My name is Hugo Ramirez and I am a Freemason from Brazil [more specifically, the Grand.'. Or.'. do Bras.'., Loj.'. Grande Mestre Alberto Mansur, 3196 - Rio de Janeiro]. I have only recently come across your substack, but having read some of the posts on the archive, I find it to be most "fair and perfect". It is my pleasure to read such positive and illuminating words from a man who has occupied High Offices in his jurisdiction.
It is not directly related to this post, but since it talks about diversity, I reckon that it is one of the strengths of our society to be so rooted in essential values, instead of passing fad, that we indeed manage to have a "Universal Brotherhood" that extends across the globe and gathers men from different backgrounds, different paths of life. My Brazilian experience is certainly very different from your in Washington, but we are certainly connected by everlasting bonds in our pledges to Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.
It is so good to participate in such a conversation that it even gives me the itch to start a substack and share a bit of our view on Freemasonry - we have been around here in Brazil for over 200 years now and both our history and current ways of working on the Craft seem to me to be a source of enrichment for our BBroth.'. abroad.
T.'. F.'. A.'.
Broth.'. Hugo Ramirez
Loj.'. Grande Mestre Alberto Mansur, 3196
Grand.'. Or.'. do Rio de Jan.'. - Grand.'. Or.'. do Bras.'.
Thank you for your extremely kind words! I truly appreciate your compliments, and I am glad that you are finding value in my posts.
If you do begin a substack to discuss Brazilian Freemasonry, please do let me know. I think I would enjoy reading about the Craft in your part of the world very much.
THANK YOU. This has been my approach, especially since my daughter expressed interest in Lodge (as opposed to Eastern Star). I found a woman's Lodge in Toronto, the nearest available, but still a bit too far for her to explore that option.
My only lament would be that we would not be able to discuss or practice ritual, or share any tyled experiences.
I plan to write on the topic of how we may transition to acceptance and visitation down this inevitable road.
God no, it is NOT "inevitable" let the women be women and the men be men, you want to sit in lodge and talk masonically with women? There are already groups that do that. Go, be a cowan, just don't try to bring the rest of us down with you.
For the record, I have no objection to men-only Lodges .. or women-only, or co-Masonry. But there is no objective reason to disallow Masonic intercourse between the sexes. It echoes our sins regarding Prince Hall, or those times Brothers chose only to associate with Lodges based on social status (officers versus enlisted regimental Lodges, Antients versus Moderns, etc..).
The idea that doing so would "bring the rest of us down" is just dumbfounding and disappointing to hear.
My wife and daughters are members of OES, but none are active. Part of the reason for that is just a lack of interest in the quite limited activities and education within the local Chapter, but, at least in my wife's case, it is philosophical as well. She has often asked 'why it is required that a man be present at every meeting.' She objects to that pretty strongly, and I certainly can't blame her. It does seem quite out of touch.
We do have Female Freemasonry, and Mixed Freemasonry fairly close to where we live, but none have shown an interest in pursuing that.
Well, except for my youngest daughter, but she declares her interest being the simple ability to wear a Masonic Ring and demanding that I kiss it. ;-)
The thing is though, they all have been pretty heavily involved with Freemasonry, and seemingly enjoy both it, and the Masons they encounter. Helping host events, attending Installations and cornerstones, joining in dinners, they all seem to truly enjoy those things, and have always jumped in to help put them on.
When you write your paper, I look forward to reading it if you are willing to share it.
I am with James on this one. It is NOT an inevitable road that men and women will meet and converse Masonically.
Like Cameron, I am not opposed to female only Lodges of even Co-Masonry. However, To think that all of Masonry will, or must be coed is not acceptable.
Why cannot the Fraternity remain fraternal? Why must everything in this society modified to be inclusive? this seems to be happening only to the institutions that have been traditionally masculine.
Masonry, by it's true nature, is exclusive. Not all men should be Masons. I also feel that all Masons do not need to be men. Further, not all Grand Lodges should be compelled to accept anyone other than men. Should Masonry go the way of the world, I will not practice Masonry as it may come to be known in that instance.
