It is difficult to have a meaningful conversation (on any topic) when someone adds to their own PERSONAL opinion:
"Full stop."
Did it cross your mind that your opinion (which is not a factual "thing") may not be shared universally by the millions of Masons?
On the other hand, we agree that those attempts you listed as "watering down" Freemasonry will not save the Craft. But we did it to ourselves, so don't blame the women.
Wrong move! Why are Masons so afraid of opposing opinions and intellectual debate?
Harmony is not, or should not be, the Masonic equivalent of the idiotic "politically correct" mantra...
There is nothing wrong with having different opinions, even very strongly held opinions. The problem is that in lodges, and in general in Freemasonry, we cultivate a false narrative of avoiding conflicts, which results in suppressing intellectual debate and the exchange of ideas.
I enjoyed your comment in general, but I am ALWAYS strongly opposed to such categoric "ex cathedra" sentences like the one I mentioned :) May I invite you to put back your comment? I hope you saved it...
Brother, You were right. I do not need to post my strongly held opinions on another writer's site. I have my own Substack newsletter. I can publish my thoughts directly to the community under my own moniker.
Please don't worry about posting your opinions here on Emeth. I saw your comment when it came in, and while I agree with Brother Istvan that it was worded a bit strongly, I don't think it exceeded the bounds of propriety.
I certainly agree that as Masons interacting with each other, we do seem quite keen to 'sweep issues under the rug.' To shy away from them, rather than addressing them.
That may avoid conflict, but is ultimately harmful to our Craft, because we can't address what needs to be addressed if we won't talk about it, whatever it might be.
Then again, Prince Hall Masonic Lodges existed many years on their own, but are now accepted in many States (even "communicated" with in many States)! For many years, the US operated the Defense Race Relations Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. And in the 1970's, womem were accepted into US Military Academys.
Agreed. Some of my most memorable experiences as GM came from events and activities at which both I and my Prince Hall counterpart were attending. Our two Grand Lodges have a good relationship, and I think that we both can learn much from each other.
I also think that Washington Masons can and should be very proud of our Grand Lodge's very long history of pushing for Prince Hall recognition. History has certainly proven our position taken so very long ago.
There are currently three US Grand Lodges that refuse to recognize Prince Hall. Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Carolina.
It is my understanding that Mississippi will be voting on the issue at their next Annual Communication. I know that serious efforts are underway towards recognition in Arkansas. I am unaware of what might be happening in South Carolina, but I firmly believe that this discrimination will be done away with entirely very soon. That will be a very bright day for our Ancient Craft.
Women only, or Co-masonry? Does the co-masons here in Washington have their own grand lodge? I have no idea, as I don't care, just curious within this conversation.
Honestly, I don't think enough women care, as any of them that would have either joined a clandestine lodge, or OES, or one of the other concordant bodies we already have.
Thinking about it, I wonder if there are women who belong to a clandestine lodge whose husband is a member of a craft lodge, and also are members of OES or Amaranth?
>>>Does the co-masons here in Washington have their own grand lodge?
Yes. It is not State specific in Jurisdiction, rather national in scope. It is in Larkspur, Colorado, and is actually quite old, as I understand it, it's founding was in or around 1903 back in one of our states on the Eastern seaboard.
There might be other, competing, co-masonic organizations that I'm unaware of.
>>>I don't think enough women care, as any of them that would have either joined a >>>clandestine lodge
I have very often wondered about this. Does the tiny size of these unrecognized organizations point to a lack of interest? Could be.
>>>or OES, or one of the other concordant bodies we already have
This, honestly, I haven't wondered about. In my experience, and in my view, these groups do not offer a similar experience to the Lodge experience. They are different.
>>>I wonder if there are women who belong to a clandestine lodge whose husband is a >>>member of a craft lodge, and also are members of OES or Amaranth?
I don't know. I am aware of a PGM from another Jurisdiction who is open about the fact that his wife is a member of a female Lodge. But I don't know if they have other affiliations as a couple.
