In the 21st century, why does Freemasonry still discriminate against women ?

reply to post by fordrew


1. My husband is a Research Mason and is well-respected for his knowledge of Masonry and related esoteric and spritual areas. He is in (too) much demand to give lectures in other lodges. He was in the habit of inviting me to attend some lectures, with the permission of the Master (not his Mother lodge which is 'Bigot HQ'), which were on esoteric and spiritual matters, but which did not reveal any secrets (which you must be aware are no longer 'secret'). After one such lecture, the master of the lodge was attacked by several bigotted 'gentlemen' for allowing a person wthout a penis into their midst (the lecture was after the meeting had been closed of course and not even held in the temple), and I have not been invited again so as to not rock the boat, although several moderate masons present felt it was rediculous to demand that I be exculded. All in the aim of keeping harmony in the lodge ... but not at home.

2. Specifically on the matter of historical evidence of female stone masons, it exists. My husband agrees with this, and promised me to write a research paper on the topic. I have done my own research, but he would write a more scholarly paper than me. He was counselled by some 'brethern' not to, again, so as to not rock the boat and upset the Old Coot Brigade. I bring this point up as it is one of the refuges used by Old Coot Masons to justiy their bigotry. This is hypocritical, and at least saying 'we don't want women amongst us because we are misogynists' while still offensive, is honest.

If the Brethern ever become secure enough to allow my husband to lecture on this topic I will gladly ask him to send you a copy.

3. My husband is well aware of my feelings about Masonry. Do you really think that I would have kept quiet? As for the permission sought before he was joined, I do remember being interviewed (and getting the decided feeling of being checked out) by two Old Coots and asking them what his time commitment would be. I was told that he would attend meetings about once a month, sometimes a little more often. That felt reasonable at the time. In actuality he has gone out up to four times a week in the past, although he has cut back to 2-3 a week now. As for the spiritual path, I did not expect that, and I suspect neither did my husband at the time. Would I give my 'permission' again - probably not.

4. You don't have the right to tell me whether or not I would like my husband's company on Valentines. I eschew all the plastic roses and schmaltzy junk that gets sold and lands up as waste in landfills, but I think that if I wanted my husband's company I am allowed to feel that way. I don't need your permission or blessing.

I don't deny that there are some earnest, honest and sincere masons who are good men. But for the most, what I see is a bunch of hypocrites. And the importance of family and respect for women is the first and biggest lie.

reply to post by Ouette


In your second post, your husband sounds like a good Mason, and like a lot of guys I know. A couple of things though. He can always say no to the invites. He can always stand up for you in front of the "old coots." I can definitely see exactly how the situation you describe could happen. It happened in my lodge with black visitors. We have several members that are entirely against black Masons. I happen to have a lot of black friends, but I am also a big fan of tradition and loyalty. When some black Masons wanted to attend our Lodge, I went one by one to every member in attendance and asked if they had any objection, off the record, and I fully intended to deny entrance if there was an objection. Nobody had the cahones to formally object, the visitors were allowed, we had a great meeting, and then the next day the rumors started flying, and the complaints started flying. At our next Lodge meeting, I gave everyone the opportunity to clear the air, and lo and behold, nobody had a formal complaint in front of me as the Worshipful Master. Chickens. Anyhow, a few members stopped attending Lodge during my year as Master, but harmony was ensured by strong leadership and no BS.

Your husband could have handled it that way as well. Either they want him to lecture or they do not. If they want him to lecture, and you are his guest, and the lodge isn't open, and no Masonic secrets are being divulged, then there is no problem. Since your husband is the expert, and the invited lecturer, he has no reason to cave into their demands.

