It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
Why?
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus
That is purely a semantical arguement as women are afforded the same rights as men.
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!
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.
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?
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!
Originally posted by AtticusNoble
The thread question could also be rephrased as, "In the 21st century, why does Freemasonry still discriminate against atheists?"
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.
Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
When was the US Constitution written and when did women get the vote in the USA ?
Why weren't black men afforded the same rights that were granted to them in the Constitution by the slave owners who wrote it ?
Guess what? Here you are, scorning and ridiculing us. Feel better now?
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.
The same can be said of Masonic initiations...
Men and women only gyms are based on privacy reasons, due to the physical nature of the activities that are conducted in them.
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?
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.
This is still the ''two wrongs make a right'' logical fallacy.
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 !
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.
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.
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?