Sorry brother, but this Feminist approach to life is part of the destruction of the temple and masonry as a whole. The craft as a whole is better off being a place where men can be men and learn to be better men. We already have lost every place where men could be men to the women of the world - the office, the gym, the golf club, even the bathrooms now are "inclusive." I would never in a million years sit in lodge with a woman - ever and would never have joined Freemasonry if it was about making women better men. Women can have their own thing, no one is stopping them, they just need to leave our thing to us, period.
I am not advocating with this post that we open up our male only Lodges to women.
I'm a member of 5 Lodges now, all men only and I would not seek to change that. I firmly believe that one of the reasons the Freemasonry I know works, and works so well for those who are open to it, is the fact that it is composed of a single gender. I think that if women were sitting in my Lodges those Lodges and the interactions within them would be quite different, and I don't think the personal transformation we seek to help our initiates find would be as readily available.
In short, I'm quite happy with the male only Freemasonry I practice.
But I am advocating that we do not tell people who do not meet our requirements around gender that our form of Freemasonry is the only form that exists in the world. That they can not pursue Freemasonry simply because they can not sit in one of our Lodges.
I think it is far better, if we are ever asked, to acknowledge that other organizations exist that confer the same degrees that we confer, and to direct them to those other organizations.
Doing that does no harm to Freemasonry as we practice it, and does not change our own Masonic experience at all.
Although I haven't had that question posed to me directly (Can a woman be a mason?), my answer would be similar to yours, namely, there are woman masonic groups if they are so inclined to join, but they can't join ours. It doesn't bother me in the least that there are woman only and co-masons, it's a free country. In fact, that there is such an organization (or organizations) means there is less pressure on our jurisdiction to allow women.
But there is no way I would continue to belong to the craft if they allowed women into it. I have dealt enough with women from the OES and attended enough of their meetings and installations to know I'd never join that group. I feel that it, along with all of the other concordant bodies, pull the men away from the blue lodges. Too many great men spend all their time with OES and rarely if ever step foot in a tyled lodge room.
>>>In fact, that there is such an organization (or organizations) means there is less pressure on our >>>jurisdiction to allow women.
Yes. I believe you to be 100% correct on this point.
>>>But there is no way I would continue to belong to the craft if they allowed women into it. I have >>>dealt enough with women from the OES and attended enough of their meetings and >>>installations to know I'd never join that group.
I am a member of OES, but I am an inactive member, same with my wife and daughters.
I believe that in a mixed group like OES, the interactions are going to be a lot different than they would be in a single gender group. To put it bluntly, the men are going to want (one some level) to impress the women, and the women are going to want (on some level) to be noticed by the men. That is simply the way it works between men and women. Given that, I don't think that Freemasonry could 'work' nearly as well in a mixed gender group as it does in a single gender group. And I think that is OK.
From that, I think that OES would 'work' much better as a single gender group. I know that if it were to become such, my wife would become active in it, and I presume that my daughters would as well.
Having been raised in 1974, I've experienced several evolutionary changes within Freemasonry. As a recently raised brother, I remember overhearing lodge officers anguishing over their options in addressing a petition for membership presented by a Black deputy sheriff. In anticipation of a cloudy ballet, the officers advised the deputy that his application would likely be rejected, and that his only option for more light would be to petition a local Prince Hall lodge. One should remember that in the early 1970s, many Grand Lodges prohibited masonic communication with brothers of Prince Hall freemasonry as they were deemed to be clandestine masons. Having proudly served my country alongside black soldiers, I questioned my continued membership in a fraternity that claimed to meet brothers "on the level." I raised my concerns with one of the lodge officers. I remember his sage advice, "it's easier to drive change from the inside than it is from the outside."
In 2001, the Grand Lodge of New York recognized the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York. Toward a more perfect union with our fellow brothers, the GLoNY added the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California to our list of eleven (11) previously recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges in 2014.
As I approach my 50th year as a member of our great Fraternity, I honor the labor of those optimistic brothers whose determination to "make good men better," and to promote goodwill and brotherhood with the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodges throughout the United States.
