To become a Freemason, there are three basic criteria that you have to fulfil:

1. Be a man.

2. Be of good character and morality, and be recommended by somebody who is already a Mason.

3. Believe in a supreme being, aka ''Grand Architect of the Universe''.


There may be some other rules that apply from one Lodge to another, but these are the three main boxes that have to ticked before entering mainstream Masonry.


Rule no. 2 is based upon an assessment of someone's personal actions, and consequently a group or organisation has every right to deny someone membership based upon these grounds.

Rule no. 3 is based upon personal choice. Everybody has the choice to believe or disbelieve in a supreme being, and once again, an organisation is well within their rights to deny someone entry, whose personal choice goes against the ethos or philosophy of the said establishment.

Now we get on to rule no.1, which is denying somebody membership based upon a genetic factor that they have no control over; in this case, their gender.


I realise the historic context that may have been relevant when this rule was implemented, but would it not be better to ''tweak'' this rule, considering how ridiculous it is now ?

It's no different than a group that has a ''no blacks'', ''no Jews'', or ''no gays'' membership requirement.
How would a group with that criteria be considered ?


I don't believe in the conspiracy theory that Freemasonry is some sort of malevolent organisation, or that members hold some esoteric knowledge that non-Masons are not privy to.
In fact, I consider Freemasonry to be little more than an old boy's club.

Some Masons, in defence against wild accusations against their society, will often state that they are a group whose intent is charitable and worthy; the furtherance of a man's spirit, if you will.

Yet, this is completely contradictory, as they willingly disenfranchise 50% of the population, solely upon an ''accident of birth''.


Why are Masons comfortable being a part of this demonstrably bigoted organisation, and why do they think that their ''good causes'' mantra can possibly be taken seriously, considering the prejudice that is outlined in their membership criteria ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

In fact, I consider Freemasonry to be little more than an old boy's club.

I think that is exactly the problem, (although I know nothing of freemasonry), it would not be a boy's club if women were allowed. There are probably other clubs such as Freewomansory, which allow girls.

However many organizations, such as boy-scouts, in the end allowed girls, however these days I think its a bit funny that in all the places I've been to there have only been scouts and girl-scouts, no boy-scouts, so girls get to have an exclusive club for themselves, but boys don't.

There is the "Order of the Eastern Star" for women.
I don't know if theres any connection with freemasons but my my great grandfather was a 32nd degree mason and my grandmother was with the Eastern Star... so there might be.

To put it simply.. are men offended when they aren't allowed into sororities?

This is looking for inequality where there is none, a favorite pastime of feminists.

At the same time there are dozens of examples of various girl "clubs" men are prohibited from joining, at least where I live.

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
This is looking for inequality where there is none, a favorite pastime of feminists.

There demonstrably is inequality in Freemasonry.

It is no different to forming a ''whites only'' or ''blacks only'' organisation.


If you'd seen some of my other posts on ATS, then you would know that ''feminist'' is one of the last terms that could be accurately applied to me.

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
At the same time there are dozens of examples of various girl "clubs" men are prohibited from joining, at least where I live.

This is the ''two wrongs make a right'' logical fallacy.

The fact that some grown women may think that it's acceptable to form organisations based upon gender, in no way, shape or form, justifies a group of men committing the same act of discrimination. And vice versa.

As I say, I see no problem with fraternities or sororities amongst children, but in the real world, and amongst grown-ups, then this kind of bigotry and prejudice shouldn't be tolerated.

Freemasonry - love it or hate it - is an organisation that has a huge foothold in mainstream society, and whose antiquated and bigoted membership criteria should be put on a shelf next to the dinosaurs.

Why don't they let women in?

Easy....
Because men want a place they can go free from their wife's control.

*ducks,covers.*

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I consider Freemasonry to be little more than an old boy's club.

edit on 20-1-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

Crickey! I am an old boy so I supposed that I had better join up!

Actually I support the tradition I would not want to go to any women only events. Freemasons seem to have "Wives days" where spouses and GFs are invited. Also there are International co- masons that allow women members.

I have no problem with the entire business.

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod
So what you're saying is that there should be no organisation, club, institution or group solely for either men or women?

Absolutely.

Why?