4 ms·

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

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.

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.