Jan 31, 2023·edited Jan 31, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
I don't know if you're familiar with MWGM W. H. Upton here in Washington. Here is a snippet from my Home Lodge, who is named after him:
Judge Upton was Master of Blue Mountain Lodge, No. 13, F. & A. M., of Walla Walla in 1892. He was known as a Masonic scholar, becoming Grand Master of the MW Grand Lodge of Washington in 1898. Judge Upton made many significant contributions to Masonry; his most significant being his committee report of 1897 on Black Masonry and his efforts as Grand Master passing a resolution recognizing Prince Hall Masons in the State of Washington, however the majority of the other white Grand Lodges in the United States and Canada withdrew Masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Washington until the resolution was repealed. The resolution was reluctantly rescinded in June 1899. William H. Upton continued to write on this subject with conviction. His work on Black Masonry was an important chapter in Masonic history. He died on November 3, 1906. Upton's sincere interest was demonstrated by a provision in his will that no monument should be erected over his grave until “both colored and white Masons could stand over it as brothers”. In June 1990 the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Washington passed a resolution recognizing the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and William. H. Upton’s monument now displays the Masonic emblem.
So, our state was the first to attempt to recognize PH back in 1897, and it took almost 100 years to actually get it accomplished. My lodge proudly bears his name as a reminder of his legacy.
>>>So, our state was the first to attempt to recognize PH back in 1897, and it took almost 100 >>>years to actually get it accomplished. My lodge proudly bears his name as a reminder of >>>his legacy.
I hope that every Washington Mason is able to take pride in the work done by the Washington Masons who came before us as they labored to right this injustice.
The recognition of Prince Hall Masonry by my Jurisdiction had been completed prior to me becoming a Mason, so I didn't have to live through unfortunate experiences such as you relate. I'm pleased that your Grand Lodge, and mine, addressed this issue.
Now we just have to pressure that small handful of Grand Lodges in the south to do the same. Hard to accomplish from outside, but hopefully Brothers there are working on it so that this period can finally be put behind us.
Here in Washington we have developed quite a close relationship with the MW Prince Hall GL of Washington and Jurisdiction. During my year in office I was able to attend a Master Mason Degree conferred by them, at a Masonic park owned by us, along with my counterpart GM. He and I were able to attend Lodges together, jointly sponsored events, and each other's major events. It is, I think, a true partnership between the two Grand Lodges, to the benefit of all.
Great question, MW. And one for which it's difficult to isolate a specific yes or no. Generally speaking, in the year 2023, when it comes to the role of women with Freemasonry I don't think we have a clue. Pointing to concordinant bodies that involve women almost evades the real question of if or how women should participate in Freemasonry.
Look around the room at any untyled District or Grand Lodge function and count the number of women in the room compared to the number of men. To get a fair representation of the day-to-day world of most Mason, exclude the Grand Lodge elected offices and their partners. There's a reason that so few women attend these events. Face it, our meetings are for men, and the women who do show up are treated like ornaments. Example #1: I learned that the upcoming Leadership Conference will feature cupcake decorating as part of the women's program. So in 2023 we're going to tell the women to go decorate cupcakes while we do the important men stuff. Example 2#: When I was DDGM we were planning the meal for a District meeting and one Brother suggested we get the Jobies to cook for us? Why? So we could teach them to be good little housewives? Not on my watch. Example #3: At a Grand Lodge installation a few years ago a Brother offered a poem to thank "our ladies" (I really don't like that term). The poem waxed on an on about how grateful we are that our ladies wait patiently for us to return from Lodge meetings, the message being that they had nothing better to do while we're out doing our men stuff. My wife was close to walking out, and I don't blame her.
There's nothing wrong with having men only meetings. There's also nothing wrong with women only meetings, provided that the women set the agenda. And there's nothing wrong with co-ed meetings. I think it's a significant missed opportunity that I can't share what I've learned through our ritual with my wife. If we could shake free from generations of male superiority and figure out how to engage with the women in our lives everyone would get more out of what we aspire to do. And we have our heads in the sand if we don't recognize that upcoming generations won't see the world through male-superior eyes, and that might be the thing that causes them to regard Masonry as irrelevant.
It's in our power to change this. But that's very hard to do. After all, we've never done it that way before.
I have had the girls groups, both rainbow and jobies, handle dinners for stated in the past, and they are incredibly grateful for the opportunity. To degrade what they are doing is frankly chauvinistic. Do you have the same attitude if it was the demolay being asked? They are not “learning to be good little housewives”, they are earning service points as well as money for their groups. They jump at the chance to help. As the JW I was eternally grateful for their assistance, because the brothers certainly got a much better meal than I would have ever provided. It’s called community service.
