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
With current negative trajectories in membership, according to TMR from this week, the whole fraternity will possibly be gone in the next 25 years. Who knows?
Well Brother, let's assume that is true and it is up to us, each and every Freemason, so change it. That's not just about signing up members, but being that person folk talk about " Mr X is amazing and Freemason" in the one sentence - because the next leap people tend to make is, follows that "Freemasonry is amazing"

(waits for Coach to jump on that).
 

CLewey44

Registered User
Absolutely and not only our actions outside the lodge but in the lodge as well among potential and current masons.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
Seeking Light...

Having read through most of this thread, albeit briefly, it seems the focus shifted to regularity and that we have chosen to be a fraternity. I would humbly suggest instead looking at why Masonry exists, as well as what it represents to many. As to why it exists, let us consider the three great principles of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.

Firstly, I understand Brotherly Love to be represented by Aristotle's Philia, or Philos, for which the great city of Philadelphia was so aptly named. It typically refers to affectionate regard and friendship, amongst equal brothers. The earlier story of the two brethren at the funeral is indicative. Unfortunately, us men tend to revert to our baser instinctual natures around the fairer sex. However, the happily married man can typically subdue his Eros as it evolves toward Pragma, the longstanding love between a couple. Yet, I would like to believe that we could relate to women as well with brotherly love, without Eros getting in the way. Perhaps our brotherly love needs to evolve to Agape, the highest form of love, charity. I'm not sure we're ready for that though and I doubt Masonry has enough gas in its tank to get us there....

Secondly, Relief or charity itself. This is clearly a win for mixed Masonry. I'm not sure about you gents but in my experience females are far more inclined to charity than men are. Of course I'm generalising and the times may be changing, but I believe that many more females still work in charitable pursuits than men do.

Third, Truth or the seeking of Light. To my mind this is once again a win for mixed Masonry. Clearly this is simply a vestige from the past, where only men were allowed to discuss the serious topics. And our world is likely the poorer for it.

I fully understand the notion that men need to escape sometimes. Masonry provides a path of initiation, of becoming a man, that us men lost a long time ago when we left our caves, and started the long journey to our urban boxes. Women still retain some of their initiatic processes in life, childbirth clearly being one of them. However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore. Freemasonry has some real gems within it, which have stood the test of time. But we are entering a more enlightened age now and I feel the Regular Craft will be left behind.
 

Elexir

Registered User
The Anglican church allowed women priests when it ran out of men, but Freemasons are made of sterner stuff. :eek:

In my view the primary problem of post-1717 Freemasonry is that it never knew that Master Masons had real work - other than making more MMs.

Considering that pre-1720s masonry didnt have MMs it was hard for 1717s masons to make MMs.
 

Elexir

Registered User
However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore. Freemasonry has some real gems within it, which have stood the test of time. But we are entering a more enlightened age now and I feel the Regular Craft will be left behind.

