43 ms·

Aren't lodges, churches, and golf clubs kind of the stereotypical examples of race- and class-exclusionary groups? I suppose it's not exactly a strong set of c

by geofft 5y ago

Aren't lodges, churches, and golf clubs kind of the stereotypical examples of race- and class-exclusionary groups? I suppose it's not exactly a strong set of convictions if you're passively going along with broader social pressures to segregate on race and class, but if we're talking about the health of society (which I think we're implicitly doing), I think segregating on worldview is actually a whole lot healthier.

jdavis703 5y ago
I don’t know much about lodges and golf clubs, but most churches are overwhelmingly of one race or another. Finding a church that reflects the broader community is quite rare, most of the community tends to self-segregate on Sunday mornings. That said, growing up churches seemed fairly class-integrated (I’m atheist now, maybe this has changed?). But growing up we had everyone from an American Football quarterback on a multi-million dollar contract to working class folks in the same room.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  Most of the larger lodges (Loyal Order of Moose, Modern Woodmen of America, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks) were explicitly sexist (male only) and racist (white only). Although some operated female-open auxiliary organizations. Freemasonry is interesting, in that it actually had a schism in part over exclusionary membership clauses around 1877 (Regular vs Continental). Although apparently, masonry itself forbids discussion of religion or politics during its meetings. But much of the early lodge structure and exclusion has since been rewritten and broadened, as the majority of them were founded in the 1870s - 1910s, when prevailing social attitudes were themselves much more sexist and racist. (Interesting, a majority were operated for the purpose of effectively providing their membership a social safety net and insurance, both of which were lacking in government terms at the time!)
  - motohagiography 5y ago
    There are good reasons for male-only organizations as well, mainly to do with having something private of their own that men can bring back to their marriages and homes. It provides a social support network for men (literal fraternity), and by extension, their families, where men are not left dependent on their wives for managing their social lives, as is common in many marriages. The lodges still provide a fabric for civil society that persists across party lines and through periods of strife. To dismiss the lodges as merely sexist is more trivializing than anything else, as we're equal, not indifferent or interchangeable, etc. Racism doesn't really figure into regular Freemasonry either, as it was founded as a universalist enlightenment society. When you look at who has historically made a point of suppressing them, it's worth asking who the good guys really were. They're a reliable canary for civil liberty. Prince Hall masonry, founded by and for African American men is still going strong in the US, and it is in concordance with most north american grand lodges. The main thing is you can't be an atheist in regular masonry, which is analogous to having a policy against racism in that atheism is traditionally also viewed as an obtuse and unnecessarily irreconcilable belief that can call someones moral judgment into question. The continental/european stuff is different, and much of it isn't connected to the mainstream anglosphere masonic culture.
    - jdavis703 5y ago
      > There are good reasons for male-only organizations as well, mainly to do with having something private of their own that men can bring back to their marriages and homes. Why must this be male only to be private?
      - motohagiography 5y ago
        That something is single sex makes it private, yet also less directly exclusive or discriminatory. It's not public, it's a fraternity with membership, which makes it a privilege one earns. So there's a bar. Privacy provides some relief from impertinent people. If one is ideologically opposed to such gatherings, there isn't much to persuade them otherwise, but I suspect having somewhere to go that is free of them is its own reward.
IggleSniggle 5y ago
I see your point, but I think it goes the other way. Churches et al are microcosms of a geographic community, resulting in greater localized diversity of thought. And these groups can either lead or hold back a community along the lines of race- and class-exclusion. The church I grew up with was the very first institution in my life that had an openly homosexual person in a position of power (the rector, in charge of the local church). Point being, the exclusionary aspect of these institutions is often a reflection of the communities they exist within. Certainly clubs are self-grouping communities, with their own sets of exclusionary rules...and some clubs were and are quite explicit in their exclusions: anything that is pay-to-play is largely going to have an element of class-exclusion, whether you pay at the door or whether you pay with something you can "show" (eg being able to read Latin, being a great classical musician, etc). Certainly many clubs have been race- exclusionary, at times intentionally ("keep those people out!") and other times unintentionally ("wait you don't know about X??"). But just because these groups exhibited these exclusions, I don't think it necessarily follows that segregating by worldview is healthier than segregating by geographic region.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  My childhood Southern Baptist church (irregularly attented, around holidays visiting family) had a female pastor. Eventually, the Southern Baptist Convention got around to noticing, and told them that wasn't allowed. They could either fire the pastor, or they'd lose SBC funding. ... to which the church replied that they were founded in 1804, liked their pastor just fine, and that the SBC could go have a talk with the devil, and take their money with them. :) So yes, it depends on the church.
  - mbrodersen 5y ago
    I am not a church goer myself but I love how your church handled it. Kudos!
- idiotsecant 5y ago
  There are certainly exceptions but the vast majority of the largest churches in the US are very homogeneous, more so than the communities they are a part of. There are some groups, for example the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's witnesses that seem to buck this trend but your average Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, Mormon, etc congregations tend to be very homogeneous.
mastazi 5y ago
Keen golfer here, I don't blame you, your vision of golf is very wide spread and it is a stereotype based on how golf works in some places. Like all stereotypes, it is based on a partial truth, but there is more to golf than that. There are several countries, (including Scotland where golf was born), where golf clubs are on average very affordable and most golf courses, including some of the best and most famous ones, are public courses (you can go and walk your dog or do whatever, there is no fence)[1] Scotland is not the only country where public courses are popular[2], but it's the most talked about example, due to golf being born there. Even in countries where golf is usually associated with "social status", like the USA, things are slowly changing, there are golf courses that aim to integrate with the local communities [3][8] and golfers that promote a more inclusive way of practicing the sport[4][5][6]. On a separate note, there are also efforts to make golf courses more environmentally sustainable. Again, Scotland leads the way with their courses that are not irrigated, and intentionally left to brown-out during summer[1][7], but there are also similar efforts in other countries including the USA[9]. [1] Scotland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSVHHG8vnE&list=PL5vefWGHKLbOsSIg25DNydgNV1XLe48VJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSVHHG8vnE&list=PL5vefWGHKL... [2] In Australia many golf courses have no full time staff, and you pay using the "honesty box", those courses also usually have unlimited public access (non golfers can walk in any time) https://australianseniorgolfer.com.au/26181/honesty-box-golf-courses-of-western-victoria-new-golf-book-release/ https://australianseniorgolfer.com.au/26181/honesty-box-golf... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JIYgZrnrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JIYgZrnrc [4] https://randomgolfclub.com/ https://randomgolfclub.com/ [5] https://thefriedegg.com/ https://thefriedegg.com/ [6] https://good-good.fireside.fm/ https://good-good.fireside.fm/ [7] https://sustainable.golf/ https://sustainable.golf/ [8] https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/what-the-future-holds-for-golf-in-urban-areas https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/what-the-futu... [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyMdFbmBbTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyMdFbmBbTk

