teamnoir ([info]teamnoir) wrote in [info]masons,
@ 2005-08-01 15:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Newbie Q's
Hello. I'm a potential candidate for masonry who is still gathering info. Specifically, I'm interested in hearing answers to a few questions from a larger forum than my local lodge. If this isn't the right place, please gently point me to a more appropriate forum.

First, I understand that the initial oath is to a supreme being and that the primary purpose here is that masons won't trust a man's word until and unless he believes in one. I'm not going to bother to ask why a "good man"'s word isn't sufficient because I can't imagine any possible rationalization that would make sense. But I understand that the rule is "no atheists". So my question... is a monotheistic belief system a prerequisite for joining freemasonry, (blue lodge)? Or are polytheistic or animist belief systems sufficient?

Second, the only masons I've met or known have all been pretty square. Given the emphasis on family values, I'm wondering... Are there gay masons and/or gay lodges?

Also, it would seem to be a glaring hypocracy that freemasons claim to treat all people equally while simultaneously denying membership on the basis of gender. So third question... how do masons determine gender for the purpose of membership?

And fourth, how do masons reconcile the apparent contradiction between treating people equally while abitrarily denying membership to half of them?



(Post a new comment)


[info]faeriechan
2005-08-01 10:52 pm UTC (link)
Welcome to the community. I'm a woman, therefore I am not a mason, however I am very active in the masonic family. I though you might like a woman's opinion, particularly on the gender question.

While I would love very much to be a mason, I am not able to. But, when you look back on the history of masonry, it started hundreds of years ago, when it just wasn't a woman's place to be part of an organization like this. I understand that times have changed, I'm quite the feminist myself, but for an organization as large and deep seated in tradition, it's understandable that they haven't change the rule. I believe that one day women will be allowed to join, though I don't think it will be any time soon, for now, I will settle for women's groups.

There are gay masons, around here especially, as western washington has a fairly large gay community. And not all masons are 'square'. One of the local lodges here actually brews there own beer. Masonry is very big on family and morals, yes, but that doesn't mean that they don't know how to have fun ^_^.

Most of the lodge which I work with is very conservative christian men, all following a monothiestic faith. Though I do know of many masons who follow a polythiestic faith..they ask for a supreme being, not how many, or which ones...just a supreme being.

I would encourage any man who wants to better himself and lives of others to join a masonic lodge. I think it's an absolutely magnificent organization, and I'm proud to be a part of the family.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]teamnoir
2005-08-01 11:05 pm UTC (link)
I take it you don't consider co-masonry to be true masons, then?

How about polyamorous masons?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]faeriechan, 2005-08-01 11:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-01 11:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jmspencer, 2005-08-02 12:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 03:46 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jmspencer, 2005-08-02 03:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 03:59 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jmspencer, 2005-08-02 04:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:20 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarekofvulcan, 2005-08-01 11:45 pm UTC

[info]frodo_jim
2005-08-01 11:39 pm UTC (link)
Women will never be able to join Masonry. It wouldn't be Masonry anymore if they could.

Not that it might not be a valid organization or anything -- it just wouldn't be Masonry. While I'm generally a feminist as well, there are valid things about single sex groups (and nothing at all wrong with them).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]sarekofvulcan, 2005-08-01 11:43 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-01 11:50 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]frodo_jim, 2005-08-02 07:10 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarekofvulcan, 2005-08-02 02:13 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]escodaiichi, 2005-08-07 04:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-09-08 05:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]escodaiichi, 2005-09-08 05:41 pm UTC
Cracks
[info]lucysnowe01
2005-08-02 12:19 am UTC (link)
Another lady of the Masonic Community checking in here...

No, Masonry as an institution does not teach or imply that women are inferior.

That being said, once you figure out whether you agree with the official tenets of Masonry, you still have to decide if you are willing to deal with individual Masons who are not always right. Masonry is a wonderful thing, but it is likewise deeply flawed because it is composed of imperfect people.

Within a Masonic Lodge you will find people who may be misogynistic, racist, or homophobic. Masonry can break your heart. It broke mine, but I'm still around. What makes the difference is that some people still manage to believe in the ideals of Masonry, even when they have been forced to see the at times overwhelming contradictions.