If you want to get a 'spirited' discussion going, this is a great topic. Most of my Brothers claim they would demit before sitting in Lodge with a woman. I agree with WB Brown, that Prince Hall existed for years without our recognition, and finally our world caught up. The practical question to exclude women, IMO, is that some want to maintain an old-boys club; and of course, each of us have taken an obligation to not make a woman a Mason.
Philosophically, I can see absolutely no reason that women should not be Masons. Historically though, women were property of their father or husband in 1717. There remain some nations and groups in this world were men still see women In this way. Here in the US, women were not legally entitled to vote until 1920. The requirement that an EA candidate be 'free born' was a justification to exclude many blacks, and would have also excluded women - certainly not free of father or husband as property. I'd like to think that we have forded that historical river here in the 21st century.
I find it interesting that many leaders of Freemasonry remain silent how we are perceived in society as discriminating against women and membership. Particularly as we decline in membership. As an example, 60 years ago there was a huge number of state and federal government officials amongst our ranks. I believe that many an aspiring politician today sees women as co-equals today, and wants to avoid squaring any circle that suggests otherwise. How does a military or peace officer talk to his male peer about Masonry, and cannot do so with a female peer. Ditto with captains of industry, doctors, attorneys, etc. Change has occurred with other groups, such as the Odd Fellows and Lions - it has helped, not hurt.
While I'm sure that I won't see a change in my lifetime, but I think we need to have that discussion sooner than later. Thanks much for the topic today!!
>>>Prince Hall existed for years without our recognition, and finally our world caught up.
If we look clearly we will see the direction of the march of history.
>>>each of us have taken an obligation to not make a woman a Mason.
I have thought about this in relation to the question, and am unable to see how it could be overcome, even if a broad desire to do so was present. Certainly no Lodge or Grand Lodge legislation could overcome it.
>>>60 years ago there was a huge number of state and federal government officials >>>amongst our ranks. I believe that many an aspiring politician today
This point is extremely well taken, and undoubtedly correct. Our Craft can not attract serious Political types at this time, in the United States, because it is seen by the broader world as discriminatory, a violation of current American ideals. As you rightly say, this goes beyond political types, as leaders in all walks of life share similar concerns. The fact that this goes unacknowledged is simply a matter of burying heads in the sands. But ignoring it doesn't change it.
I do wonder if UGLE's current stance wouldn't prevent this. Their Lodges remain male only, just like ours, but they acknowledge the fact that Female Lodges exist, and work with those Lodges on projects of mutual interest. In that way they save the benefits of a single gender Lodge, while not claiming that they discriminate against half of the population.
Always great to hear your insight. I’ll grab a few of these.
“I find it interesting that many leaders of Freemasonry remain silent how we are perceived in society as discriminating against women and membership.” Problem with this, though, is that I personally don’t see a problem with a group of people forming a club, religion group or Fraternal Organization that has exclusive terms for membership. Not everyone has to have the opportunity to join everything out there. And there are numerous groups or organizations out there that have terms for membership. I know there are several Honda Trail 90 groups and clubs out there that require you to own a CT90 or CT110 to join. (At this time, I haven’t joined one. Too involved with Freemasonry!)
“Change has occurred with other groups, such as the Odd Fellows and Lions - it has helped, not hurt.” Not from what I’ve heard. This is from the Elks and the IOOF. And from women who joined, not men! Two IOOF women, in fact, from different areas. One told me something that I hadn’t considered: The IOOF became Co-ed under duress, in a way, and this woman (who was the wife of a Freemason) said she was elected into their version of the East and the men just kicked back and gave her the “look.” They KNEW she was quite capable of governing a Lodge, but she also knew that the only reason why she was up there and a member of their Fraternity is because they didn’t have a choice. Their Fraternity now HAD to admit women. It really soured it for the women who were already Rebekahs or other similar groups.
Frankly, Kris, I don’t have a problem with F&AM being men-only. And I also have zero problem with the female Masonic organizations such as the HFAF being Female-only. Le Droit Humain is Co-ed, and that’s perfectly fine, too. That’s one of the cool things about the United States – they allow Freedom of Association. Men and Women alike can join not only one, but two Masonic organizations that are incorporated in our country.
I think you raise a good point that some guys genuinely prefer an all-male group, and I agree that we have a constitutional right to freedom of association, although the right is not absolute.