Here is what I expect. Your husband is lobbying and working to be a District Deputy, or possibly even a Grand Master. He is putting in a lot of work, and trying not to make any waves or enemies until he can obtain that status. Nothing wrong with that, but he should be honest with you about his motivations. If that is not the case, then he should be more assertive in standing up for himself and for you.

reply to post by Ouette


I understand. So you approved but you did not expect him to go out 4 times a week to do whatever he needed to do. Usually if a member goes out that often he is DistrictDeputy or he holds some position in the grand lodge OR he is looking for a position in the grand lodge of your state. If he lectures then definitely hes going to be out 4 times a week.


i found that doing a little bit of google searching-
tamrin.proboards.com...

I must say at first glance that I am a bit surprised. And now confused. I did not look at the sources yet. This paper is very compelling i must say and I think it may change my views at least.


reply to post by getreadyalready


Wow. That sounds rather infuriating. The first mason I have ever met in my life was a black mason ( sorry im not going to be politcally correct). I do not have friends or any family in freemasonry . He was one of the nicest guys I have ever known. I think that some people need to be slapped in the face if you went individually to people to ask them if it was ok to have them over. Hell you shouldn't even need to ask that question and just had them over. Surely you must be from the South!!!!!!!

reply to post by getreadyalready


I have no problems with gays per se being Masons, but as they could potentially introduce sexual overtones to the dynamics, it seems be double-standards to exclude women for that reason. Or is there a difference?

To clarify - I said that my husband's mother lodge has had one social event for women in 10 years; a year end dinner. I was also invited, by my husband, to go to a karaoke evening at another lodge. Certainly from time to time other lodges hold ladies events, but none at my husband's lodge. And frankly I am not much interested in eating mediocre food and making small talk with women I have nothing in common with except that our husbands are masons. Agreed, that is my choice, but the occasional dinner, or whatever, would still not compensate for the loss of my husband's company several times a week.

I have also accompanied my husband in the past to lectures he gave at other lodges (all sanctioned by the master), but a stop was put to this at District Level when some bigots complained about my presence. It was a pity that the bigots prevailed, because any lady was welcome, and at least at some level I felt that I was sharing my husband's passion with him.

I would probably not want to join masonry even if permitted since as a spiritual path it does not appeal to me. But that should be my choice.

reply to post by Ouette


First of all: sexual orientation, race, religion, political standings are all irrelevant in the lodge. OR should be irrelevant. Those separate peoples and that is not what a fraternity is looking to do. Those subjects has no place in the lodge. Whatever you believe in is ok but it is absolutely not tolerable to express your opinions on the subjects I mentioned (if you are a mason).

Second: The reason why you may not be allowed to participate in hearing the lectures is because those lectures ( im only an entered apprentice mason...) are in the middle of the business meetings that occur. Only master masons may attend the meetings. So those lectures probably MAY include indepth sight on ideas and secrets pertaining to the degrees. That stuff is private. That might be why they are kicking you out. Then again dont take it from me because I've never been to a lecture yet.

reply to post by fordrew

reply to post by getreadyalready

Wow. That sounds rather infuriating. The first mason I have ever met in my life was a black mason ( sorry im not going to be politcally correct). I do not have friends or any family in freemasonry . He was one of the nicest guys I have ever known. I think that some people need to be slapped in the face if you went individually to people to ask them if it was ok to have them over. Hell you shouldn't even need to ask that question and just had them over. Surely you must be from the South!!!!!!!

Yes, Florida-Georgia border, LOL! It wasn't as infuriating as you might imagine. The fact of the matter is, a home member can object to the presence of any visitor for any reason, and I would have had to respect that, and I was more than willing to do so. However, I had a suspicion that nobody would say it to my face, so to avoid an uncomfortable situation and nip it in the bud, I went around ahead of time. My approach worked, but it also created some resentment from a couple of guys that did not want to speak up. If you follow my posts on ATS, you can probably tell that I don't mind a little confrontation, but I expect it to be direct and clear, no ankle biting or backstabbing.

This applies to the OP in the following manner: Hypothetically, if I were her husband, and I knew that her presence was not violating any of our obligations, and I wanted her to see my lecture, and she wanted to attend, and some Lodge needed my expertise, then I would have brought her. If they complained about it after the fact, I would have made it clear that there were other qualified lecturers they could call instead of me, no hard feelings. Otherwise, quit complaining. Direct and Honest. That should be the Masonic way.