You have to commit yourself to Masonry as it is meant to be and not Masonry as you may find it. If you can do that, then you will be happy. I don't fault anyone who has ever shied away from getting involved, or left years of work behind and just walked away. We all have to do what we have to do. In the end, the decision should have nothing to do with anyone except yourself.

This was a bit of a rant, wasn't it? I guess it struck a nerve... I am from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and we are STILL in the throes of Prince Hall Recognition. It's enough to make anyone a tad hysterical on the subject of flaws within the Blue Lodge.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Cracks
[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 12:29 am UTC (link)
The hard part is that from the outside, there's no real way of knowing the tenets of masonry. Clearly it's not to treat people equally, or to think freely, nor to respect other men.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Cracks - [info]dudecu, 2005-08-02 12:47 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:32 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]dudecu, 2005-08-02 04:35 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:44 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:46 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]dudecu, 2005-08-02 07:38 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 03:34 pm UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]sarekofvulcan, 2005-08-02 12:59 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:33 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]ynl, 2005-08-02 01:00 am UTC
Re: Cracks - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:34 am UTC
Re: Cracks
[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 12:35 am UTC (link)
ps, what is Prince Hall? Or can you point me to a web reference?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Cracks - [info]sarekofvulcan, 2005-08-02 01:01 am UTC

[info]chiasmushf
2005-08-02 12:52 am UTC (link)
Masonry is, in general, an accepting organization -- remember, the concepts of tolerance, acceptance, and individual responsibility that this country is founded on are fundamentally Masonic concepts. That said, it is a highly traditional organization.

Now, while being highly traditional, there's a *lot* of give. There is no central Masonic body controlling all of Masonry: things go up to the state level, and that's about it. Therefore, your mileage may very from anything I'm about to say here.

> First, I understand that the initial oath is to a supreme being and
> that the primary purpose here is that masons won't trust a man's
> word until and unless he believes in one. I'm not going to bother
> to ask why a "good man"'s word isn't sufficient because I can't
> imagine any possible rationalization that would make sense. But
> I understand that the rule is "no atheists". So my question...
> is a monotheistic belief system a prerequisite for joining
> freemasonry, (blue lodge)? Or are polytheistic or animist
> belief systems sufficient?
>
Not just the initial oath, but all oaths, are predicated on the Supreme Architect. As far as the ritual is concerned, the concept of a "good man's word" and an oath are two drastically different things: one is breakable with only worldly consequences, while the other holds spiritual and eternal ramifications. The ritual makes also makes reference to the Divine Creator, and if you go into seizures and start spewing pea soup at a Biblical reference, you're not going to be interested in the Masons. That said, as long as *you* are comfortable labelling whatever it is you believe in as the Divine Creator/Supreme Architect, most lodges are willing to move forward.

> Second, the only masons I've met or known have all been pretty
> square. Given the emphasis on family values, I'm wondering... Are
> there gay masons and/or gay lodges?
>
Gay Masons, yes. Gay lodges, not to my knowledge. Lodges usually break down only in terms of region, with other lodges formed that share common interests (research lodges) or life stages (daylight lodges). The most notable exception to that rule, is Prentice Hall Masonry, called "Black Masonry", which divides in terms of race, but I consider even that to be undermining to the concept of Masonry, so I don't give it much distance.

> Also, it would seem to be a glaring hypocracy that freemasons
> claim to treat all people equally while simultaneously denying
> membership on the basis of gender. So third question... how do
> masons determine gender for the purpose of membership?
>
I don't know how gender is determined in any technical sense, but my opinion is that if there's an issue with determining gender, the person is not suited to being a Mason. But I'm a bit of a hardass when it comes to candidates: Masonry is ultimately an elitist deistic men's organization, and sometimes it's good to remember that.

> And fourth, how do masons reconcile the apparent contradiction
> between treating people equally while abitrarily denying
> membership to half of them?
>
Masons don't claim to treat all people equally. Tolerance and similar concepts are Masonic ideals, but not all people are suited to be Masons, and Masons tend to treat other Masons with preference in recognition to the shared ideals.

Personally, I see the gender limitation as appropriate because men and women communicate differently, seek things in different ways, and want different things out of a social organization. I would also be uncomfortable doing the ritual with a woman, because the ritual requires a kind of vulnerability to be expressed that would be awkward and threatening in a multi-gendered environment.