I suspect that 'duress' would in fact be the impetus for some Grand Lodge to change, as you suggest. And then other GL's would face a dilemma of fighting or accepting. Local lodges would certainly be torn as well. Should that occur, I hope the Brothers approach the challenge as what is the higher good for the principles of Freemasonry – promoting fraternal love, spreading light and imparting knowledge. IMO, Washington Freemasons should have learned that lesson from MW Upton back in the 1890's, and stuck to our guns. At the time I’m sure many Brothers saw Upton as a crackpot or worse, and were happy when the Grand Lodge relented and withdrew its recognition of Prince Hall. Today, MW Upton is highly admired and regarded as a visionary, and some Brothers kind of gloss over some of the history that isn’t ‘convenient’. Perhaps this situation will unfold similarly.
But, in reading your reply, the one Masonic privilege that I would like to have, but don't have now, would be to visit or otherwise explore a local Co-Mason Lodge so as to learn, and share Masonic values. To my way of thinking, the absence of learning and sharing perpetuates ignorance and mistrust.
Obviously, we've taken a vow to not visit a clandestine lodge or converse with such a Mason. And I also promised to not make alternation or innovation in the body of Masonry. I will always honor those commitments unless and until Grand Lodge allows it.
As Cameron noted: “I do wonder if UGLE's current stance wouldn't prevent this. Their Lodges remain male only, just like ours, but they acknowledge the fact that Female Lodges exist, and work with those Lodges on projects of mutual interest. In that way they save the benefits of a single gender Lodge, while not claiming that they discriminate against half of the population.”
One Mason (who is now an Ex-Mason) wasn’t a fan of my take on Female Freemasons (which I explained in my above comment) but he thought I considered Female Freemasons to be “fakers” and “charlatans.” To be honest, I hadn’t made that consideration! I simply figured that there were enough women that wanted to be Freemasons, but couldn’t because of the “F&AM” Freemasons’s Ancient Landmarks, so they said to heck with it and formed their own Masonic Organization, utilizing Masonic regalia and the same degrees, etc. as the F&AM Freemasons. Same idea with the Co-ed Masonic organizations. Now, could they be seen as “copycats” by the F&AM Freemasons? I suppose so, but it’s all how you look at it, from what point of view. Are they stealing your ideas, or are they inspired by what you represent? In other ideas, I lean towards the latter of the two, so it would be natural that I’d think the same of the Female and Co-ed Masonic organizations.
Now, back to Cameron’s comment: There have been times where the Masonic Lodge would work with a local OddFellows Lodge on a common community project. Tenino Lodge 86 and the Bucoda Oddfellows Lodge did this at least once. But that’s pretty clean-cut; while the two are old Fraternities that function in a similar manner, the Oddfellows are not a Masonic-related organization. But the HFAF and the Le Droit Humain are Masonic in nature. Still clean-cut, when you really get down to it from a legal standpoint. But our F&AM considers them irregular/clandestine, while they don’t consider the Oddfellows to be clandestine as they’re not Masonic in nature. So now you’re going to get a difference of opinions, which could even get down to different Grand Masters who would go either direction, from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction, or even among consecutive Grand Masters in a single Jurisdiction! One Grand Master could say, “Hey, I know we don’t consider them Regular, but we also don’t see the Elks as Regular and we’ve worked with them, so why don’t we work with the local HFAF Grand Lodge on this common project?” while the other Grand Master would say, “No! Under NO circumstances are we to collaborate with Clandestine Masons!” And as you both note, this isn’t restricted to the Grand Master level. Lodge to Lodge, and member to member, this debate would continue. Is it resolvable over time? Will a time come where the bulk of a Jurisdiction’s members, and a bulk of the Jurisdictions, agree on one stance or another? What do the newer members think? Are they all, or mostly on board with one of the stances? That could be a barometer of where our Fraternity could be headed.
Here’s yet another take. Personally, in many different things, I like options. But if the F&AM-associated Grand Lodges started accepting women, then they’d be the same as Le Droit Humain (in this regard), which already does that. You’ve removed an option. You’re always going to have men who want to go one route or the other.