However, I hold no illusions that I will ever be a District Deputy or Grand Master, because my direct ways are not conducive to political pandering within the fraternity. I probably have as many enemies as I do friends.

Originally posted by fordrew

Wow. That sounds rather infuriating. The first mason I have ever met in my life was a black mason ( sorry im not going to be politcally correct). I do not have friends or any family in freemasonry . He was one of the nicest guys I have ever known. I think that some people need to be slapped in the face if you went individually to people to ask them if it was ok to have them over. Hell you shouldn't even need to ask that question and just had them over. Surely you must be from the South!!!!!!!

edit on 14-2-2011 by fordrew because: (no reason given)

sadly, you are correct as far as location. It's the same in lots of areas. But if you remember your entered apprentice lecture, there was a slide or a point were you saw these words, "Internal and not the External" regarding the qualities of a man that masonry covets. If more men would understand what those words meant, then the sillyness of racial divide would go away. But since masons are men and have weaknesses, I guess hoping for an elevated moral compass is just a pipe dream.

Originally posted by Ouette
I have also accompanied my husband in the past to lectures he gave at other lodges (all sanctioned by the master), but a stop was put to this at District Level when some bigots complained about my presence. It was a pity that the bigots prevailed, because any lady was welcome, and at least at some level I felt that I was sharing my husband's passion with him.

I'd be more inclined to blame your husband than the Freemasons as a whole. That and backward frigging attitudes in the US. My word! If you want to share his passion, he, it seems, is going to have to want to share it with you and fight your corner. Good luck with that!

Personally, a husband that was out 5 nights a week would suit me down to the ground...6 nights would be even better...most expect more than that, which is why I don't bother...

Originally posted by Ouette
I would probably not want to join masonry even if permitted since as a spiritual path it does not appeal to me. But that should be my choice.

It is also his, he could join a co-ed lodge, or the such-like. He has chosen to join an organisation that he knows you are excluded from, for whatever his reasons. You should address that with him...and then come back and tell us what he said...

Originally posted by Ouette
I have no problems with gays per se being Masons, but as they could potentially introduce sexual overtones to the dynamics, it seems be double-standards to exclude women for that reason. Or is there a difference?

There are a few guys in my lodge who are gay and it does not seem to be an issue with anyone. If it is an issue that they are gay then they straight members are doing the right thing and not making a big deal about their sexual preference.

I do not think having men who are gay as members could introduce any type of unwatned dynamic. My experiences with gay men that I have met both in Masonry and in my public life is that when they find out I, or any other guy, is straight, they typically do not make any untoward advances.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Let me get this right, prior to the 1970's there was hundreds of male only organizations in existence to give comradeship, guidance and support for guy's to develop. Well feminist's thought this was "sexist", so most of them where disbanded.

Flash forward 40 years and there is very,very,very,very few male only clubs/private non profit organizations. But yet there are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF WOMEN ONLY ORGANIZATIONS and FOR PROFIT BUSINESSES? That go out of their way to "empower" girls and women and advocate discriminatory policies be implemented against boy's and men; and you call that equality?

Or how about school acknowledging that boy's and young men are suffering in the female dominated school system so they decide to build a multi-million dollar all girls school and if they have money left over at a future time may build something similar for the boy's?

The fact that "Women only" has become the new "White only" of our gendered Apartheid states? All I can say is I can't wait for all the older chauvinistic pigs(that justify all the pro-female stuff because they think women are perpetual children[which is wrong and condescending, women are human beings and as such should be held to a human standard]) kick the bucket the gal's are gonna get to experience real equality first hand.