Second, the women’s program at the LLR is run by the women. It’s their program and we have nothing to do with it. If they want to learn how to decorate cupcakes, or arrange flower baskets, or whatever it is they do, that’s their prerogative. If your wife doesn’t want to join in, that’s up to her.
Brother Glen, I apologize for the misunderstanding that's come from my statements. Written communication has limitations.
I would never degrade a young woman's desire to earn service points. However I condemn the Masons' automatic assumption that these young women should cook for and serve us. That robotic assumption, which I see more often than not, is chauvinistic. I think the opportunity to help young girls learn the benefits of service is wonderful, as long as we don't cross the line and have them earn servitude points.
Cook dinner for us ... is that the best we've got? Really?
And I know that the women's program is planned by women. I agree, if they want to decorate cupcakes then by all means they should. But what about the majority of women in the lives of Masons who chose not to attend these programs? What opportunity are we missing by failing to engage with them.
We need to think very carefully about this. One of the most serious weaknesses we have as Masons is that we do an outstanding job of talking to ourselves. We're charged to take what we learn in the Lodge out of the Lodge. I feel that the quality and impact of our learning is meaningful only if we also bring what we learn outside of the Lodge into the Lodge.
>>>Pointing to concordinant bodies that involve women almost evades the real question of if or >>>how women should participate in Freemasonry.
I agree with this. I always cringe a little when I hear a man tell a woman that she can find what we find in Lodge within the OES (or whatever concordant body it might be.)
I do not think it is true.
Contained within Freemasonry are those things that will help the good man become a better man, if he is open to it. The actual secrets of Freemasonry are such because they are impossible to communicate and must be experienced.
OK, I know I'm getting too woo-woo here... So I'll leave it at that.
Without divulging any part of OES ritual that should not be divulged, I believe that I see within it, reference to those same things. But I have never seen anything like that explored within an OES meeting, or heard anything like that mentioned by an active OES member. Whatever was there, in my opinion, has been lost.
So to tell a woman that OES is somehow comparable to Freemasonry just isn't true. In my opinion.
My wife takes a different view:
As you know, she's a traditionalist who rather enjoys hanging out at Masonic events, helping where she is able. And she is quite comfortable with everything you mention above.
That said. Even she has a philosophical objection to OES.
Her objection is that a man must be present. She wonders why she and the other women are thought to need a chaperone. She finds that insulting, and honestly I can easily see her point.
So yes, I agree, we should not be implying that women will find the teachings of Freemasonry within the OES or the other concordant bodies.
Thanks for your reply MW. I've thought about this issue a lot since chiming in a day or two ago. It occurred to me that tradition plays a large part in Masonry, and from my perspective that's a good thing more often than not. It's interesting to consider the cultural, societal, and household norms that were in place when the traditions were first established vs. what the norms are today. Certainly there have been changes to the norms. Now consider how the norms for men have changed in the last 100 years vs. how the norms for women have changed. Then try to lean on our traditions while we engage with the women in the lives of today's Masons. We don't even have to go back 100 years, 10 or 20 might be enough to validate my initial comment: I don't think we have a clue.
Change at a dizzying pace, just over the half century that I've been kicking around.
I was thinking about that a couple of hours ago as I was picking my granddaughter up from School. She's in the First Grade. She attends private school, so no busses.
In any event, another school had come over for a basketball game, so I found no parking in the parking lot, and had to park in the street, a ways away. She doesn't walk across the parking lot, let alone the street, without holding my hand. That is natural to her, because of the time she was raised in.
Yet 50 some years ago, on my very first day of kindergarten, I walked myself to school, by myself. I'm not certain how far it was exactly, but at least a dozen blocks, probably a bit further than that.
Somewhere my mother has a goofy home video of me heading up the street, all alone, in my plaid pants. (It was the 1970's, you'll have to forgive the bad fashion.) That was natural to me and my peers, because of the times we were raised in. If a parent were to do that today it would certainly result in a State investigation of neglect.
I guess what I'm trying to say in relating this goofy story is that yes, the world has changed, radically, since the days when you and I were young men. The young men, and their partners, of today lived radically different childhoods from what the current leaders of our institution did, and so therefore will hold different opinions and views. With that in mind, on some level, it becomes difficult for us to understand the young adults of today, and for them to understand us.
But, that said, I do think that one of the great treasures of Freemasonry is the opportunity to learn from the men of previous generations.