It is an interesting thing to consider. I think anything that improves an individual should be available in some form. I think that men do need a space to develop personally, socially, and professionally.
This question was one of the few that gave me pause before continuing on the journey. I am curious where the march of time will lead.
As I sojourn in the UK, I am impressed by the relationships our UGLE brothers have with jurisdictions they acknowledge but do not recognize or are in amity.
UGLE has links for OWF & HFAF on their website. OWF & HFAF rent Lodge rooms in UGLE buildings. OWF & HFAF have displays in Masonic museums and their members take volunteer shifts in the museums. Leaders appear together in public wearing their regalia. They don’t sit in tyled Lodge together or communicate Masonically.
I believe if the women of Washington State were so inclined we could manage similar behavior.
FWIW - UGLE meets untyled quarterly with the Grand Orient of France, which I understand has male-only, female-only, & co-masonry Lodges and admit atheists (the cause of the original schism).
It is my sincere hope that someday the schism can be healed between UK/US style Freemasonry and Continental style Freemasonry. The two groups may never agree re: religion and political involvement, but it certainly seems that both groups are worldwide in scope, with equally long and honorable histories. We could certainly, I have to believe, learn a great deal from each other. Even if we never actually sit in Lodge together.
It's a complex question. I have two daughters. I like that U.G.L.E has been progressive. I think men and women both need their spaces. There are sororities and fraternities. Personally I see no reason that women can't share in the same rights, lights and benefits of Freemasonry. I think that's where it's going. Each can have their own Grand Lodges and at appropriate times share in events where it works. If we are, as we often proclaim to be, enlightened and progressive, then it seems we ought progress with the society we claim to be helping progress.
Brother,
It is difficult to have a meaningful conversation (on any topic) when someone adds to their own PERSONAL opinion:
"Full stop."
Did it cross your mind that your opinion (which is not a factual "thing") may not be shared universally by the millions of Masons?
On the other hand, we agree that those attempts you listed as "watering down" Freemasonry will not save the Craft. But we did it to ourselves, so don't blame the women.
Brother,
I did not mean to cause disharmony in the craft. I have deleted my comment.
Wrong move! Why are Masons so afraid of opposing opinions and intellectual debate?
Harmony is not, or should not be, the Masonic equivalent of the idiotic "politically correct" mantra...
There is nothing wrong with having different opinions, even very strongly held opinions. The problem is that in lodges, and in general in Freemasonry, we cultivate a false narrative of avoiding conflicts, which results in suppressing intellectual debate and the exchange of ideas.
I enjoyed your comment in general, but I am ALWAYS strongly opposed to such categoric "ex cathedra" sentences like the one I mentioned :) May I invite you to put back your comment? I hope you saved it...
Brother, You were right. I do not need to post my strongly held opinions on another writer's site. I have my own Substack newsletter. I can publish my thoughts directly to the community under my own moniker.
Brother:
Please don't worry about posting your opinions here on Emeth. I saw your comment when it came in, and while I agree with Brother Istvan that it was worded a bit strongly, I don't think it exceeded the bounds of propriety.
I certainly agree that as Masons interacting with each other, we do seem quite keen to 'sweep issues under the rug.' To shy away from them, rather than addressing them.
That may avoid conflict, but is ultimately harmful to our Craft, because we can't address what needs to be addressed if we won't talk about it, whatever it might be.
MWB Bailey. Perhaps my response yesterday was a bit strong. I chalk it up to posting before my morning cup of coffee.
I will not shy from commenting on masonic posts.
Thank you for creating a forum for these important topics.
MWPGM Bailey,
Then again, Prince Hall Masonic Lodges existed many years on their own, but are now accepted in many States (even "communicated" with in many States)! For many years, the US operated the Defense Race Relations Equal Opportunity Institute at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. And in the 1970's, womem were accepted into US Military Academys.
Agreed. Some of my most memorable experiences as GM came from events and activities at which both I and my Prince Hall counterpart were attending. Our two Grand Lodges have a good relationship, and I think that we both can learn much from each other.
I also think that Washington Masons can and should be very proud of our Grand Lodge's very long history of pushing for Prince Hall recognition. History has certainly proven our position taken so very long ago.
