🚀 go-pugleaf

Ok, look, I know my opinions about Women in Masonry are not popular
around here.  For any heartache I have caused I appologize.  If you
never agree with me that's fine.  We don't have to agree to be Masons
(G).  If there is anything I have tried to accomplish in this
conversation it is this:

1.)  We can not hide our heads in the sand.  I am 31 years old.  If I
     as a Mason can feel as I do, you MUST REASONABLY ADMIT TO
     YOURSELVES that outsiders (potential future Masons) (or some) are
     likely to feel the same way.  If you do not address the issue,
     they will make you address it prior to petitioning, or they will
     not petition.  Separate the emotions from this issue and think
     about it RATIONALLY AND LOGICALLY.  I won't even use the term
     OBJECTIVELY since that is such a dirty word here and it causes
     people to slap their hands over their ears so hard it causes
     brain damage (G).

2.)  You can't say to yourselves that men will simply petition anyway
     There are several reasons they may not.  1.)  Wives may object
     because of the exclusions.  A lot of men are far more influanced
     by the wills of their spouses these days than before.  2.)  Men
     these days do not feel the same way about the issue of sexual
     discrimination that they did possibly when SOME of you were raised
     Master Masons.  You can bitch and whine about that fact till you
     are blue in the face but they are not going to change how they feel
     about these issues to suit your desires.

3.)  WE ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!  The numbers prove it.  It was
     standing room only in many lodges only a few decades ago.  Now
     there is a definite echo in the lodges when the Master speaks.
     Many lodges have problems opening monthly meetings because they
     don't have high enough attendance.  Those same lodges (many)
     initiate new EA's only once or twice a year now.  A few decades
     ago, they were initiating 2 or 3 a month on the average.  Logic
     (not blind emotional stuborness) dictates that WHATEVER we are
     doing wrong, must be changed.  Staunch comittment to a tredition
     is great.  But if that tredition is causing lodges to close
     all over the country due to the fact that it causes a lack of
     new petitioners, it must be changed.  That's simple logic.  I
     would rather sacrifice a single tredition than sacrifice the
     entire fraternity instead.  If I had bone cancer in my forearm
     I would rather lose the arm than keep it and lose my life no
     matter how much I love having two arms.  Now, I'm not saying that
     female exclusion is solely to blame for our lack of numbers.
      But I do know specific instances of young men who wanted to
     petition and either the exclusionary rule caused them to act on
     conscience and walk away, or their WIVES put their feet down (as
     they all do so often (G)), and screamed about it until the man
     had to choose between their wives and a fraternity they did not
     yet belong to.  It's a fact of life.  It happens every day.  You
     can't hide your head in the sand and say it will not happen be-
     cause it happens to lodges every day.


So, if Masonry is going to keep the exclusionary rule, so be it.  But
we had better come up with an explaination that will satisfy a young man
thinking about petitioning.  If he asks you WHY we do not admit women
and you do not have an explaination that sounds reasonable (and none do
so far) you had better count on him leaving without a petition.  I
knowsome of you will say, "fine, if he feels that way, let him go."  And
that response may have left us unscathed 30 years ago.  But today, if a
lodge only initiates two a year and one leaves without petitioning, it
has indeed HURT THAT LODGE.