The trick for us as leaders of this Fraternity is to get out of the way. Let the younger generation make of Freemasonry what they want and need it to be.
I like and support your position and have no problem with women freemasonry. I like UGLE's position on the matter. However,it does not really answer your question. The title would have been better, WOMEN IN FREEMASONRY. To answer your question I do not believe that Freemasonry is for everyone. It is only for the men and women who have the iterest, desire and support to become better through its enlightenment. Likewise there are both that should never become freemasons.
You are exactly correct, and I agree, Freemasonry isn't for everyone, as some do not qualify as good people. I was looking for an efficient headline for the article, but yes, it does fall down on accuracy.
More importantly in my mind though, I didn't choose to title it 'Women In Freemasonry' or something similar because I did not only have women in mind while writing it. Whatever our views of it might be, in today's world we are faced with the reality that some people do not identify with the gender they were born presenting, and some people who don't see themselves within a gender binary at all.
While drafting this essay, I hoped to make the point that there are male only Lodges, female only Lodges, and mixed gender Lodges, knowing that people who would not qualify, or would not enjoy a gender segregated form of Masonry might find welcome and a good experience for themselves within those mixed organizations.
Well... By my own lessons and understanding I disagree that there are other types of Masonry out there. Recognition is the law of the land. With that all said great article. Difficult topic and you did well.
Thank you Brother. I'm glad that you enjoyed the article, and yes, it is a difficult topic to write about. I felt it important however. I appreciate your kind compliment.
I understand and appreciate your position on Recognition.
I'm not sure that I agree with it however. I'll try to explain:
As you know, our Masonry pulled Recognition from the Grand Orient of France a very long time ago. I understand why that was done, and believe that it was right and proper for those who came before us to do it. (We did put it back in WWI so that we could visit their Lodges while fighting the war, but heh, expediency and all that.)
Since that pulling of Recognition, our Freemasonry has developed, as has theirs, and now Continental Freemasonry is a massive force with wonderful traditions all its own.
But we kind of act as if it doesn't exist.
I personally think that is a shame. We can, in my view, continue to deny Recognition, while still acknowledging the existence of that long and honorable tradition. We can learn from them, and improve our own Masonry with that which we learn.
One thing about Continental Masonry is the apparent love for the written word shared by large numbers of their Masons. Wonderful books have been written, are still being written, but the average Mason in our Jurisdictions doesn't even know that there is this other huge form of Freemasonry active in our world.
Indeed, one of my favorite Masonic authors is of that tradition. We don't Recognize his Jurisdiction, but how much poorer would our world be I wonder if he had never put pen to paper in the cause of Freemasonry.
Occasionally I post a quote from one of his works on Facebook, and those always seem very well liked. I think that shows that we have more in common than differences between us.
So, none of this is a call for Recognition. It is however a call for acknowledgement.
I think that we can do both. I think that the most recent edition of the Scottish Rite Research Society's Heredom shows us how:
It listed Karen Kidd as a Co-Mason and gave acknowledgement to her Initiation and Jurisdiction. In such ways we can, I think, acknowledge and learn, without Recognition.
My Brother great response. Well said as always. I was told many years ago by one of my academic Brothers that its ok to disagree. That has always stuck with me.
As I said it is a difficult topic. We can acknowledge existence and also not recognize on a Main Stream Masonic Level. I believe that all should be happy and also at the same time be kind. Who joins what doesn't concern me.
Growth as a human is the goal.
I do not believe in "not" acknowledging co-, female or any other type of Masonry. It exists, period.
If my jurisdiction formally acknowledged I would have no problem with it. UGLE did it and their island didn't sink.
I join all types of groups and co-/female craft sights i visit often. I have had had great conversations and read wonderful non main stream articles.
My last thing that I will share is this: "Tradition is everything to me and I truly believe its important not to play around with tradition".
Peace be with you My Brother. Always with Peace and Harmony Prevailing.
Emeth feeds my esoteric hunger that I do not get satisfied in my Jurisdiction. Throw some tougher topics. Love the responses. Some are a bit harsh though. Ha
I'm glad, and please feel free to join us on Sunday nights for Rummer & Grapes too. You'll be receiving login information about that on Sunday afternoon. We have some great discussions there.