There are currently three US Grand Lodges that refuse to recognize Prince Hall. Mississippi, Arkansas, and South Carolina.
It is my understanding that Mississippi will be voting on the issue at their next Annual Communication. I know that serious efforts are underway towards recognition in Arkansas. I am unaware of what might be happening in South Carolina, but I firmly believe that this discrimination will be done away with entirely very soon. That will be a very bright day for our Ancient Craft.
Women only, or Co-masonry? Does the co-masons here in Washington have their own grand lodge? I have no idea, as I don't care, just curious within this conversation.
Honestly, I don't think enough women care, as any of them that would have either joined a clandestine lodge, or OES, or one of the other concordant bodies we already have.
Thinking about it, I wonder if there are women who belong to a clandestine lodge whose husband is a member of a craft lodge, and also are members of OES or Amaranth?
>>>Does the co-masons here in Washington have their own grand lodge?
Yes. It is not State specific in Jurisdiction, rather national in scope. It is in Larkspur, Colorado, and is actually quite old, as I understand it, it's founding was in or around 1903 back in one of our states on the Eastern seaboard.
There might be other, competing, co-masonic organizations that I'm unaware of.
>>>I don't think enough women care, as any of them that would have either joined a >>>clandestine lodge
I have very often wondered about this. Does the tiny size of these unrecognized organizations point to a lack of interest? Could be.
>>>or OES, or one of the other concordant bodies we already have
This, honestly, I haven't wondered about. In my experience, and in my view, these groups do not offer a similar experience to the Lodge experience. They are different.
>>>I wonder if there are women who belong to a clandestine lodge whose husband is a >>>member of a craft lodge, and also are members of OES or Amaranth?
I don't know. I am aware of a PGM from another Jurisdiction who is open about the fact that his wife is a member of a female Lodge. But I don't know if they have other affiliations as a couple.
If you want to get a 'spirited' discussion going, this is a great topic. Most of my Brothers claim they would demit before sitting in Lodge with a woman. I agree with WB Brown, that Prince Hall existed for years without our recognition, and finally our world caught up. The practical question to exclude women, IMO, is that some want to maintain an old-boys club; and of course, each of us have taken an obligation to not make a woman a Mason.
Philosophically, I can see absolutely no reason that women should not be Masons. Historically though, women were property of their father or husband in 1717. There remain some nations and groups in this world were men still see women In this way. Here in the US, women were not legally entitled to vote until 1920. The requirement that an EA candidate be 'free born' was a justification to exclude many blacks, and would have also excluded women - certainly not free of father or husband as property. I'd like to think that we have forded that historical river here in the 21st century.
I find it interesting that many leaders of Freemasonry remain silent how we are perceived in society as discriminating against women and membership. Particularly as we decline in membership. As an example, 60 years ago there was a huge number of state and federal government officials amongst our ranks. I believe that many an aspiring politician today sees women as co-equals today, and wants to avoid squaring any circle that suggests otherwise. How does a military or peace officer talk to his male peer about Masonry, and cannot do so with a female peer. Ditto with captains of industry, doctors, attorneys, etc. Change has occurred with other groups, such as the Odd Fellows and Lions - it has helped, not hurt.
While I'm sure that I won't see a change in my lifetime, but I think we need to have that discussion sooner than later. Thanks much for the topic today!!
>>>Prince Hall existed for years without our recognition, and finally our world caught up.
If we look clearly we will see the direction of the march of history.
>>>each of us have taken an obligation to not make a woman a Mason.
I have thought about this in relation to the question, and am unable to see how it could be overcome, even if a broad desire to do so was present. Certainly no Lodge or Grand Lodge legislation could overcome it.
>>>60 years ago there was a huge number of state and federal government officials >>>amongst our ranks. I believe that many an aspiring politician today
This point is extremely well taken, and undoubtedly correct. Our Craft can not attract serious Political types at this time, in the United States, because it is seen by the broader world as discriminatory, a violation of current American ideals. As you rightly say, this goes beyond political types, as leaders in all walks of life share similar concerns. The fact that this goes unacknowledged is simply a matter of burying heads in the sands. But ignoring it doesn't change it.