Now, if a woman's organization wanted to start on the same general basis as Masonry, I would be more than happy to support it, and I am also a supporter of the Order of the Eastern Star, which is a more open organization. So I really don't see sexism as being involved with this system.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 12:59 am UTC (link)
"Personally, I see the gender limitation as appropriate because men and women communicate differently, seek things in different ways, and want different things out of a social organization. I would also be uncomfortable doing the ritual with a woman, because the ritual requires a kind of vulnerability to be expressed that would be awkward and threatening in a multi-gendered environment.

[...] So I really don't see sexism as being involved with this system."

Wow. How do you reconcile those two things? You claim people communicate differentlly on the basis of gender and that you'd be afriad of working with women in a ritual context. And yet you don't see those perspectives as sexist?

Personally, I'm the other way around. I'm scared of any group that fears women so much they feel they need to exclude them. I might be able to make my way through the progressions and rituals, but it could never be "home" to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]ynl, 2005-08-02 01:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dirtynumbangel, 2005-08-02 01:39 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:16 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dirtynumbangel, 2005-08-02 04:19 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:41 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dirtynumbangel, 2005-08-02 04:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]chiasmushf, 2005-08-02 01:46 pm UTC
Re: Cracks
[info]chiasmushf
2005-08-02 01:50 pm UTC (link)
FTR, it's "Prince Hall", not "Prentice Hall". That's what I get for being an academic. :P

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ynl
2005-08-02 12:57 am UTC (link)
Hi there

Welcome to the community.

I'm loosely a thelemite if that answers your question - but my sponsor basically said that a belief in a supreme being is enough when I first joined. There is a brother, I believe, that went as far as swearing on the Book of the Law. I'm not too sure about polytheism. I would need to look at the charter. One could go as far as to say in a polytheism - the different deities represent the different facets of the one supreme being.

There is a gay mason in my lodge. So the answer is yes. I wouldn't say that all masons are square as such - there is a huge generation gap. I am the youngest in my Lodge by about 20-30 years.

Masons determine gender the same way most people do by virtue of your gender. So unless you are a post-op its a bit of a moot point.

Personally, I have no problems with contradictions in life. It's the acceptance of contradiction that allows me to expand my own moral framework as it exemplifies the multi-faceted nature of life..

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 01:00 am UTC (link)
"the different deities represent the different facets of the one supreme being."

Ah, but that's not true polytheism. I can't remember the word for it right off, but systems where all gods are thought to be facets of one supreme god, like Hinduism, have a different descriptor.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]dirtynumbangel, 2005-08-02 01:34 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:02 am UTC

[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 05:07 am UTC (link)
"Personally, I have no problems with contradictions in life. It's the acceptance of contradiction that allows me to expand my own moral framework as it exemplifies the multi-faceted nature of life.."

This is an interesting point. I generally concur with respect to paradox - what could be more true than an open secret? for example. I'm not so sure about contradiction, though. How do you see contradiction as expanding your moral framework? I mean, what freedoms does contradiction grant or what restrictions do you see it as removing?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]calivion
2005-08-02 02:26 am UTC (link)
Just to throw my two cents in here and try to anwser them as I see fit,

1) Why arn't there women in Masons? Because there are several good reasons that I am not going to go into right now. That and as has already been pointed out it is not an anomily among orginizations. Further, if you are looking for an orgainzation that is Masonicly based That has women look to Amaranth or OES.

2)The whole God thing. There are references to the Judo-Christian Bible. Thats a fact if you don't like it move on.

3) Acting on the square. As most Masons would agree we all beleive different things however as long as you are not violating scared laws, are respectful of others, violating the laws of man, and arn't picking fights with others who have just as vaild a view points you are ok.

4) This is just my last comment, Masons are an organization older then we have records for. We have evolved over time to what we are today, however there are some Masonic Laws, set forth from the obligations out that every Mason must agree to and defind to the best of his ablitiy. We are elitest. We have never claimed to be otherwise. I beleive what my sponser said puts it best, "We don't make good men. We make good men Better."

If you have conflicts with any of these points you may want to look else where. Masonry isn't for everyone.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]strawberryviper
2005-08-02 03:52 am UTC (link)
We are elitist. We have never claimed to be otherwise. I believe what my sponsor said puts it best, "We don't make good men. We make good men Better."