You went to Kindergarten in the 70s? Wow, I just assumed you were older than me since you're so much smarter. I started Kindergarten in September 1959. So now that I know I'm older, and since you said Masons like to learn from older men, just tell me what you want to know.
In reading some of the comments, I think the argument comparing women masonic groups to how Masons treated Prince Hall lodges (long before my time) is a weak one. We recognize PH lodges (mostly throughout the US) because one of our requirements is that a candidate is "Free-born". Nothing in our code or ritual mentions race, ethnicity or even religious preference - save for believing in a supreme being.
It's critical that men and women have their own organizations so that they may grow among their peers who will whisper wise counsel, hold them accountable and allow them a place to be vulnerable and open up with thoughtful discussions. As you alluded to, when men an women get together in formal settings, they tend to "put on a show". Masonry is not a little league t-ball team where the one tomboy chick in the neighborhood just wants to play with friends that she grew up with. This is a fraternal organization. Just like in college, guy have fraternities and ladies have sororities. There's no prohibition against socially interacting and cooperatively supporting one another and we've seen the epic shit show that allowing girls into Boy Scouts of America caused; it killed both groups.
I would be honest in saying that in Washington State, there are no recognized "Female Freemason" lodges, rather there are women-only and co-ed concordant bodies that are within the masonic family. For things like OES, where a Master Mason must sponsor a woman into the organization, I feel that, based on tradition and the symbolism therein, a man who is a Mason should be present at all meetings because it's the Masonic men who serve as the foundation and cornerstone that such concordant bodies exist.
Out initial oath specifically states that we will not give our consent to making a woman a mason, nor be present and such an occasion, nor converse masonically with a woman mason, nor visit a clandestine loge. We also swore to the preamble version of honoring the rules and regulations of a lodge on the first and second degrees as well.
As I'm composing this response, I'm reminded of this quote by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim." We, as men, need to stop pandering to "Wokeism" under the auspices of "inclusivity". We are an elite fraternity and we better start acting like it or else we'll all suffer the fate of 'Oprah Masonry' where the motto will be, "...and you get a square and compass, and you get a square and compass, everyone in the audience gets squares and compasses!!"
We owe it to ourselves and the women and children that we hold so dear.
I certainly agree that single gender organizations are important, for the reasons you mention. I am quite pleased that my Lodges, and Grand Lodge are male only institutions, and I would not want that to change. Were it too, I don't think that I would find nearly the value that I do. For the reasons mentioned.
I also do not disagree, there are indeed no Recognized Female Freemasonic Lodges in Washington, or anywhere else, as we are unable, due to our Masonic Law, from Recognizing such bodies. Our code is quite clear on that subject. As are our customs and traditions, existing since time immemorial.
I do however acknowledge that there are Female Freemasonic organizations, as those organizations define themselves, operating within this State and throughout the country. Mixed obediences as well. I believe those organizations to be quite different from our own related orders. This acknowledgement is not a violation of any part of the obligations we have taken. Participating would certainly be, acknowledging that women have taken the Degrees of Craft Masonry, in their own form, is not.
My name is Wilson J. Gonzalez. I'm the WM of a lodge that works in the Egyptian Memphis Mizraim rite here in the states. I won't mention the name of the lodge because I'm writing on my behalf. This rite accepts both man and women.
There is nothing wrong in accepting women in freemasonry, since freemasonry symbolism contains both masculine and femenine aspects. The masculine aspect is in the jewel of the SW and the femenine aspect is in the WM jewel.
I started my masonic journey in a scottish rite lodge, but as my knowledge increase I realiza that there is nothing wrong to have women working the rituals.
I'm not saying that every lodge should start initiating women, if the lodge want to stay men only, that is ok. But what is not ok is to think that women are not worthy of becoming a freemason. Recognition is the first step.
How can I preach about equality if I do not consider women on my same level?
How can I preach liberty if I restrain half of humanity?
How can I preach fraternity if I'm not willing to share with everybody?
Hello, Broth.'. Cameron,
S.'. S.'. S.'.
My name is Hugo Ramirez and I am a Freemason from Brazil [more specifically, the Grand.'. Or.'. do Bras.'., Loj.'. Grande Mestre Alberto Mansur, 3196 - Rio de Janeiro]. I have only recently come across your substack, but having read some of the posts on the archive, I find it to be most "fair and perfect". It is my pleasure to read such positive and illuminating words from a man who has occupied High Offices in his jurisdiction.
