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

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Yet you repeatedly make ad hominem attacks. Is this logic?


Please give me an example of an ad hominem attack that I've made on this thread.


Worryingly, your post just solidifies my stance on this issue.

Two Wrongs DO NOT make a right !

Please stop cowering behind that ridiculous concept.


The sword of equality is coming crashing down, and unfortunately - who am I kidding ? fortunately ! - the neanderthal and primitive ways of these members will be eased out by the unstoppable force of equal legislation.


I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept a few female Masons in the next 5-10 years.
Primitive rules and laws are being modified and corrected on a daily basis.

Fingers crossed, it will be illegal to discriminate against women in this way in the next few years...

Sorry about that...



Enjoy your time in the clink.


edit on 24-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
My brother is a member of one of the oldest lodges in Scotland.His wife,who is a progressive and critical thinker,is proud of his association with the lodge and its public works.
In her own words,"I would rather have a man who does good deeds for their own sake and associates others of his ilk,than a broken shell of a being who hates himself and others of his species and,shows it through his self-absorbed actions".
My sister in law is neither subservient nor unequal to my brother in their marriage and is a proud Scotswoman.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Once more, did the Constitution claim all men were equal even those these men did who compsed it not adhere to its tenets? The document was great, they very far from such. Do you not see the difference?


There's absolutely no difference.

What was ''great'' about the document ?



If the US constitution had been worth anything other than the paper that it was written upon, then the Founding Fathers would have outlawed slavery and given full rights to women.

They failed on both counts, so let's ignore the ridiculous revisionist myth of the odious US Constitution.


The document would have been comparable to many European Treaties of the same time in the late 18th century.


Please stop worshipping this ridiculous racist and sexist piece of paper.



Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Because society is typically far from civilized. Rights must be enumerated lest they be taken by the governments which have promised to uphold them.


So then, why would you acknowledge a demonstrably racist and sexist document to get some kind of ''permission'' for your rights, despite the fact that these rules are antiquated and anachronistic ?


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Why does it even matter to you?


In what way wouldn't it matter to me ?
edit on Tue Jan 25 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Ad Hominem Attacks And You



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Are you insane? You actually agree with tyrannical laws that force people to mingle?


It should be everyone's right to "discriminate" whenever and against whomever they please.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Hello everybody. long time lurker here. final felt like responding.

in regards to the OP of the thead.


Freemasonry is a FRATERNITY.

frater is latin for brother. A brother is a MAN. Not a WOMAN.

A WOMAN has to join a SORORITY. soror is latin for sister.

There are masonic affilated sororities lie The Order of The Eastern Star, The Daugterers of the Nile, or The Srine Ladies club



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarmonicNights
Are you insane? You actually agree with tyrannical laws that force people to mingle?


It should be everyone's right to "discriminate" whenever and against whomever they please.


Nowhere did I agree with tyrannical laws...



People aren't ''forced'' to mingle; we are talking about morals and consciences here.


Unfortunately, Masons are selfish neanderthals, who can't separate their real-world status from their terribly mundane life.



A ''secret'' society will just prevent the inevitable.

edit on Tue Jan 25 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Ad Hominem Attacks And You



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Unfortunately, Masons are selfish neanderthals, who can't separate their real-world status from their terribly mundane life.






Resluting to name calling????


Prove to me im a member of Homo Neanderthalis. My 4% admixture dose not count. form my Euro-Asiatic background.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Resorting to calling Freemasons neanderthals,and besmirching the American constitution,is like calling all feminists penis envying lesbians with an inferiority complex.Both are uncalled for and show the mental age and reasoning of an uneducated person.

You of course are always welcome to your opinion,but as the old saying goes,the empty can rattles the most".



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


The truth is that men and women while similiar are not equal. That is not to say one is better than the other, it's just to say that they are truly different.

That was nature's design, and there is a certain point where trying to overcome nature is just selfish and silly, all about 'me' and gaining attention.

Do you even know what the Masons actually do in their meetings, do you even care, or do you just care that because you are a woman you can't be one.

Me personally I am not really keen on the notion of studying sacred geometry having to dress up for formal occassions, and add a bunch of rules to my life, but if they enjoy it, they enjoy it, and if they enjoy it better without women, well then they enjoy it better without women.

If that upsets you get over it.

Wasn't a woman that invented the craft, so here is an idea, go out and invent a craft of your own, invite who ever you want to be a member, since you want to make things all about you, well start by making something that is all about you, because you made it.

Men and women are not equal, they are different on many real levels.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
quit feeding the troll!



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by fordrew
 


Amen..
The last two pages are filled with ad-hominem attacks and examples of failure to argue the points we bring up.
Reasoning failed, bring the banhammer.




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 


Off topic sorry,
Im borrowing that ban hammer for one of my favorite haunts admins,Im sure they will have a chuckle.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
This is utter bullcrap.

It is not discrimination, it is like saying why homosexuals cannot get married in a church, or why i as a non jew, cannot be a member of the ADL.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 



What makes women ineligible for Freemason membership ?

You are going to have to answer this basic question, before we all come to the obvious conclusion that the Masons are a bunch of neanderthal inadequates, who probably need justification for their subjugation of women...