Couldn't agree more. There was a time in my life when that statement would have made me cringe, but after going through the degrees, and learning the history of the organization, it now makes me motivated to keep bettering myself so as to never let the history of the fraternity down.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]jabber
2005-08-02 02:39 am UTC (link)
You ask some very profound and cogent questions. I hope the answers you get will not dissuade you from continuing down the path toward membership, because Masonry would benefit from more open minds in its ranks.

Firstly, to address the oath and the profession of belief in God. While some lodges you may encounter may have a very constrained definition of what that means, here you will find Masons with much more open interpretations of God. As I, personally, see things, all Masonry requires truly is that you acknowledge the belief that there is something greater than yourself that defines the proper order of things. Call it a moral compass, call it Yahweh, call it Providence, call it what you will but respect it as something greater than you are, something beyond your comprehension, and I think you've met the requirement.

Secondly, family values. I personally know gay Masons. Square need not mean unwilling to accept alternative lifestyles. Yes, most Masons I know tend to be conservative and traditional, but very few are small-minded. The Masons I know have a very "live and let live" attitude, and being outside the mainstream is just not a topic of discussion in most cases. Unlike here, in Lodge, it is considered "poor form" to address certain subjects. These topics, traditionally, are religion, politics and business - divisive topics. Sexuality and sexual activities are probably better left unmentioned as well.

As for predominantly gay lodges, I don't know. But, lodge membership is very much a function of an area's demographics. In places, I'm sure there are gay lodges, or ones where a significant number of the members are gay.

Your third and fourth questions are related, obviously. Masonry is a traditionally, well, traditional organizations, and so it determines gender in traditional terms. If you're a male, you're masculine. Ultimately, if you have a penis, you're a man. Transgender issues are an uncharted territory, as far as I know. I suppose that it's a matter of self-alignment and conscience to a degree. If you consider yourself a man, joining a men's fraternity is an option for you.

And that's what Masonry is, ultimately. A Men's Organization. That does not mean Masons see women as inferior or inadequate, simply not Masons. I ponder this stance from time to time, and I would like to believe that Masonry would stand up to the challenge of having women members, but I'm not sure it could. It would certainly have to change and grow, and become something other than what it is. If what it is isn't something of which you desire to be a part, don't proceed - not because you're not welcome, but because it may not be a satisfying experience for you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 04:21 am UTC (link)
Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]strawberryviper
2005-08-02 03:44 am UTC (link)
This thread is a example of the beauty of Masonry:

No one man speaks for Masonry.

There is no central text or dogma; much if not everything is open to interpretation much like the laws of our nation, which, after becoming a Master Mason, you will see that Masonic Law and US law are at their furthest, kissing cousins.

As for Gay Masons, the master of my lodge last year was a gay man. And many famous masons have been gay. But even with a Gay Master of our Lodge, i never heard a single person mention a single word about it. It just didn't and doesn't come up. There are more important matters to deal with... like BarBQ's!! and Pancake breakfasts. Just kidding. No, i'm not.

I've never heard an ill word spoken about women from any Mason i know. In fact, i rarely hear an ill word spoken about anyone (with the exception of the idiots in city hall, and for anyone that lives in Santa Cruz, you know what i'm talking about). In fact, the Mason's i know seem to hold Women in the highest regard. If it weren't for the support of the ladies, our lodge would cease to exist. Heck, the Jobies and Rainbow use the lodge more than we do.

For me, becoming a Master mason remains one of the top 3 most important things i've done in this life. I'll just leave it at that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]calivion
2005-08-02 04:21 am UTC (link)
like BarBQ's!! and Pancake breakfasts. Just kidding. No, i'm not.

Really he isn't. If you get fully invovled there is so much stuff that has to be done together that we don't have time to bring up issues that divide us. Sure some people might take issue with where you stand on an issue, so don't bring it up.

We have cook out, charities, our familys, and communities to worry about. In fact to the beset of my knowlegde the only fight that has ever occured in our lodge was when the Jobies and the DeMolay both asked for some money and we didn't have enough to help them both.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 05:12 am UTC (link)
I could swear someone posted a response which included suggestions of a couple other organizations I might prefer to masons. But I can't find either the email or the posting now.

Could whoever that was please either repost, offer a pointer, or contact me in email?