by geofft 5y ago

jdavis703 5y ago

I don’t know much about lodges and golf clubs, but most churches are overwhelmingly of one race or another. Finding a church that reflects the broader community is quite rare, most of the community tends to self-segregate on Sunday mornings. That said, growing up churches seemed fairly class-integrated (I’m atheist now, maybe this has changed?). But growing up we had everyone from an American Football quarterback on a multi-million dollar contract to working class folks in the same room.

ethbr0 5y ago
Most of the larger lodges (Loyal Order of Moose, Modern Woodmen of America, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks) were explicitly sexist (male only) and racist (white only). Although some operated female-open auxiliary organizations. Freemasonry is interesting, in that it actually had a schism in part over exclusionary membership clauses around 1877 (Regular vs Continental). Although apparently, masonry itself forbids discussion of religion or politics during its meetings. But much of the early lodge structure and exclusion has since been rewritten and broadened, as the majority of them were founded in the 1870s - 1910s, when prevailing social attitudes were themselves much more sexist and racist. (Interesting, a majority were operated for the purpose of effectively providing their membership a social safety net and insurance, both of which were lacking in government terms at the time!)
- motohagiography 5y ago
  There are good reasons for male-only organizations as well, mainly to do with having something private of their own that men can bring back to their marriages and homes. It provides a social support network for men (literal fraternity), and by extension, their families, where men are not left dependent on their wives for managing their social lives, as is common in many marriages. The lodges still provide a fabric for civil society that persists across party lines and through periods of strife. To dismiss the lodges as merely sexist is more trivializing than anything else, as we're equal, not indifferent or interchangeable, etc. Racism doesn't really figure into regular Freemasonry either, as it was founded as a universalist enlightenment society. When you look at who has historically made a point of suppressing them, it's worth asking who the good guys really were. They're a reliable canary for civil liberty. Prince Hall masonry, founded by and for African American men is still going strong in the US, and it is in concordance with most north american grand lodges. The main thing is you can't be an atheist in regular masonry, which is analogous to having a policy against racism in that atheism is traditionally also viewed as an obtuse and unnecessarily irreconcilable belief that can call someones moral judgment into question. The continental/european stuff is different, and much of it isn't connected to the mainstream anglosphere masonic culture.
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    > There are good reasons for male-only organizations as well, mainly to do with having something private of their own that men can bring back to their marriages and homes. Why must this be male only to be private?
    - motohagiography 5y ago
      That something is single sex makes it private, yet also less directly exclusive or discriminatory. It's not public, it's a fraternity with membership, which makes it a privilege one earns. So there's a bar. Privacy provides some relief from impertinent people. If one is ideologically opposed to such gatherings, there isn't much to persuade them otherwise, but I suspect having somewhere to go that is free of them is its own reward.