The answer is ........ Tradition. Nothing more, nothing less.

By your own admission, nothing changes if we allow them to join. There are a couple of hundred years of tradition at stake, there is no benefit to either party if we allow them to join, so why throw away the tradition?

If there was a significant benefit to the women or the fraternity, then we might look into overturning the tradition, but since no benefit exists, why create the issue at all?

There is also a slightly selfish reason for some of the members, especially the older ones. Lodge night has always been a sort of escape from the family life and pressures of the outside world. A few hours per month where you are safe among like-minded brothers. The conversations and jokes and behavior is suitable for that environment, and it is a nice retreat. If we gave up that little bit of isolation, some of the members might not be able to find it anywhere else in their life.

So again, no benefit to the fraternity or the women by adding them, no reason to give up a tradition, and a possibly less comfortable setting if we do so.
******************************************************************************************
As to your baseless claim of "subjugation of women." Maybe you should meet some Masonic wives before you toss that out there. Family is extremely important, and Masonry is a vessel for "making good men better," so you necessarily find some of the happiest and most successful marriages you've ever seen. Masonic brothers help one another out through hard marital times, and we teach love, respect, charity, etc. I'll bet you the shirt off my back that you cannot find a woman married to a Mason that will tell you we subjugate women. You might find some that say we hijack too much of their husband's time, but you won't find any that say we are not the utmost respectful and kind to women.
edit on 25-1-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

Discrimination is nothing more than choice. Some like Coca-Cola over Pepsi, or Fords over Chevrolet.

Freemsonry isn't the only gender specific organization nor are we sexist or chauvinist.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 

Tell you what, if you don't like us, don't join.

I'm just glad there is such thing as the 1st Amendment.

Nor can you deny the great charitable work the Freemasons have done.
edit on 25-1-2011 by KSigMason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Ah, so someone has to get their penis and testicles out in the ''initiation''.

Thanks for confirming that.
Nonsense. But there is a bit of the initiation where part of the candidate's chest is exposed—generally not a big deal when the candidate is a man in a room full of men; potentially a bigger issue if the candidate is a woman in a room of men and women.


So you bar gay people from joining the Masons ?
No, but the gay members we have are a minority.


Seriously, you come across as a bunch of simple neanderthals who can't understand the most basic points of logic.
You have yet to explain why you believe what we're doing is wrong, you've simply asserted that it is. You've given no foundation to your side of the argument, making logical debate impossible.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Please give me an example of an ad hominem attack that I've made on this thread.



Guilt by association: Association fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a source because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I repeat that your ''argument'' is based upon a logical fallacy that 10-year-old children can appreciate as not true...


A society whose real-world ''justification'' is based upon a demonstrably illogical premise, tells us all we need to know about this bigoted, neanderthal organisation.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Masons, or at least the ones who have commented on this thread, appear to have the logic of a small child...

Let's ignore any diversionary arguments, and just leave an open question to those who are members of this Naziesque organisation.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This is a simple question, and I would like the dinosaurs to answer.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You are going to have to answer this basic question, before we all come to the obvious conclusion that the Masons are a bunch of neanderthal inadequates, who probably need justification for their subjugation of women...



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Damn right.

I'm scorning and ridiculing your neanderthal organisation.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Seriously, you come across as a bunch of simple neanderthals who can't understand the most basic points of logic.



Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Unfortunately, Masons are selfish neanderthals, who can't separate their real-world status from their terribly mundane life.



The sword of equality is coming crashing down, and unfortunately - who am I kidding ? fortunately ! - the neanderthal and primitive ways of these members will be eased out by the unstoppable force of equal legislation.


Is that so? What laws are on record or being passedin the United States that will force private orginizations to adhere to your personal world-view?


I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept a few female Masons in the next 5-10 years.
Primitive rules and laws are being modified and corrected on a daily basis.


Please see above. Additionally, please cite legal precedent for the statement you made.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Who would believe that the government should force private fraternities and sororities into opening their doors to people of the other gender? Why, only a complete neanderthal, of course.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There's absolutely no difference.

What was ''great'' about the document ?


That it was very much ahead of its time in defining what rights are granted to all human beings. That the people alive at its signing did not adhere to its principles is not a failing of the document. It is a failing of humanity.. Human beings are flawed, pure principles are not.


So then, why would you acknowledge a demonstrably racist and sexist document to get some kind of ''permission'' for your rights, despite the fact that these rules are antiquated and anachronistic ?


The document is politically neutral, if anything it advocates against a controlling governemnt. Nothing in the Constitution recommends a racist or sexist conduct. On the contrary, it clearly speaks against this.


Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
In what way wouldn't it matter to me ?


I have no idea, that is why I asked you a question. Either you can answer it or you can not.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I agree with you. I think we should let women in. I bet the Senior deacon's spot would be the most sought after post. What with receiving the candidates and all.


I stand by my initial post. You help me get into a sorority and I will help whichever women you want get into masonry. You understand of course that my chances of accomplishing this task are only slightly better than your task of getting a 42 year old guy into a sorority filled with sexy young college girls.

Who's with me?





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join