(Reply to this)

Troublemaker
[info]jubeloh
2005-08-02 05:18 am UTC (link)
Brethren we clearly have someone here who is merely trying to yank our collective chain.

I suggest we ignore him.

(Reply to this)


[info]chiasmushf
2005-08-02 02:41 pm UTC (link)
Well, I certainly don't think Masonry is a good fit for you, but I am curious to know: what is it that drew you to Masonry in the first place? What made you look into it, and what made you think it might work out for you?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 03:56 pm UTC (link)
Three things.

  1. Familial history - my father, my mother's brother, my mother's father, and my father's father's father were all masons, (according to my father, I haven't made any attempt to verify.)
  2. Multiple references from other ritual work I've done and do
  3. An interest in participating in a mystical initiatory tradition - other ritual work I've done has been ceremonial, celebratory, and/or ecstatic, but only rarely intentionally initiatory.

I'm still not clear on the tenets, personally. In written form what I've read so far is quite attractive. But I think there are still a lot of hard questions to ask. For instance, moral, sure, but moral according to whom?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]chiasmushf, 2005-08-02 04:09 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 04:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chiasmushf, 2005-08-02 05:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabber, 2005-08-02 09:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 09:35 pm UTC
my take on answers to questions posed
[info]erik_j_meyer
2005-08-02 04:37 pm UTC (link)
First: I personally find the term 'monotheism' very subjective. I know Masons that define themselves as polytheistic. I may know Masonic animistic types, but not sure they have defined themselves as such. They believe in a soul, a divine force, a set of moral laws and an ideal that people should strive towards. It is all good.

Second: gay Masons? Sure. What you do in the privacy of your home is generally considered your business. Generally as in 'as long as you are not seriously breaking laws and endangering others'. I know a number of Masons that are gay. I know a Lodge in my Jurisdiction that I am pretty sure is predominately gay. http://www.kinghiramslodge.org/

Third: I am pretty sure gender is considered on basis of birth biology and continued self definition (ie - no surgery to change the biology)

Fourth: I think this is an individual item. Personally I look at it as such: folks need (usually because of socialization) a sense of comomnalities with a group to feel that they belong. You could join a group where you have no commonalities, maybe some folks just like being contrary, to each their own.

I notice that poly-amory has come up in the thread. For that I refer to my answer to question number Two. I would lump kink in there as well.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: my take on answers to questions posed
[info]teamnoir
2005-08-02 04:56 pm UTC (link)
"I would lump kink in there as well."

You don't think consensual SM would fall under "seriously breaking laws and endangering others"?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: my take on answers to questions posed - [info]erik_j_meyer, 2005-08-02 04:59 pm UTC
Re: my take on answers to questions posed - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:02 pm UTC

[info]one_of_tha_few
2005-08-02 05:05 pm UTC (link)
This is for Teamnoir:

Can I just say first off that I find your icon ironic as you keep ranting about sexism?

First of all, I have a problem with people arguing about whether or not a thing is good when they might be defining the terms they're using differently. The two words that keep coming up in these disputes are sexism and discrimination. So, before I proceed I'm going to define both of them. These definitions come from dictionary.com:
Sexism: #1) Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
#2) Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Discrimination: #1) The act of discriminating.
#2) the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
#3) Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

For the purposes of my argument I am going to focus on #2 for sexism and #3 for discrimination. Just so we're clear. I think that those definitions are most clear and precise.

Do I think the Masons are sexist? And do I think they discriminate? Based on the above definitions I do not. And I think that neutral definitions are fairer to use than one's own biased ones which are usually suited to help in the argument.

What part of this organization promotes the stereotyping of social roles based on gender? I see none. Now I can't speak for all lodges. I can't even speak as a Mason since I am a woman. But from what I do know this organization is less sexist than most people/families/other orgs/churched I've ever come across. I would agree with you if I saw that the Masons wives were the ones to cook for them and clean the lodge etc. etc., but that doesn't happen. Women are not treated as if they should stay home with the kids and cook and clean so I don't see Masons promoting the stereotyping of gender roles. A woman not being able to label herself as a Mason in no way promotes the stereotyping of social roles because being a Mason has nothing to do with traditional male social roles. Masons aren't out to make money or be stronger than other people or anything of that nature. And in my opinion, Masonry is more traditionally feminine than many female only orgs. The type of charities they are involved give the Masons a traditionally nurturing and maternal aspect. Also, traditional social roles would say that when men get together they should speak of politics and when women get together they should plan pancake breakfasts and such. But Masons don't speak of politics and are involved in holding many a pancake breakfast. It amuses me and pleases me that such a masculine organization so blatantly and openly embraces and bases most of its activities on things that traditionally would look much like a women’s org. And the fact that this org is not a new thing and has been around for hundreds of years restores a little bit of my faith in humanity. It's such a beautiful thing I wouldn't want to compromise its existence with bringing women into the org. I wouldn't want to outshine a group of people trying so hard to help. ; ) Just Kidding.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