I do wonder if UGLE's current stance wouldn't prevent this. Their Lodges remain male only, just like ours, but they acknowledge the fact that Female Lodges exist, and work with those Lodges on projects of mutual interest. In that way they save the benefits of a single gender Lodge, while not claiming that they discriminate against half of the population.
WB Kris:
Always great to hear your insight. I’ll grab a few of these.
“I find it interesting that many leaders of Freemasonry remain silent how we are perceived in society as discriminating against women and membership.” Problem with this, though, is that I personally don’t see a problem with a group of people forming a club, religion group or Fraternal Organization that has exclusive terms for membership. Not everyone has to have the opportunity to join everything out there. And there are numerous groups or organizations out there that have terms for membership. I know there are several Honda Trail 90 groups and clubs out there that require you to own a CT90 or CT110 to join. (At this time, I haven’t joined one. Too involved with Freemasonry!)
“Change has occurred with other groups, such as the Odd Fellows and Lions - it has helped, not hurt.” Not from what I’ve heard. This is from the Elks and the IOOF. And from women who joined, not men! Two IOOF women, in fact, from different areas. One told me something that I hadn’t considered: The IOOF became Co-ed under duress, in a way, and this woman (who was the wife of a Freemason) said she was elected into their version of the East and the men just kicked back and gave her the “look.” They KNEW she was quite capable of governing a Lodge, but she also knew that the only reason why she was up there and a member of their Fraternity is because they didn’t have a choice. Their Fraternity now HAD to admit women. It really soured it for the women who were already Rebekahs or other similar groups.
Frankly, Kris, I don’t have a problem with F&AM being men-only. And I also have zero problem with the female Masonic organizations such as the HFAF being Female-only. Le Droit Humain is Co-ed, and that’s perfectly fine, too. That’s one of the cool things about the United States – they allow Freedom of Association. Men and Women alike can join not only one, but two Masonic organizations that are incorporated in our country.
VW Clayton,
I think you raise a good point that some guys genuinely prefer an all-male group, and I agree that we have a constitutional right to freedom of association, although the right is not absolute.
I suspect that 'duress' would in fact be the impetus for some Grand Lodge to change, as you suggest. And then other GL's would face a dilemma of fighting or accepting. Local lodges would certainly be torn as well. Should that occur, I hope the Brothers approach the challenge as what is the higher good for the principles of Freemasonry – promoting fraternal love, spreading light and imparting knowledge. IMO, Washington Freemasons should have learned that lesson from MW Upton back in the 1890's, and stuck to our guns. At the time I’m sure many Brothers saw Upton as a crackpot or worse, and were happy when the Grand Lodge relented and withdrew its recognition of Prince Hall. Today, MW Upton is highly admired and regarded as a visionary, and some Brothers kind of gloss over some of the history that isn’t ‘convenient’. Perhaps this situation will unfold similarly.
But, in reading your reply, the one Masonic privilege that I would like to have, but don't have now, would be to visit or otherwise explore a local Co-Mason Lodge so as to learn, and share Masonic values. To my way of thinking, the absence of learning and sharing perpetuates ignorance and mistrust.
Obviously, we've taken a vow to not visit a clandestine lodge or converse with such a Mason. And I also promised to not make alternation or innovation in the body of Masonry. I will always honor those commitments unless and until Grand Lodge allows it.
As Cameron noted: “I do wonder if UGLE's current stance wouldn't prevent this. Their Lodges remain male only, just like ours, but they acknowledge the fact that Female Lodges exist, and work with those Lodges on projects of mutual interest. In that way they save the benefits of a single gender Lodge, while not claiming that they discriminate against half of the population.”
One Mason (who is now an Ex-Mason) wasn’t a fan of my take on Female Freemasons (which I explained in my above comment) but he thought I considered Female Freemasons to be “fakers” and “charlatans.” To be honest, I hadn’t made that consideration! I simply figured that there were enough women that wanted to be Freemasons, but couldn’t because of the “F&AM” Freemasons’s Ancient Landmarks, so they said to heck with it and formed their own Masonic Organization, utilizing Masonic regalia and the same degrees, etc. as the F&AM Freemasons. Same idea with the Co-ed Masonic organizations. Now, could they be seen as “copycats” by the F&AM Freemasons? I suppose so, but it’s all how you look at it, from what point of view. Are they stealing your ideas, or are they inspired by what you represent? In other ideas, I lean towards the latter of the two, so it would be natural that I’d think the same of the Female and Co-ed Masonic organizations.