In the 18th century, which is where one finds the origins of modern Masonry, women were generally uneducated, illiterate, apolitical domestic servants and sex slaves; this was long before the rise of the modern feminist movement. Further the "Scottish Masons (i.e., the Masons of Scotland, as opposed to the Scottish Rite Masons in the US)" consider themselved to be the Christian "military order" of the Knight's Templars, and the secret army of the "King of Scotland (i.e., the living Masonic Messiah; the king of kings.); it is thus rather unsuprising that women are forbidden to join a military order of messianic paternalists (male supremacists).

Many of the more modern esoteric and Neopagan, Neowiccan orders which have essentially revised and rewritten Masonic rituals do have women members, and indeed some of these societies are run by women, and some are exclusively women only.

"There is no god but man" There is no goddess but woman.

Frankly the ultimate magickal rite (the Great Rite) cannot be properly performed without a male and a female, since it is a sexual rite which involves the public act of penetrative sex, and is intended to manifest the "god spirit," which is considered to be the be both feminine and masculine.

In the "Left Hand path" Kabbalistic and esoteric tradition, the statement of the Jesus of the Gospels "When you see me, you see the father" is only 50% of the truth (though it is universally applicable to all males, and Jesus is clearly portrayed as a deluded and primitive paternalistic religious fanatic, and a fake healer; hardly a divine manifestation), since the Kabbalistic Creator is considered to be the union of male and female; thus the "divine image" is that of a male and female entwined through the natural magick of love and lust. The "Great Rite" is "not" about the worship of some transcendent being, but the incarnation of the divine through the union of male and female, who become the manifestation of the god and goddess on earth. It is about the "becoming (i.e., the invocation or incarnation)" of the divine.

There are of course some Neopagan covens which are exclusively homosexual and where the position of the HIgh Priestess is taken by a passive gay male, though I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that the Masonic societies "do" perform the Great Rite, in a male only society, such as Masonry, it would have to be a homosexual rite, assuming that it is performed at all.

Personally I take the view that human beings are a "bisexual" species and that the magickal rites of the O.T.O. and many modern Neopagan esoteric societies are thus more orthodox than the exclusively heterosexual or homosexual esoteric societies. One cannot merely ascertain the power and influence of Thelemic revolutionaries by the size of membership in societies such as the O.T.O. and other similar esoetic societies of the Neopagan movement; it is far more pervasive than this. Regular Masonry in contrast just seems to be a club for ageing Capitalsts; their "power" is economic, not spiritual, sexual or philosophical in any revolutonary sense; they are a remnant of the paternalistic past.

Lux

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


well the way i see it is that a fraternity is for men, or it would not be a fraternity, and if you say that thats sexist because females aint aloud how bout let my son become a girl scout and become a volleyball plpayer and we will let your be the quarterback for the local football team and my older daughter can join the local frat group at the colledge and then my nephew, rick, can join a sorority.

My point is just because others arent allowed doesnt mean it isnt right.

Originally posted by skischoow
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

 

well the way i see it is that a fraternity is for men, or it would not be a fraternity, and if you say that thats sexist because females aint aloud how bout let my son become a girl scout and become a volleyball plpayer and we will let your be the quarterback for the local football team and my older daughter can join the local frat group at the colledge and then my nephew, rick, can join a sorority.

My point is just because others arent allowed doesnt mean it isnt right.

In the UK there are no 'boy' or 'girl' scouts, just scouts. Boys can have volleyball teams, girls can have football teams, some can have mixed teams if they so wish. I was in the mixed hockey team at my school and played in all matches, my 'style' was less suited to the all-girl game so I seldom played in that team.

All options, within reason, should be available to all. Which is why, in principle, I don't have a difficulty with fraternities like the Freemasons, but I do have difficulties with 'fraternal structures', we still have those in the upper echelons of the British Civil Service and they were formed around the same time as the Freemasons, by pretty much the same 'brothers'.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Also, women are made to be beautiful, not necessarily smart. Men are made to be smart, not necessarily beautiful.

Can we assume then, that a woman in a male secret society would disrupt their thought process? Hillary Clinton is a globalist, just like George Bush and Obama for example, just as evil and willing to play chess with real countries and human lives as her male counterparts but why is she not allowed in Freemasonry? I don't know, ask the 33rd degree Freemasons.