IggleSniggle 5y ago

I see your point, but I think it goes the other way. Churches et al are microcosms of a geographic community, resulting in greater localized diversity of thought. And these groups can either lead or hold back a community along the lines of race- and class-exclusion. The church I grew up with was the very first institution in my life that had an openly homosexual person in a position of power (the rector, in charge of the local church). Point being, the exclusionary aspect of these institutions is often a reflection of the communities they exist within. Certainly clubs are self-grouping communities, with their own sets of exclusionary rules...and some clubs were and are quite explicit in their exclusions: anything that is pay-to-play is largely going to have an element of class-exclusion, whether you pay at the door or whether you pay with something you can "show" (eg being able to read Latin, being a great classical musician, etc). Certainly many clubs have been race- exclusionary, at times intentionally ("keep those people out!") and other times unintentionally ("wait you don't know about X??"). But just because these groups exhibited these exclusions, I don't think it necessarily follows that segregating by worldview is healthier than segregating by geographic region.

ethbr0 5y ago
My childhood Southern Baptist church (irregularly attented, around holidays visiting family) had a female pastor. Eventually, the Southern Baptist Convention got around to noticing, and told them that wasn't allowed. They could either fire the pastor, or they'd lose SBC funding. ... to which the church replied that they were founded in 1804, liked their pastor just fine, and that the SBC could go have a talk with the devil, and take their money with them. :) So yes, it depends on the church.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  I am not a church goer myself but I love how your church handled it. Kudos!
idiotsecant 5y ago
There are certainly exceptions but the vast majority of the largest churches in the US are very homogeneous, more so than the communities they are a part of. There are some groups, for example the Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's witnesses that seem to buck this trend but your average Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Jewish, Mormon, etc congregations tend to be very homogeneous.

mastazi 5y ago

Keen golfer here, I don't blame you, your vision of golf is very wide spread and it is a stereotype based on how golf works in some places. Like all stereotypes, it is based on a partial truth, but there is more to golf than that. There are several countries, (including Scotland where golf was born), where golf clubs are on average very affordable and most golf courses, including some of the best and most famous ones, are public courses (you can go and walk your dog or do whatever, there is no fence)[1] Scotland is not the only country where public courses are popular[2], but it's the most talked about example, due to golf being born there. Even in countries where golf is usually associated with "social status", like the USA, things are slowly changing, there are golf courses that aim to integrate with the local communities [3][8] and golfers that promote a more inclusive way of practicing the sport[4][5][6]. On a separate note, there are also efforts to make golf courses more environmentally sustainable. Again, Scotland leads the way with their courses that are not irrigated, and intentionally left to brown-out during summer[1][7], but there are also similar efforts in other countries including the USA[9]. [1] Scotland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSVHHG8vnE&list=PL5vefWGHKLbOsSIg25DNydgNV1XLe48VJ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icSVHHG8vnE&list=PL5vefWGHKL... [2] In Australia many golf courses have no full time staff, and you pay using the "honesty box", those courses also usually have unlimited public access (non golfers can walk in any time) https://australianseniorgolfer.com.au/26181/honesty-box-golf-courses-of-western-victoria-new-golf-book-release/ https://australianseniorgolfer.com.au/26181/honesty-box-golf... [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JIYgZrnrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-JIYgZrnrc [4] https://randomgolfclub.com/ https://randomgolfclub.com/ [5] https://thefriedegg.com/ https://thefriedegg.com/ [6] https://good-good.fireside.fm/ https://good-good.fireside.fm/ [7] https://sustainable.golf/ https://sustainable.golf/ [8] https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/what-the-future-holds-for-golf-in-urban-areas https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/what-the-futu... [9] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyMdFbmBbTk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyMdFbmBbTk