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?

ERHansen

Registered User
I wonder if, with the various female appendant bodies (OES, Amaranth, Rainbow, Job’s , LOS, Nile), the North American fraternity has taken on the quality of a patriarchy.

As someone with firsthand knowledge in both a youth group and OES, my response to this is: Yes.
 

Todd M. Stewart

Premium Member
Not sure if this has already been brought up but one question worth examining regarding 'regularity' is cross-jurisdictional recognition. While one jurisdiction may not have any authority over another, it certainly can refuse to recognize someone when visiting another Lodge or petitioning for a transfer/dual/plural membership. While jurisdictions are independent, Masonry is an international fraternity and as such there should be some common means of recognizing a Brother across those jurisdictions that is meaningful.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Not sure if this has already been brought up but one question worth examining regarding 'regularity' is cross-jurisdictional recognition. While one jurisdiction may not have any authority over another, it certainly can refuse to recognize someone when visiting another Lodge or petitioning for a transfer/dual/plural membership. While jurisdictions are independent, Masonry is an international fraternity and as such there should be some common means of recognizing a Brother across those jurisdictions that is meaningful.
Not entirely sure of your point, but “recognise “ is best used to describe the process of jurisdictions recognising one another.

Yes, many jurisdictions state lodges can deny entry to a visiting mason, and must do so if his jurisdiction is not recognised.

We do have common means of determining if a visitor is a member of a recognised jurisdiction.

Or did I completely miss your point?
 

Todd M. Stewart

Premium Member
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are certain expectations on a personal level (outside the tiled Lodge), that a Brother has of Masonry and visa versa. I expect that when I travel anywhere in the world I will be accepted by other members of the Craft, and that if the need so arises my Brothers will come to my aid. I in turn, took an obligation that specifically prohibited me from making a woman a Mason, and from communicating Masonically with a clandestine Mason 'knowing them to be such'. I am also obligated to come to the aid of Brother Masons, their Widows and orphans. If there isn't some way that we can personally be at least somewhat sure that someone claiming to be a 'regular' Mason is indeed that, we put our Brothers in a difficult position. Obviously in my case it would be easy to make the determination that a woman is not a regular Mason, but Masons are told when they join that they can expect Brothers will welcome them and to come to their aid in times of need. For a woman that believes she is a regular Mason she may be seriously disappointed when she travels outside her home jurisdiction and encounters members of the Craft that do not recognize her as such. In addition it becomes more difficult for someone such as I when dealing with a male brother who has in my view, violated the obligation by making a woman a Mason and therefore considered to be clandestine. While technically I am not violating my obligation in communicating with him if I do not know he is considered clandestine by my jurisdiction, it wouldn't make me feel any better about doing so. So while it's fine to speak about the strict jurisdictional aspect of this issue, I think it's more important to speak of how it impacts the Craft on a Mason to Mason level.
 

Keith C

Registered User
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are certain expectations on a personal level (outside the tiled Lodge), that a Brother has of Masonry and visa versa. I expect that when I travel anywhere in the world I will be accepted by other members of the Craft, and that if the need so arises my Brothers will come to my aid. I in turn, took an obligation that specifically prohibited me from making a woman a Mason, and from communicating Masonically with a clandestine Mason 'knowing them to be such'. I am also obligated to come to the aid of Brother Masons, their Widows and orphans. If there isn't some way that we can personally be at least somewhat sure that someone claiming to be a 'regular' Mason is indeed that, we put our Brothers in a difficult position. Obviously in my case it would be easy to make the determination that a woman is not a regular Mason, but Masons are told when they join that they can expect Brothers will welcome them and to come to their aid in times of need. For a woman that believes she is a regular Mason she may be seriously disappointed when she travels outside her home jurisdiction and encounters members of the Craft that do not recognize her as such. In addition it becomes more difficult for someone such as I when dealing with a male brother who has in my view, violated the obligation by making a woman a Mason and therefore considered to be clandestine. While technically I am not violating my obligation in communicating with him if I do not know he is considered clandestine by my jurisdiction, it wouldn't make me feel any better about doing so. So while it's fine to speak about the strict jurisdictional aspect of this issue, I think it's more important to speak of how it impacts the Craft on a Mason to Mason level.

I understand your point, but when do you ever have a discussion including that which we are bound to keep secret with someone you have a chance encounter with whether or not you are convinced they are a "regular" Mason? What aid would you give a distressed person you just encountered who you were confident was a "regular" Mason that you wouldn't provide to a non Mason?

To me, the issue of regularity only comes into play when someone seeks admittance to a Tyled Lodge meeting.

I meet people all the time who see the S&C on my hat or shirt. They usually great me with a "Hello Brother..." and proceed to tell me their Lodge information and jurisdiction, and I share mine. I have never had that type discussion lead into a discussion of ritual or esoteric work, nor would I engage in that type discussion outside a Lodge. If a car is broken down on the side of the road, I do not look for a S&C or stop and question the driver to determine if they are a Mason before helping, I just stop and offer assistance.
 