It is not directly related to this post, but since it talks about diversity, I reckon that it is one of the strengths of our society to be so rooted in essential values, instead of passing fad, that we indeed manage to have a "Universal Brotherhood" that extends across the globe and gathers men from different backgrounds, different paths of life. My Brazilian experience is certainly very different from your in Washington, but we are certainly connected by everlasting bonds in our pledges to Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.
It is so good to participate in such a conversation that it even gives me the itch to start a substack and share a bit of our view on Freemasonry - we have been around here in Brazil for over 200 years now and both our history and current ways of working on the Craft seem to me to be a source of enrichment for our BBroth.'. abroad.
T.'. F.'. A.'.
Broth.'. Hugo Ramirez
Loj.'. Grande Mestre Alberto Mansur, 3196
Grand.'. Or.'. do Rio de Jan.'. - Grand.'. Or.'. do Bras.'.
Brother:
Thank you for your extremely kind words! I truly appreciate your compliments, and I am glad that you are finding value in my posts.
If you do begin a substack to discuss Brazilian Freemasonry, please do let me know. I think I would enjoy reading about the Craft in your part of the world very much.
THANK YOU. This has been my approach, especially since my daughter expressed interest in Lodge (as opposed to Eastern Star). I found a woman's Lodge in Toronto, the nearest available, but still a bit too far for her to explore that option.
My only lament would be that we would not be able to discuss or practice ritual, or share any tyled experiences.
I plan to write on the topic of how we may transition to acceptance and visitation down this inevitable road.
God no, it is NOT "inevitable" let the women be women and the men be men, you want to sit in lodge and talk masonically with women? There are already groups that do that. Go, be a cowan, just don't try to bring the rest of us down with you.
For the record, I have no objection to men-only Lodges .. or women-only, or co-Masonry. But there is no objective reason to disallow Masonic intercourse between the sexes. It echoes our sins regarding Prince Hall, or those times Brothers chose only to associate with Lodges based on social status (officers versus enlisted regimental Lodges, Antients versus Moderns, etc..).
The idea that doing so would "bring the rest of us down" is just dumbfounding and disappointing to hear.
My wife and daughters are members of OES, but none are active. Part of the reason for that is just a lack of interest in the quite limited activities and education within the local Chapter, but, at least in my wife's case, it is philosophical as well. She has often asked 'why it is required that a man be present at every meeting.' She objects to that pretty strongly, and I certainly can't blame her. It does seem quite out of touch.
We do have Female Freemasonry, and Mixed Freemasonry fairly close to where we live, but none have shown an interest in pursuing that.
Well, except for my youngest daughter, but she declares her interest being the simple ability to wear a Masonic Ring and demanding that I kiss it. ;-)
The thing is though, they all have been pretty heavily involved with Freemasonry, and seemingly enjoy both it, and the Masons they encounter. Helping host events, attending Installations and cornerstones, joining in dinners, they all seem to truly enjoy those things, and have always jumped in to help put them on.
When you write your paper, I look forward to reading it if you are willing to share it.
I am with James on this one. It is NOT an inevitable road that men and women will meet and converse Masonically.
Like Cameron, I am not opposed to female only Lodges of even Co-Masonry. However, To think that all of Masonry will, or must be coed is not acceptable.
Why cannot the Fraternity remain fraternal? Why must everything in this society modified to be inclusive? this seems to be happening only to the institutions that have been traditionally masculine.
Masonry, by it's true nature, is exclusive. Not all men should be Masons. I also feel that all Masons do not need to be men. Further, not all Grand Lodges should be compelled to accept anyone other than men. Should Masonry go the way of the world, I will not practice Masonry as it may come to be known in that instance.
Sorry brother, but this Feminist approach to life is part of the destruction of the temple and masonry as a whole. The craft as a whole is better off being a place where men can be men and learn to be better men. We already have lost every place where men could be men to the women of the world - the office, the gym, the golf club, even the bathrooms now are "inclusive." I would never in a million years sit in lodge with a woman - ever and would never have joined Freemasonry if it was about making women better men. Women can have their own thing, no one is stopping them, they just need to leave our thing to us, period.
Brother:
I am not advocating with this post that we open up our male only Lodges to women.