Originally posted by fordrew
reply to post by Ouette

 

Second: The reason why you may not be allowed to participate in hearing the lectures is because those lectures ( im only an entered apprentice mason...) are in the middle of the business meetings that occur. Only master masons may attend the meetings. So those lectures probably MAY include indepth sight on ideas and secrets pertaining to the degrees. That stuff is private. That might be why they are kicking you out. Then again dont take it from me because I've never been to a lecture yet.

No, the lectures are generally held after normal lodge meetings have been closed, and nobody excluded based on being 'only' an entered apprentice. Some lectures, because of their specific focus (and in which 'secrets' might be integral to the subject matter) my husband would, understandably, not invite me to. Since my husband sometimes lectures to audiences comprised of masons who have gone beyond the three 'standard' degrees, I would imagine that he only makes reference to or discusses 'secrets' known to the lowest degreed masons present.

As to what exactly constitutes a 'secret' is another can of worms and an altogether different debate. Maybe some time I will start a separate thread as I have some fairly strong opinions (based on research) on that

Lodges of contemporary Freemasonry are mistaken by excluding women from their lodges.

Meaning that they should have listened to the great Alchemist Cagliostro and included the Priestess.

The following is relevant to consider too:

H.P. Blavatsky's Masonic Patent

Is'nt it part of the initiation where your oath is to not have a relationship with another mason's wives and daughters?

Maybe the rule of not allowing woman into the fretinity is to prevent arguments over a female or rivalry between 2 brothers.

Either way I am sure there will be a very good reason for it or in the near future they may change their view.

Just a thought...........

Here is an article from Masonic Info:

If it weren't so ludicrous, it would be laughable: people who say that Freemasonry is evil and ought to be destroyed then turn right around and complain that women are not accepted into membership! Doesn't this seem just a bit odd?

Masonry began as an organization by and for men. It began some three hundred years ago when people looked at things far differently than they did now. Deriving customs from the stone masons of old and using the mores of the society of the time, it was assumed that only men would be involved. Because of that assumption, it was not until decades later that the requirement one be "a man" was added to Freemasonry.

That notwithstanding, some Masons of those earliest years (and thinking far more progressively than the times in which they lived) encouraged and helped to create lodges of freemasonry for women! Additionally, free-thinking women of the time also took it upon themselves to create lodges patterned nearly identically to those of male Masons. Some of these exist to this very day.

Early on, however, it became clear that a known fact of human interaction might become the downfall of Freemasonry. Sociologically, those of the same sex can and will nearly always work together more harmoniously than when both sexes attempt to work together - particularly in certain things. While it's not always 'politically correct' to create barriers, sociologists agree that for some things there's nothing wrong with (and may be a benefit to) having certain rites, rituals, and organizations composed exclusively of the same sex.

And thus the general body of Freemasonry grew, composed exclusively of men while simultaneously there existed in small numbers groups of women masons behaving uprightly and often identically to the male organization - and excluding males from their membership! They have not been accorded recognition by the general body of Freemasonry but they do exist!

During the process of this development too, some felt that the restriction to males was inappropriate and they removed themselves from the original concepts of Freemasonry to form mixed gender lodges. These too continue to exist today but are very small in number and are not recognized by the general body of Freemasonry.

In addition, in the United States and some other countries, there have developed organizations like the Eastern Star which exist as a body different from but philosophically similar and organizationally tied to Freemasonry.

We apologize for perhaps boring you with these stories which you may find totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, we feel it is important to note that Freemasonry is not sexist (a word not even coined until the organization was 250+ years old). It does, however, restrict its membership to males.

There is a female branch or section of the Masonic Order called Order of the Eastern Star. My Grandmother, Mother and Aunts were all members, and they are all buried in a Masonic Cemetery. (With the Masonic logo and Eastern Star logo on their headstones)

Edited