Todd M. Stewart

Premium Member
Very good points indeed. In terms of Masonic communication, I think you're entirely correct in that it's extremely unlikely to occur outside the Tyled Lodge. This discussion does cause one to do a lot of think upon our obligation, what it means Brother to Brother, and Brother to the World. Is there anything in terms of assistance we would give a Brother Mason that we would not extend to any person? I suppose that is a question each one of us must answer for themselves. I am the son and grandson of Law Enforcement Officers and was a firefighter myself. Service to others is something taught from a very early age in my family. I have been trained in lifesaving and in tactical use of a sidearm. I believe that I would not hesitate to use either skill to render aid to anyone. So perhaps you're correct in that the issue of 'regularity' should only impact entry into a Tyled Lodge. But that brings to mind the question is our obligation merely symbolic in some respects? Certainly not all, but it should make for some introspection about it.
 

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are certain expectations on a personal level (outside the tiled Lodge), that a Brother has of Masonry and visa versa. I expect that when I travel anywhere in the world I will be accepted by other members of the Craft, and that if the need so arises my Brothers will come to my aid. I in turn, took an obligation that specifically prohibited me from making a woman a Mason, and from communicating Masonically with a clandestine Mason 'knowing them to be such'. I am also obligated to come to the aid of Brother Masons, their Widows and orphans. If there isn't some way that we can personally be at least somewhat sure that someone claiming to be a 'regular' Mason is indeed that, we put our Brothers in a difficult position. Obviously in my case it would be easy to make the determination that a woman is not a regular Mason, but Masons are told when they join that they can expect Brothers will welcome them and to come to their aid in times of need. For a woman that believes she is a regular Mason she may be seriously disappointed when she travels outside her home jurisdiction and encounters members of the Craft that do not recognize her as such. In addition it becomes more difficult for someone such as I when dealing with a male brother who has in my view, violated the obligation by making a woman a Mason and therefore considered to be clandestine. While technically I am not violating my obligation in communicating with him if I do not know he is considered clandestine by my jurisdiction, it wouldn't make me feel any better about doing so. So while it's fine to speak about the strict jurisdictional aspect of this issue, I think it's more important to speak of how it impacts the Craft on a Mason to Mason level.

If I hear a woman saying the “magic words” or giving the GHSoD I am going to jump as quickly as I would for a man. My obligation doesn’t say ignore them, and answering a cry for help is not “masonic conversation.” Any mason who would ignore that call based on gender needs to turn in their apron.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
I think there is a difference between aiding others (anyone) in a scenario of life or death and non-emergent. There is a bit different between if I were driving down the road and a car with S&Cs was broke down on the shoulder and I decided to give them a lift to the next gas station or help change their tire. I can't stop for every car thats broke down I see or give money to every guy at an intersection holding a sign up everyday but for every rare life or death situation that may arise I can assist anyone then.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I understand your point, but when do you ever have a discussion including that which we are bound to keep secret with someone you have a chance encounter with whether or not you are convinced they are a "regular" Mason? What aid would you give a distressed person you just encountered who you were confident was a "regular" Mason that you wouldn't provide to a non Mason?
I meet people all the time who see the S&C on my hat or shirt. They usually great me with a "Hello Brother..." and proceed to tell me their Lodge information and jurisdiction, and I share mine. I have never had that type discussion lead into a discussion of ritual or esoteric work, nor would I engage in that type discussion outside a Lodge.
Agreed.
So perhaps you're correct in that the issue of 'regularity' should only impact entry into a Tyled Lodge. But that brings to mind the question is our obligation merely symbolic in some respects? Certainly not all, but it should make for some introspection about it.
Something to think about.
 

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Agreed. Please read my reply to Kieth C.

Ah, noted.

As to another question you asked “is our obligation merely symbolic in some respects?”
I’ve debated the fine points of my own obligation before, it is very specific on what I can’t do with a woman in regards to the Craft; I can’t attend their Degrees, I can’t sit in Lodge with them, and I can’t discuss active (as opposed to archived) ritual with them. That’s it. In other words I am free to accept their claim as legitimate in every other way. Excellent discussion about myriad topics may ensue and we could embroider each other’s aprons if we wished.
I don’t believe it is our obligation that needs to be questioned but instead the perception that has been handed down to us.

#my2p
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I can’t attend their Degrees, I can’t sit in Lodge with them, and I can’t discuss active (as opposed to archived) ritual with them. That’s it. In other words I am free to accept their claim as legitimate in every other way. Excellent discussion about myriad topics may ensue and we could embroider each other’s aprons if we wished.
Good point!
 

LK600

Premium Member
In other words I am free to accept their claim as legitimate in every other way.

