On 12 Oct 1996, Oz,aydin wrote:
>>> John Boxer <lboxer at bf.rmit.edu.au>
> Reply to: oz-mason at beastmaster.hna.com.au> To: Multiple recipients of Australian Freemasons mailing list
> <oz-mason at beastmaster.hna.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Man/Woman Symbolism
>>> Only Men Can Be Freemaons, But What is A Man?
>> One of the most respected Freemasons in history was Bro Rudyard Kipling.
>> His poem "If" ends "... then my son, you are a man."
>> I suppose, if a woman met the requirements of that Poem, she would, by
> definition of a most respected Freemason, be a man. Symbolically that
> is. But Symbolism is what Freemasonry is all about. So here is the
> chink in the armour of Regular Freemaonsry!!
>> By that definition, most of the Freemasons I have known would not be Men!
>> I am not changing sides, just offering some food for thought.
> To post a new message address it to - oz-mason at beastmaster.hna.com.au>> To subscribe email to - subscribe-oz at beastmaster.hna.com.au> To unsubscribe email to - unsubscribe-oz at beastmaster.hna.com.au
And this has exactly what to do with women in biology?