigoted stance without using fallacious reasoning ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Because the idea is based upon discrimination and prejudice, and does not have a place in a modern, civilised society.

Then what of women-only lodges that exisited, and still do, from several centuries ago? I assume you feel that they need to be gender integrated despite their sentiments to the contrary?

I see nothing wrong with gender specific activities or groups. One does not need to have every function or event include both women and men. To me, any arguement for this is just a result of pervasive, intrusive and creeping mamby-pambyism.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
When was the US Constitution written and when did women get the vote in the USA ?

Semantics. I should have said, "As it currently stands'..."

Why weren't black men afforded the same rights that were granted to them in the Constitution by the slave owners who wrote it ?

Your ignorance of United States history is showing. Free Black men always had the right to vote and also held office prior to the Civil War. The XV Amendment only reaffirmed this due to the discrimination practiced in the South.

Some traditions are meant to be kept. My girlfriends Father is a freemason and he is far from sexist or anything like that, in fact his wife gets invited to functions.

What I want to know is why us blokes aren't invited to Anne Summers partys, girls only, ppfffft. ( I have a feeling that humorous thought is going to be lost outside of the UK)

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Yes, in the same way that a society has the constitutional right to prohibit blacks, Jews and gays from their membership.

The problem arises from the fact that an organisation that bases their membership criteria along genetic discrimination, such as race, gender, sexuality etc, are usually reviled, and justifiably scorned and ridiculed.

Guess what? Here you are, scorning and ridiculing us. Feel better now?

Men and women only gyms are based on privacy reasons, due to the physical nature of the activities that are conducted in them.

The same can be said of Masonic initiations...

However, in reality, humans are very sexually orientated, and any confined building where men and women get their bits out in public will lead to sexual tension and become an attractive area for perverts and deviants.

Again, the same could be said of Masonic meetings. Except for the bit about private bits out in public. But the rest of your statement holds ground... if Masonry were coed, the distractions of attraction to other members would detract from the lessons at hand. You've poo poohed the fraternity/sorority angle. How about boys schools and girls schools? Against those on principle? I know you've tried to draw a line between "kids" and "adults" earlier in the thread, but to use your own stance, is there an "ethical" reason why a distinction should be made for one age group being segregated by gender, but not another?

And since "ethics" is the word you keep bandying about, let's hear from you precisely what's "unethical" about Masons not letting women in their club? From a consequentialist view, what is the negative outcome from not allowing women in the fraternity? Or do you take the deontological stance in ethics, where the consequence is immaterial, but it's the rules that got you there that matter? I take it you're not in the postmodernist camp where ethics are relative to the circumstance...you seem to be arguing this from a more black & white dichotomy.

Ultimately, so far you've said it's unethical, but you haven't told us why or how.

This is still the ''two wrongs make a right'' logical fallacy.

This is what it comes down to, bottom line:

You're viewing it as a wrong, a negative, when in fact.. for a lot of us, both men and women, it's a relief, a positive.

Let's put it to a democratic vote?

Should I be able to join the special olympics? Why not? They're 'discriminating based on genetic differences'.
Seriously..

We could take this logic of yours to its logical conclusion, we would have to ban pretty much everything, let's be creative, let's think of even more ways to feel like victims.
Join the fun, let's think of everything we would have to ban to not 'discriminate because of genetic differences'.

I guess we're just wired differently. Banning groups for reasons such as these would be a great injustice in my opinion.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is what I thought, but I didn't want to hit them where it hurts.

The religious-like devotion that so many Americans have for their constitution, despite the fact that the ''rights'' that were outlined in it did not apply to women or blacks, is something that I shake my head to on a daily basis on ATS.

Version 1.0 of the US Constitution in desperate need of an update so as it can effectively run on the 2011 OS !

Well this is it, and I have a limited understanding of all this...the Constitution has been variously ratified, over one thing or another, but this one, the ERA, has been a matter of discussion and petitioning (or whatever it is that the US do) for over 80 years and still hasn't had approval. The stock reply is that it is not necessary, women already have equal rights in pay and working conditions. They had to fight for each one of those individual rights, including the one that said that it was lawful to force his wife to have sex, those cases were still coming up in the US courts in the 1980s. Much resources were placed in the 1950/60s in the hands of the Feminist organisations to ignore the ERA in favour of petitioning for employment equality. These small, incremental victories, provided instant gratification and the illusion of equality and caused a rift in the women's suffrage movement that practically meant three wasted decades in the real fight.

The Constitution is touted as this great document, and yet, it denies roughly 50% of it's population equality. There have been a number of ratifications, why not this one, if, as AugustusMasonicus states, women already have rights that equate to equality anyway? Why not a simple change of wording? What is the big deal? Because clearly there is something that is fundamentally resistent to this acknowledgement.