That would depend.
I honestly feel that the only way freemasonry will have any justification to exist is if it firmly cements itself outside of the trends of society as much as it can, otherwise what can masonry offer thats any diffrent then any other organisation?
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I honestly feel that the only way freemasonry will have any justification to exist is if it firmly cements itself outside of the trends of society as much as it can, otherwise what can masonry offer thats any diffrent then any other organisation?
Bravo!
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Having read through most of this thread, albeit briefly, it seems the focus shifted to regularity and that we have chosen to be a fraternity.
Yes. Did you take the time to read the link material in the OP also? The issue is excluding women and doing so legitimately. Everything else is a distraction off the base of the topic's focus.
I would humbly suggest instead looking at why Masonry exists, as well as what it represents to many. As to why it exists, let us consider the three great principles of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.
The issue is NOT why Masonry exists. The issue is why a Male Centric Organization exists.
Firstly, I understand Brotherly Love to be represented by Aristotle's Philia, or Philos, for which the great city of Philadelphia was so aptly named. It typically refers to affectionate regard and friendship, amongst equal brothers. The earlier story of the two brethren at the funeral is indicative. Unfortunately, us men tend to revert to our baser instinctual natures around the fairer sex. However, the happily married man can typically subdue his Eros as it evolves toward Pragma, the longstanding love between a couple. Yet, I would like to believe that we could relate to women as well with brotherly love, without Eros getting in the way. Perhaps our brotherly love needs to evolve to Agape, the highest form of love, charity. I'm not sure we're ready for that though and I doubt Masonry has enough gas in its tank to get us there....
Thanks, not on topic.
Secondly, Relief or charity itself. This is clearly a win for mixed Masonry. I'm not sure about you gents but in my experience females are far more inclined to charity than men are. Of course I'm generalising and the times may be changing, but I believe that many more females still work in charitable pursuits than men do.
Relief is what occurs when a Brother divests himself of his vices and superfluities; a different issue than the OP topic. Charity is an entirely different issue from relief and the OP topic focus as well.
Third, Truth or the seeking of Light. To my mind this is once again a win for mixed Masonry. Clearly this is simply a vestige from the past, where only men were allowed to discuss the serious topics. And our world is likely the poorer for it.
The truth is, you're off topic.
I fully understand the notion that men need to escape sometimes.
The issue is NOT escape. It is being in a male centric environment to receive Male Centric Nurturing!
Masonry provides a path of initiation, of becoming a man, that us men lost a long time ago when we left our caves, and started the long journey to our urban boxes. Women still retain some of their initiatic processes in life, childbirth clearly being one of them. However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore.
That's because it is NOT an intellectual exercise. It is a spiritual exercise that requires masculine focus and nurturing; females cannot provide this. There's a HUGE difference!
Freemasonry has some real gems within it, which have stood the test of time. But we are entering a more enlightened age now and I feel the Regular Craft will be left behind.
I call shenanigans! Every generation faces the exact same challenge, no matter what "age" you may claim we are in. That challenge: Maturing its Youths. And that requires us to know that males and females come to maturity differently and to assure they each have the proper support systems in place to make that occur.
 

LK600

Premium Member
Secondly, Relief or charity itself. This is clearly a win for mixed Masonry. I'm not sure about you gents but in my experience females are far more inclined to charity than men are. Of course I'm generalising and the times may be changing, but I believe that many more females still work in charitable pursuits than men do.

The word Charity (it's usage in this setting) has little to do with Charitable pursuits. It is being used in regard to kindness and tolerance in judging others. Once seen in that light, it changes the entire equation. But, you appear to fully support the notion that men and women are different in many ways and being so, require varying things.

Third, Truth or the seeking of Light. To my mind this is once again a win for mixed Masonry. Clearly this is simply a vestige from the past, where only men were allowed to discuss the serious topics. And our world is likely the poorer for it.

There is no winner because the dichotomy does not exist. Seeking light is universal, and has nothing to do with whether a specific group is male centric or female centric, or having any impact on reason(s) why.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
0
The issue is NOT why Masonry exists. The issue is why a Male Centric Organization exists.

Let's deal with that issue alone then. Freemasory, as a Male Centric Organisation exists because that was what society was like at the time of its formation and growth. It was frowned on for women to get involved in philosophical matters, business, politics... basically anything to do with the male run order of the world for the last several hundred years. Freemasonry has always been a pillar of colonialism and the British establishment, and that included the fact that women should "know their place". First, send in the military, then the Freemasons to establish social structures. But even the military allow females these days and the Queen lifted the requirement on male line inheritance in 2013 already.

I like the point about Masonry surviving purely for contrarian reasons only, but not sure about the sort of people that would attract going forward. Lack of membership is a crucial issue facing club life in general, and Masonry in particular, and yet I completely understand why many feel passionately about preserving a male-centric organisation only. Just not sure it bodes well for our future survival.

I recently discovered that Julian Rees, a noted British Masonic author, has joined co-masonry and written a book on it titled "More Light". I haven't heard if he's resigned from regular UGLE Masonry but I would imagine he would have had to. I imagine there are many more thinking along the same lines. So whilst it may of course be legitimate to exclude women, referencing our own internal rules, it might not be prudent for our survival going forward.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
..... That challenge: Maturing its Youths. And that requires us to know that males and females come to maturity differently and to assure they each have the proper support systems in place to make that occur.

