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?

Bloke

Premium Member
I understand now the point we disagree on, and it isn't regularity. It's back to the concept of an "overarching" organization where all groups regular, irregular etc are Freemasons. You appear to believe that exists whereas I do not.
Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term, but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term, but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.
We have objective criteria to determine if a lodge is regular.
 

LK600

Premium Member
Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term, but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.

I understand the point of view, but would disagree that Regularity is subjective. "Regular" is objective, unless you form a group that chooses it's own set of rules that differ... then those would be subjective (again, there is nothing wrong with that). Those groups are just as much rightful organizations as we are, but that doesn't make them connected to us in any way. :)
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
The discussion has been objective versus subjective. I think that misses by a bit. It should be relative versus absolute. Noting that nothing in the human world is absolute so it's position on a spectrum not an either-or.

Of course everyone who takes their degrees figures their own lodge is regular. That's relative to their own lodge. For all I know there are lodges out there that are completely independent without even a Grand Lodge they report to. But every lodge I've heard of does report to a grand lodge and that grand lodge considers itself regular.

Because grand lodge Masonry created itself in 1717, lineage claims are always subject to interpretation. This makes claims of "clandestine" foundation iffy at times. To us some guy doesn't get to go out and found jurisdictions once expelled, but Masonry is not copyrighted so we don't get to stop them. It has happened many times. Lineage is by far the most unclear of the regularity criteria. The fact that the PHA family remained loyal to the Premier Grand Lodge of England from before the 1812 Union very much helped with their lineage issue for example.

If we go with regularity being relative, some jurisdictions can say that being a man means being human. And *to their own members* that's regular. While *to our members* they are not. Let's see what happens if ships with Star Wars or Star Trek aliens so up and request membership!

Mention of women is in the wording of what I swore, but that was only about being present. And I can see a viewpoint where that wording gets changed and a new generation grows up with different wording. I would very likely vote against changing the wording like that, but I can imagine how that evolution of wording and rules could happen.

There is some outside enforcement that is definitely going to happen - The Shrine now solicits the general public for charitable contributions. The means that the Shrine Hospital Foundation is going to have non-discrimination policies forced upon it. The separation of Shrinedom and the Shrine Hospital Foundation is going to be pierced at some point. The Shrine will have to become a non-discriminating organization. At which point the separation between the Shrine and Arkansas become moot. The Shrine will eventually have to exit Masonry because of the commercials they current run on TV.

The issue of admitting women is coming at us from multiple directions for multiple reasons.

It is valid to exclude women because women are free to form and join organizations that exclude men. That's the ultimate justification. But staying discriminatory comes with a long list of prices that we will eventually have to pay.

Consider the separation of the Girl Scouts from the Boy Scouts about gender and religion. The Girl Scouts sell cookies and so they are a business enterprise. As such they had non-discrimination rules pushed onto them by some states. Now the Boy Scouts sell popcorn. And sure enough, before it gets forced upon them they are stepping back from their discriminatory policies.

It might not matter that we are a fraternity.
 

Symthrell

Registered User
The issue of admitting women is coming at us from multiple directions for multiple reasons.
It might not matter that we are a fraternity.

In this day and age of Political Correctness run amok, you can bet that the day will come that this issue will become a hot-button item for some group out there. They will demand that the government step in and force the Mason's to accept female members or they will lose 501c3 status. (Did I get that status right?)
 

Bloke

Premium Member
I understand the point of view, but would disagree that Regularity is subjective. "Regular" is objective, unless you form a group that chooses it's own set of rules that differ... then those would be subjective (again, there is nothing wrong with that). Those groups are just as much rightful organizations as we are, but that doesn't make them connected to us in any way. :)
Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a bar..)
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a bar..)
No GLs of which I’m aware have a constitutional prohibition based on colour.
 

LK600

Premium Member
Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a bar..)

I agree, it's a fundamental discussion more Brother's should brush up on, But it's only half of the necessary topic. Defining what is "regular" and how the term "regular" only applies to one's specific (to use your term) lineage could assist many to understand every group (in this case "Masons") have their own laws, rules and regulations which are true and appropriate to those specific organizations. The other aspect, and the one I believe most people take issue with is the notion that all groups calling themselves Freemasons are linked under some form of a Masonic banner where we are one society with many shades/branches. I would submit that most Freemasons do not feel this is accurate. Those screaming "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" are among that group ( who believe the Landmarks have true meaning and aren't disposable), but only the vocal portion of the same, and they're citing of the Landmarks is appropriate and accurate, in reference to their regularity. The issue is not really regularity alone but the argument that while each organization under the sun has the right and ability to define what regularity means to themselves, is there anything that links all organizations calling themselves Masons to each other. That is where the dichotomy exists in these expressed differences.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
believe most people take issue with is the notion that all groups calling themselves Freemasons are linked under some form of a Masonic banner where we are one society with many shades/branches. I would submit that most Freemasons do not feel this is accurate.
I certainly don't feel it is accurate.
Those screaming "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" are among that group ( who believe the Landmarks have true meaning and aren't disposable),
This is the group that I belong to.
The issue is not really regularity alone but the argument that while each organization under the sun has the right and ability to define what regularity means to themselves, is there anything that links all organizations calling themselves Masons to each other. That is where the dichotomy exists in these expressed differences.
Agreed.
 

Brother_Steve

Premium Member
I have another question:

When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?

This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.
 

LK600

Premium Member
If Masonry is a science then all that needs to be proved is competence in the science.

"Speculative Masonry (which is but another name for Freemasonary in its modern acceptation) may be briefly defined as the scientific application and the religious consecration of the rules and principles, the language, the implements and materials of operative Masonry to the veneration of God, the purification of the heart, and the inculcation of the dogmas of a religious philosophy." - Albert G. Mackey, The Symbolism of Freemasonry [1882]
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?
Exactly!
"Speculative Masonry (which is but another name for Freemasonary in its modern acceptation) may be briefly defined as the scientific application and the religious consecration of the rules and principles, the language, the implements and materials of operative Masonry to the veneration of God, the purification of the heart, and the inculcation of the dogmas of a religious philosophy." - Albert G. Mackey, The Symbolism of Freemasonry [1882]
Excellent!
 

LK600

Premium Member
When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?

I vaguely remember something about a certain organization that sells unholy delicious cookies (Samoas are akin to crack) that is girls only catching some flack, but it's been awhile. Beyond that, nothing comes to mind.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
I have another question:

When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?

This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.
I have an interest in this sort of thing and it has happened twice here that I have noticed.
1 - a woman only Muslim bathing group who had exclusive use of a public pool for a limited time (a couple of hours i think).
2 - a female only gym which is a commercial business.

Another good example is now no one is attacking the First Nations of Australia for still honouring and holding their male only initiation rites.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I have another question:

When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?

This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.

If the Girls Scouts had given up their cookie selling business enterprise, they would still be able to exclude boys. I would not call it an attack. They are a business enterprise doing business with the general public therefore non-discrimination laws applied to them. In specific the most restrictive state non-discrimination laws were applied rather than the national organization splintering to have different details state to state.

As long as a women's organization remained private, I have never heard of one attacked.
 
Top