I watched the film 'Born Yesterday' a couple of weeks ago, the original not the I imagine apalling remake with Don Johnson...it covers this point beautifully, as well as giving a little guidance on the finer points of the history of US governance...and how it's corruption works...in context with a woman's status within that structure and how knowledge liberates her from the ties that bind her...and it's a romantic comedy too, hehe...great film!!

If you're feeling adventurous...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
It's the principle, though.

I'm a man, and I've had two potential opportunities to join the Masons in the last 5 years, but I declined for this reason only.

It wouldn't sit with my conscience.

I hear they do a lot of great work for charity. That is your decision and having personal principles is a good thing. I am not one to judge, as I am not in any sense of the word a 'joiner'. The knowledge of the Freemason's is readily available, so no need for me to join in that respect, books being largely preferable to 'gatherings'. The history is interesting though but more in the before they went all esoteric, the Guild system on which it is based, which was entirely, apart from the Mercantile side of it, egalitarian up until the Middle Ages.

I am currently up to my ears in the build up to the Spanish War of Succession, which was a trade war concealed behind a territorial dispute. The Chartered Companies of the City of London that emerged when Cromwell sold us out to the Capitalists, clearly demonstrate the Noble tradition of male lineage permeating down into the artisan guilds to the gradual exclusion of all women. By the end of the 17th century women were excluded from the Guilds and social advancement for women was dependent solely on males with the peak of women's bondage, coinciding with the peak of the Trans-atlantic trade.

When speculative Freemasonry was devised, it was done so by a class of men who had never touched trowel and mortar, but it retains, with some Renaissance and Enlightenment flourishes, the basic structure of advancement, based on aquired skill and knowledge that a mason or builder would progress through. Which is where all the geometry in the lectures comes in. What speculative Freemasonry became, possibly, according to some, was a means by which to assimilate colonies into British Imperialism. Preparing them for civil service, much in the same way the Mercantile Guild's Board structure prepared the way for Diplomacy and Ambassadorship. One way or another, you find, or at least I do, that it all comes down to economics.

Either way, what we have now, is an archaic beast settling into it's death throes. Failure to adapt to a new reality combined with a lack of (real) women, can only lead to extinction. Same can be said for the US though.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


I disagree. I don't see the difference. #1, they don't make daycares where I can drop my kids off for 1 hour, and even if they did make them, it would require a stop to drop them off, then a drive to the gym, then a drive back to pick them up. Why should the women have the convenience of daycare in house, and the men not have it?

As for Masonry.....it is not discriminatory, because there is Eastern Star for women. They can learn identical principles there. It is only a tradition, honestly there probably is no need for it to be men only, but it always has been, and it is a nice escape from the coed world for a little while. The women can get that escape at their private little gym.

Why should we change it? You asked Masons to tell why it is still this way, but I ask you why not? Don't give me "it's the 21st century," because what does that really have to do with anything? Tell me, what significant need do women have that Masonry is necessary to fulfill? Even for men, not everyone is allowed. It is an exclusive club, and it demands that you voluntarily approach, then be unanimously selected. So, not all men get in either.

Just for the record:
Women Only
Girls Only: The Growing Trend of Women Only Clubs and Organisations
Justice Sotomayor's Exclusive Women's Only Club
Women's Only Insurance!

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
In the way that it is written. All men are created equal.
…
The Constitution is touted as this great document, and yet, it denies roughly 50% of it's population equality.
…
Why not a simple change of wording?

You realize, don't you, that prior to the 20th century the primary usage of the word "man" was to mean (from the Oxford English Dictionary) “a human being (irrespective of sex or age).” All men created equal means all humans created equal. That was what it meant when they wrote it. It wasn't until 200 years later that the idea of "men" meaning only males became the dominant definition.

Don't believe the current OED? Go back to older dictionaries on Project Gutenberg... An old Webster's, definition #1 for Man "A human being; — opposed to beast."

While our Fraternity does not allow women in we are far from sexists or chauvinistic. In fact, chivalry is something thought to be a norm and we treat our women well. As presiding Worshipful Master of the District meeting I asked that it be an open Table Lodge so that the wives could attend. The York Rite also does several honors for wives. In appendant bodies, the women reign. In the OES, I may be a Master Mason, but the Worthy Matron is still in charge.

To further my previous request, let's take the consequentialist tact:

1. In your estimation, what are the consequences of Freemasons not allowing women to attend or participate in either their initiation rituals or their business meetings?
2. Why, in your moral judgement, you deem the aforementioned consequences as “bad” (and, hence, unethical)?