That last point is well made, although it requires a certain maturity and length of explanation that the media and soundbites cannot capture. I would suggest that male-centric Masonry focuses on this point alone, and stand its ground on it. There is nothing preventing women from having their own maturing organisations. I once thought Wicca was that organisation but even that has had the fingerprints of male Masons such as Gardner on it.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Let's deal with that issue alone then. Freemasory, as a Male Centric Organisation exists because that was what society was like at the time of its formation and growth.
Conjecture - there were other similar organizations at the time that had females.
It was frowned on for women to get involved in philosophical matters, business, politics... basically anything to do with the male run order of the world for the last several hundred years.
Conjecture - yes, and they engaged anyway.
Freemasonry has always been a pillar of colonialism and the British establishment, and that included the fact that women should "know their place".
Conjecture - Freemasonry was not Anglo-centric, although they did establish many lodges worldwide.
First, send in the military, then the Freemasons to establish social structures. But even the military allow females these days and the Queen lifted the requirement on male line inheritance in 2013 already.
Red herring - not relevant to the post
I like the point about Masonry surviving purely for contrarian reasons only, but not sure about the sort of people that would attract going forward.
Not relevant.
Lack of membership is a crucial issue facing club life in general, and Masonry in particular, and yet I completely understand why many feel passionately about preserving a male-centric organisation only. Just not sure it bodes well for our future survival.
Males who want male-centric initiation rite will seek things like it out.
I recently discovered that Julian Rees, a noted British Masonic author, has joined co-masonry and written a book on it titled "More Light". I haven't heard if he's resigned from regular UGLE Masonry but I would imagine he would have had to.
Not relevant.
I imagine there are many more thinking along the same lines. So whilst it may of course be legitimate to exclude women, referencing our own internal rules, it might not be prudent for our survival going forward.
Opinion.
That last point is well made, although it requires a certain maturity and length of explanation that the media and soundbites cannot capture.
yes. yes.
I would suggest that male-centric Masonry focuses on this point alone, and stand its ground on it.
Good suggestion! Kudos!
There is nothing preventing women from having their own maturing organisations.
Yes. They have them.
I once thought Wicca was that organisation but even that has had the fingerprints of male Masons such as Gardner on it.
Not relevant.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
Wow "coach". You seem to very quickly dismiss any rational discussion here, cutting it short with technicalities. I've been a Mason for 15 years now with Past Grand Rank "yadda yadda", as well as several of the side degrees. Rarely do I remembering encountering such intellectual "superiority". Nevertheless it's your thread (as well as much of this bulletin board it would appear) so I will withdraw and leave you to it. My insights are clearly not needed here. Just do me a favour: List a similar organisation to Freemasonry in 1717, outside of a University, that had female members please. Or is that simply conjecture on your part? To my knowledge, women were allowed to attend Royal Society meetings in the late 1600's, but not join as members.
 
Last edited:

Elexir

Registered User
. Freemasonry has always been a pillar of colonialism and the British establishment.

Sorry but no. Infact english freemasonry was thrown out of sweden becuse they failed to see that it already existed a french inspired freemasonry here.
In fact one of the largest rites today came from France originaly as well as masonic templarism. Freemasonry has never been purley for the english.
 

Bevan Jones

Registered User
Sorry but no. Infact english freemasonry was thrown out of sweden becuse they failed to see that it already existed a french inspired freemasonry here. In fact one of the largest rites today came from France originaly as well as masonic templarism. Freemasonry has never been purley for the english.

Yes, the "Auld Alliance" being reaffirmed by John de Balliol, and King Phillip IV of France going after the Flemish wool traders, was a key reason why many Flemish Templars fled to Scotland, even before their excommunication in 1307. It is also why they chose to side with de Brus, meeting at Icolmkill. But the rites you mention, I'm assuming the ones made famous by Chevalier Ramsay (a Scot living in France around the time of the emergence of speculative masonry in Scotland) and supported by the Atholl Lodges, are speculative. Of course Freemasonry has never been for the English only. I'm of Scots descent living in South Africa. The English just formalised it, being the great civil servants that they are well known for. But I fear we digress completely off piste now. I've posted some thoughts on the emergence of speculative Freemasonry in the history section if anyone's interested.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Wow "coach". You seem to very quickly dismiss any rational discussion here, cutting it short with technicalities. I've been a Mason for 15 years now with Past Grand Rank "yadda yadda", as well as several of the side degrees. Rarely do I remembering encountering such intellectual "superiority". Nevertheless it's your thread (as well as much of this bulletin board it would appear) so I will withdraw and leave you to it. My insights are clearly not needed here. Just do me a favour: List a similar organisation to Freemasonry in 1717, outside of a University, that had female members please. Or is that simply conjecture on your part? To my knowledge, women were allowed to attend Royal Society meetings in the late 1600's, but not join as members.
Nunneries
 
Top