And they are legitimate, because they are their own organization which as nothing to do with Regular Freemasonry / PHA. They are legitimate the same way the Moose, Elks, VFW, etc are also legitimate. A private organization can set it's own rules and use whatever terms they wish, but they are not "Brothers".

It is a private organization that sets it's own rules.

Yes sir, exactly.

We are told that a Freemason's lodge extends from E to W and N to S and from the center of the Earth to the Heavens. If this is true, then a Freemason's lodge already includes all the women.

I've been taught that a Lodge is not a building, structure or location, but the members within it. A Lodge can take place in a field, a garage, a room, or anywhere else because what constitutes a Lodge is nothing more than it's members.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
And they are legitimate, because they are their own organization which as nothing to do with Regular Freemasonry / PHA.
Correct, except, they are Regular unto themselves; just not Male-craft Freemasonry in total.

Using the term, "Regular Freemasonry" to denote "Recognized Male-craft Freemasonry" in its various forms is incorrect, but all too often used and that adds to the god-awful miserable confusion.
They are legitimate the same way the Moose, Elks, VFW, etc are also legitimate.
No. They are legitimate unto themselves. The same way Recognized male-craft is legitimate - because Recognized male-craft Freemasonry say so.
A private organization can set it's own rules and use whatever terms they wish,...
Yep.
... but they are not "Brothers".
Incorrect. The term, "Brother", is a title that has nothing to do with what lives and swings behind each apron. They are "Brothers", because that's what their organization uses as titles to denote its members.
I've been taught that a Lodge is not a building, structure or location, but the members within it. A Lodge can take place in a field, a garage, a room, or anywhere else because what constitutes a Lodge is nothing more than it's members.
You have been taught well.
 

LK600

Premium Member
Correct, except, they are Regular unto themselves; just not Male-craft Freemasonry in total.

Using the term, "Regular Freemasonry" to denote "Recognized Male-craft Freemasonry" in its various forms is incorrect, but all too often used and that adds to the god-awful miserable confusion.

Agreed, they absolutely are regular unto themselves. No argument there. As far as the term "Regular", I'm just using the vastly recognized nomenclature.

No. They are legitimate unto themselves. The same way Recognized male-craft is legitimate - because Recognized male-craft Freemasonry say so.

Yes, but anything is legitimate unto themselves. I could form a group tomorrow and call it the "one true freemasonry", and it would be legitimate unto itself.

Incorrect. The term, "Brother", is a title that has nothing to do with what lives and swings behind each apron. They are "Brothers", because that's what their organization uses as titles to denote its members.

Somewhat, but not entirely. Again, in my fake organization, our title might be "Brother" or "King" etc, but that has no baring nor significance to Mainstream Freemasonry. If you want to call me King... I won't stop you, but it is not protocol, nor out of obligation or even recognition. ;)

You have been taught well.

Thank you, and I am very much still learning!
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Agreed, they absolutely are regular unto themselves. No argument there. As far as the term "Regular", I'm just using the vastly recognized nomenclature.
Yep. And in doing so, it adds to the usual god-awful fuzziness:confused:
Yes, but anything is legitimate unto themselves. I could form a group tomorrow and call it the "one true freemasonry", and it would be legitimate unto itself.
Hence the comment :D

When we use the word "legitimate", we add to the fuzziness and re-enforce it. We are legitimate because we made up the rules for legitimacy within our Craft. So did they.
Somewhat, but not entirely. Again, in my fake organization, our title might be "Brother" or "King" etc, but that has no baring nor significance to Mainstream Freemasonry. If you want to call me King... I won't stop you, but it is not protocol, nor out of obligation or even recognition. ;)
Yes, but that is a straw man argument. The fact is, they have an organization and the term "Brother" is a title used within that organization. They are "Brothers" and they should be respectfully treated as such, regardless of our recognizing them.

This is no less respectful then calling a man "Father" who is a priest or a woman "Sister" who is a nun within a religious organization of which you do not belong.

We belong to a Freemasonic Order, and so do they! To not show respect and expect respect in return is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support.
Thank you, and I am very much still learning!
As are we all!
 

LK600

Premium Member
We belong to a Freemasonic Order, and so do they! To not show respect and expect respect in return is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support.

Personally, I do not expect respect in return because I would see no reason for anyone outside of Mainstream / PHA Freemasonry to call me anything other than my name. Women have no option available to them (in reference to Mainstream Freeemasonry) so their formation of a separate Freemasonic organization(s) is valid (if they determine it to be so). Anyone else, I'd gladly instruct them how to obtain an application in the jurisdiction they are.

Having said all of this... by no means am I suggesting anyone leave whatever group they are in nor that they should care one bit whether I or anyone else recognizes them. We should be respectful to all regardless of recognition, and whether your a "Brother" or not, you should be treated as a friend which in my world means more like family. Regardless of who or what you are, how I act is a reflection of me... not the person I'm interacting with.
 
Top