2nd part of my comment...didn't all fit the first time...
[info]one_of_tha_few
2005-08-02 05:06 pm UTC (link)
But in all seriousness I find your opinion on what is and isn't sexist appalling and offensive. I feel like if I was in your world I would have to be bisexual if I didn't want to be called sexist. Not that I have a problem with people who are bisexual, but I'm not. I am a part of a group of people who when it comes to who they want are attracted to almost always “discriminate” based on sex. And I feel like if I lived in your world this would be considered negative. And go ahead and try to tell me you didn't mean to include sexual preferences because you can't make rules like that. It's all or nothing. I am born to be attracted to men as much as I am born to feel a different sort of bond with women. If women weren't biologically different you would not exist, and I'm not speaking of physical make-up I speaking of character etc. If women weren't usually maternal they either wouldn't have children or they wouldn't care for them as well. It is of the utmost importance to the existence of humanity that these differences exist and it is important to embrace them and not try to ignore them. Now, I'm not saying I think all women should have kids, I myself am not interested in having any, all I'm saying is choices should be respected whether they’re personal or collective as long as they don’t physically harm others. I can't tell you how many educated women I meet who are offended by people like yourself looking down on them because they have chosen to stay home with their children for a few years even though sometimes, they have a higher earning potential than their husband. Trying to force women into this "you must fit into the opposite role than the stereotype you fit into for 1000's of years" bit it destructive. Women held that role for a reason. They are physically weaker and they were *needed* in the home or a civilized society never would have existed or progressed to what it is today. And because of the progression women are not needed at home like they used to be. And in the country, because it is not necessary, most household are two income. You and I live in the most tolerant and for the most part gender role free country on the earth. It is not perfect because no human is, but it is the closest thing that has ever existed to perfect when it comes to justice, we are obsessed with it as a society, and you should be grateful to be a part of that. And you need to recognize that feeling like one belongs to a group is the most important part of being human. It is why people have families and belong to churches and join sports teams etc. etc., it is so intrinsic and necessary to our nature that it can be exploited to the detriment of others (Nazi Germany for example) and if you want to fight against anything it should be the potential exploitation of groups, and not groups themselves. Telling humans they shouldn't feel like they can belong to a group that is most intrinsic to them as a person is a lot of wasted effort. No matter what kind of political change there is I will never be able to ignore the kinship I feel with the 1/2 of the population that is biological similar to myself. And it's not that I like them better; there are many times I would prefer to be around a group of guys. But I will never know what it feels like to be able to pee in the snow and want to scratch all the time and you will never know what it's like to get cramps and give birth. We need people to talk to about these things in life that make us different. And it's selfish and stupid to fault people for doing it.

If you haven't, you should read "The Giver". The society described in the beginning of the book would be where your opinions would lead us and that's not okay with me. I will take all the pain and unfairness in the world before I'll live in a society that refuses to embrace my differences by calling all female or all male groups wrong.

I haven't talked about discrimination yet but this has gotten too long and in this argument the words can be used almost interchangeably so I'm not going to go into how the Masons don't discriminate unless you think it would help you to understand where I'm coming from if I haven't made it clear enough for you.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: 2nd part of my comment...didn't all fit the first time... - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:26 pm UTC
Re: 2nd part of my comment...didn't all fit the first time... - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 05:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:17 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chiasmushf, 2005-08-02 05:25 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 05:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 05:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 06:21 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 07:22 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 08:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]teamnoir, 2005-08-02 09:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 09:15 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 09:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-08-02 09:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]one_of_tha_few, 2005-08-02 09:06 pm UTC

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…