My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A Brother Asks: Why Is Excluding Women Legitimate?

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Seeking Light


A Brother Asks: Is there any legitimate reason why women aren't allowed to be Freemasons, or does it just stem from the acting troupe rules of the 16th century?
Coach: Before I respond to your question, let me point out the not so obvious.

Brother: Okay. Go ahead.
Coach: Females are allowed to be Freemasons; just not “male” Freemasons. And the reason why they are not allowed to be “male” Freemasons is that they are not male.

Brother: Okay. Yes. I’ve heard of Co-Freemasonry, and women's lodges and the like.
Coach: Okay, and you believe they are not Freemasonic?

Brother: I am talking about the rules governing all "regular" lodges.
Coach: And these female Freemasons and their lodges are Regular my Brother.

Brother: They can’t be!
Coach: I disagree. They sure can.

Brother: Okay, how so?
Coach: Regularity is set by the governing Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction.

Brother: Okay...
Coach: Since these Female centric Lodges are deemed Regular by their Female centric Grand Lodge, they are indeed Regular to it. They are simply not considered Regular to Male centric Freemasonry.

Brother:
Well, yes. That's not what I meant.
Coach: Then what did you mean?

Brother: I meant to say they're not Recognized Freemasons and Freemasonic Lodges.

Finalizing the Question

Coach: Yes. Thanks. They are not Recognized by Male centric Lodges. They are Recognized within their own network of lodges though.
Brother: Okay, I'm trying to get to a point. I'm having a difficult time finding the right words.

Coach: Finding the right words is important.
Brother: Agreed. What do you think I'm trying to ask?

Coach: I think you're asking the following... Why can't male freemasonry admit and accept females into their organization?
Brother: Yes. That’s it! That’s the question!

Coach: Okay. Thanks. I believe you’ll find that every last response that you get from anyone trying to answer this question will be either made up or offered as an excuse. It won't be the obvious one that provides the underlying reason.
Brother: What’s that obvious reason?

(Continue reading here: http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-brother-asks-why-is-excluding-women.html )
 

CLewey44

Registered User
To us, UGLE recognition is paramount however to non-Masons it means nothing. A woman asked me if she could be a Mason. I said 'Sure, there are avenues for that but it's considered irregular.' I added 'The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognize them as regular, "legit" Masons'. She said "Who the hell cares what the United Grand Lodge of England thinks?" I thought, as a non-Mason, she's right.
 

EddieGee

Registered User
Agree with what others have said. Freemasonry is a fraternity. It is a brotherhood. It doesn't "exclude women" in order to be unfair to them, discriminate against them, etc.; rather, its essence is to be a men's organization. To put it another way: the purpose of the American Kennel Club is to promote the proper and humane breeding / raising / training / health of dogs, not to "exclude cats."
 

hfmm97

Premium Member
Agree with what others have said. Freemasonry is a fraternity. It is a brotherhood. It doesn't "exclude women" in order to be unfair to them, discriminate against them, etc.; rather, its essence is to be a men's organization. To put it another way: the purpose of the American Kennel Club is to promote the proper and humane breeding / raising / training / health of dogs, not to "exclude cats."

Not to be sexist or hypocritical, but I know that there exist organizations whose membership was limited to females for very legitimate historical reasons. Some women who have challenged me as to why women cannot be Masons still do not want men in their organizations...


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

hfmm97

Premium Member
Besides, the only "masonic" lodge that I knew of (because I went to a fund-raiser BBQ and almost joined) was co-ed, did not require a belief in Deity (they took their obligations on a blank book representing the conscience of the brother/sister) they worked in Spanish and were part on an irregular GL in South Texas


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

Bloke

Premium Member
A little story. We recently buried our beloved JW in his 50's. At the funeral, I watched our WM openly weeping and a PM sitting beside him. Both are in their 50's. The PM sat there holding the WM's hand and comforting him. Not for a moment, but often through the ceremony. Half the men present would have been Brothers and we filled the back two rows. Where else in Western Society other than Freemasonry would it be seen as completely normal and acceptable (and approved) that two grown heterosexual men can sit publicly holding each others hands ? Such is the bond of fraternalism and such is the secure "authentic " character of these two men that the focus was mutual support rather than public (Masonically) profane opinion.
 
Last edited:

Bro Book

Registered User
Seeking Light


A Brother Asks: Is there any legitimate reason why women aren't allowed to be Freemasons, or does it just stem from the acting troupe rules of the 16th century?
Coach: Before I respond to your question, let me point out the not so obvious.

Brother: Okay. Go ahead.
Coach: Females are allowed to be Freemasons; just not “male” Freemasons. And the reason why they are not allowed to be “male” Freemasons is that they are not male.

Brother: Okay. Yes. I’ve heard of Co-Freemasonry, and women's lodges and the like.
Coach: Okay, and you believe they are not Freemasonic?

Brother: I am talking about the rules governing all "regular" lodges.
Coach: And these female Freemasons and their lodges are Regular my Brother.

Brother: They can’t be!
Coach: I disagree. They sure can.

Brother: Okay, how so?
Coach: Regularity is set by the governing Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction.