Now, back to Cameron’s comment: There have been times where the Masonic Lodge would work with a local OddFellows Lodge on a common community project. Tenino Lodge 86 and the Bucoda Oddfellows Lodge did this at least once. But that’s pretty clean-cut; while the two are old Fraternities that function in a similar manner, the Oddfellows are not a Masonic-related organization. But the HFAF and the Le Droit Humain are Masonic in nature. Still clean-cut, when you really get down to it from a legal standpoint. But our F&AM considers them irregular/clandestine, while they don’t consider the Oddfellows to be clandestine as they’re not Masonic in nature. So now you’re going to get a difference of opinions, which could even get down to different Grand Masters who would go either direction, from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction, or even among consecutive Grand Masters in a single Jurisdiction! One Grand Master could say, “Hey, I know we don’t consider them Regular, but we also don’t see the Elks as Regular and we’ve worked with them, so why don’t we work with the local HFAF Grand Lodge on this common project?” while the other Grand Master would say, “No! Under NO circumstances are we to collaborate with Clandestine Masons!” And as you both note, this isn’t restricted to the Grand Master level. Lodge to Lodge, and member to member, this debate would continue. Is it resolvable over time? Will a time come where the bulk of a Jurisdiction’s members, and a bulk of the Jurisdictions, agree on one stance or another? What do the newer members think? Are they all, or mostly on board with one of the stances? That could be a barometer of where our Fraternity could be headed.
Here’s yet another take. Personally, in many different things, I like options. But if the F&AM-associated Grand Lodges started accepting women, then they’d be the same as Le Droit Humain (in this regard), which already does that. You’ve removed an option. You’re always going to have men who want to go one route or the other.
>>>each of us have taken an obligation to not make a woman a Mason.
That is true only for those jurisdictions which use variations of the Preston-Webb ritual.
Most other rituals don't have that line... Just saying :)
Excellent point. Thank you Brother. We do well to remember that Masonry can be quite different from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction.
It is an interesting thing to consider. I think anything that improves an individual should be available in some form. I think that men do need a space to develop personally, socially, and professionally.
This question was one of the few that gave me pause before continuing on the journey. I am curious where the march of time will lead.
Great topic Brother!
I agree, male only spaces are important. And female only spaces for that matter. Interaction is just different in mixed groups.
As I sojourn in the UK, I am impressed by the relationships our UGLE brothers have with jurisdictions they acknowledge but do not recognize or are in amity.
UGLE has links for OWF & HFAF on their website. OWF & HFAF rent Lodge rooms in UGLE buildings. OWF & HFAF have displays in Masonic museums and their members take volunteer shifts in the museums. Leaders appear together in public wearing their regalia. They don’t sit in tyled Lodge together or communicate Masonically.
I believe if the women of Washington State were so inclined we could manage similar behavior.
FWIW - UGLE meets untyled quarterly with the Grand Orient of France, which I understand has male-only, female-only, & co-masonry Lodges and admit atheists (the cause of the original schism).
It is my sincere hope that someday the schism can be healed between UK/US style Freemasonry and Continental style Freemasonry. The two groups may never agree re: religion and political involvement, but it certainly seems that both groups are worldwide in scope, with equally long and honorable histories. We could certainly, I have to believe, learn a great deal from each other. Even if we never actually sit in Lodge together.
It's a complex question. I have two daughters. I like that U.G.L.E has been progressive. I think men and women both need their spaces. There are sororities and fraternities. Personally I see no reason that women can't share in the same rights, lights and benefits of Freemasonry. I think that's where it's going. Each can have their own Grand Lodges and at appropriate times share in events where it works. If we are, as we often proclaim to be, enlightened and progressive, then it seems we ought progress with the society we claim to be helping progress.