Brother: Okay...
Coach: Since these Female centric Lodges are deemed Regular by their Female centric Grand Lodge, they are indeed Regular to it. They are simply not considered Regular to Male centric Freemasonry.

Brother:
Well, yes. That's not what I meant.
Coach: Then what did you mean?

Brother: I meant to say they're not Recognized Freemasons and Freemasonic Lodges.

Finalizing the Question

Coach: Yes. Thanks. They are not Recognized by Male centric Lodges. They are Recognized within their own network of lodges though.
Brother: Okay, I'm trying to get to a point. I'm having a difficult time finding the right words.

Coach: Finding the right words is important.
Brother: Agreed. What do you think I'm trying to ask?

Coach: I think you're asking the following... Why can't male freemasonry admit and accept females into their organization?
Brother: Yes. That’s it! That’s the question!

Coach: Okay. Thanks. I believe you’ll find that every last response that you get from anyone trying to answer this question will be either made up or offered as an excuse. It won't be the obvious one that provides the underlying reason.
Brother: What’s that obvious reason?

(Continue reading here: http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-brother-asks-why-is-excluding-women.html )
Good stuff my Brother

Sent from my RCT6973W43 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

Bloke

Premium Member
john s nagy could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app
As Bro John alludes - I would assert that "regular" is a subjective word.

Hands down the best short piece I have read on that is by "Bro Karen Kidd" and I have posted on it here before.

From Freemasons for Dummies
"One of the news items concerns the international call for papers by the UK's Internet Lodge No. 9659, sponsored by the United Grand Lodge of England's Pro-Grand Master, Lord Northampton. Of the 77 papers from 16 countries, judged by an international panel, two of the three winning entries were by Americans.....The World Award prize went to Karen Kidd for her paper "I am Regular." Ms Kidd is a member of Shemesh Lodge No. 13 under the Honourable Order of American Co-Masonry in Seattle. "

The above is from http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/04/imakegarb-makes-good-in-ugle.html

The concept is caught in the last lines of Karen's paper

This means a Brother is Regular by virtue of being so recognized within his/her own jurisdiction. No Brother upon the Earth requires recognition by any other jurisdiction to be Regular. Each Brother is as Regular within their own jurisdiction as any other Brother is Regular within their own jurisdiction.


So I speak a truth – and for some, a mystery – when I say, “I am regular”.

It is getting harder to find this paper now.

Here it is

I am Regular. I know this to be true, though I’ve heard otherwise. That because various Masonic jurisdictions (such as the United Grand Lodge of England, the US Malecraft Grand Lodges and etc.) are not in amity with my jurisdiction, and because I’m a woman, I can’t possibly be Regular. I’ve also been counseled that, slander though this be, I should take it in good part and be grateful my Malecraft brethren speak to me at all. And yet I know myself to be Regular because the Ritual and Masonic jurisprudence say that I am. So I am. By way of explanation, and within the context of this paper, I am about to use a word many find most unpalatable. I mean it in its legal sense. I am no one’s bastard brother. I was conceived in the same place as are all the Brethren. Our progenitor is the same. I was properly prepared. I was received upon the same point. I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular. I meet the criteria Bro. Albert Mackey, and others, set down long ago: – I am acknowledged as a Free and Accepted Mason – I was initiated into our mysteries in that “certain manner” – I was made with the assistance of, and under the superintendence of, seven (and more) Master Masons – I share in common, with all Brothers, “the ready use of those signs and words which are used by the other brethren.” This all occurred within my jurisdiction which, like all Masonic jurisdictions, claims no binding authority over the Freemasons in any other jurisdiction. Indeed, I have poured over the books and I can find no instance in which *any* Freemasonic grand lodge, supreme council or other supreme body ever claimed authority over any other such body. It is commonly accepted that no such body can make any pronouncement that is at all binding on any other such body. Logically, this includes any pronouncements about regularity. Any Masonic supreme body may enter into amity agreements with other such bodies. And they also may declare that they consider, within their own jurisdiction, those bodies not in amity with them to be “clandestine” and even “irregular”. This is their right. However, their pronouncements about regularity outside their jurisdictions do not mean that those other Freemasons in other jurisdictions are, in fact, irregular. Indeed, the only Brothers any of these supreme bodies may accurately declare irregular are those in lodges within their own sphere of authority. This means a Brother is Regular by virtue of being so recognized within his/her own jurisdiction. No Brother upon the Earth requires recognition by any other jurisdiction to be Regular. Each Brother is as Regular within their own jurisdiction as any other Brother is Regular within their own jurisdiction. So I speak a truth – and for some, a mystery – when I say, “I am regular”.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
I may be wrong and it may be a long time but it's only a matter of time before females will be allowed to join and be considered regular. It'll probably begin with recognition of Continental, Le Droit Humain or whoever. It may be 10 years from now or 80 years but I think it'll happen. Nobody would have ever dreamed the gay or trans thing would be on the table but it is.edit:- Before that it was PHA recognition.- On the bright side, it's one less "I fmr prm ad swr...." lol.
 
Top