I'm a member of 5 Lodges now, all men only and I would not seek to change that. I firmly believe that one of the reasons the Freemasonry I know works, and works so well for those who are open to it, is the fact that it is composed of a single gender. I think that if women were sitting in my Lodges those Lodges and the interactions within them would be quite different, and I don't think the personal transformation we seek to help our initiates find would be as readily available.
In short, I'm quite happy with the male only Freemasonry I practice.
But I am advocating that we do not tell people who do not meet our requirements around gender that our form of Freemasonry is the only form that exists in the world. That they can not pursue Freemasonry simply because they can not sit in one of our Lodges.
I think it is far better, if we are ever asked, to acknowledge that other organizations exist that confer the same degrees that we confer, and to direct them to those other organizations.
Doing that does no harm to Freemasonry as we practice it, and does not change our own Masonic experience at all.
Although I haven't had that question posed to me directly (Can a woman be a mason?), my answer would be similar to yours, namely, there are woman masonic groups if they are so inclined to join, but they can't join ours. It doesn't bother me in the least that there are woman only and co-masons, it's a free country. In fact, that there is such an organization (or organizations) means there is less pressure on our jurisdiction to allow women.
But there is no way I would continue to belong to the craft if they allowed women into it. I have dealt enough with women from the OES and attended enough of their meetings and installations to know I'd never join that group. I feel that it, along with all of the other concordant bodies, pull the men away from the blue lodges. Too many great men spend all their time with OES and rarely if ever step foot in a tyled lodge room.
>>>In fact, that there is such an organization (or organizations) means there is less pressure on our >>>jurisdiction to allow women.
Yes. I believe you to be 100% correct on this point.
>>>But there is no way I would continue to belong to the craft if they allowed women into it. I have >>>dealt enough with women from the OES and attended enough of their meetings and >>>installations to know I'd never join that group.
I am a member of OES, but I am an inactive member, same with my wife and daughters.
I believe that in a mixed group like OES, the interactions are going to be a lot different than they would be in a single gender group. To put it bluntly, the men are going to want (one some level) to impress the women, and the women are going to want (on some level) to be noticed by the men. That is simply the way it works between men and women. Given that, I don't think that Freemasonry could 'work' nearly as well in a mixed gender group as it does in a single gender group. And I think that is OK.
From that, I think that OES would 'work' much better as a single gender group. I know that if it were to become such, my wife would become active in it, and I presume that my daughters would as well.
I was reminded yet again today why women in masonry is a bad idea.
Having been raised in 1974, I've experienced several evolutionary changes within Freemasonry. As a recently raised brother, I remember overhearing lodge officers anguishing over their options in addressing a petition for membership presented by a Black deputy sheriff. In anticipation of a cloudy ballet, the officers advised the deputy that his application would likely be rejected, and that his only option for more light would be to petition a local Prince Hall lodge. One should remember that in the early 1970s, many Grand Lodges prohibited masonic communication with brothers of Prince Hall freemasonry as they were deemed to be clandestine masons. Having proudly served my country alongside black soldiers, I questioned my continued membership in a fraternity that claimed to meet brothers "on the level." I raised my concerns with one of the lodge officers. I remember his sage advice, "it's easier to drive change from the inside than it is from the outside."
In 2001, the Grand Lodge of New York recognized the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York. Toward a more perfect union with our fellow brothers, the GLoNY added the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California to our list of eleven (11) previously recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges in 2014.
As I approach my 50th year as a member of our great Fraternity, I honor the labor of those optimistic brothers whose determination to "make good men better," and to promote goodwill and brotherhood with the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodges throughout the United States.
So mote it be.
I don't know if you're familiar with MWGM W. H. Upton here in Washington. Here is a snippet from my Home Lodge, who is named after him:
Judge Upton was Master of Blue Mountain Lodge, No. 13, F. & A. M., of Walla Walla in 1892. He was known as a Masonic scholar, becoming Grand Master of the MW Grand Lodge of Washington in 1898. Judge Upton made many significant contributions to Masonry; his most significant being his committee report of 1897 on Black Masonry and his efforts as Grand Master passing a resolution recognizing Prince Hall Masons in the State of Washington, however the majority of the other white Grand Lodges in the United States and Canada withdrew Masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Washington until the resolution was repealed. The resolution was reluctantly rescinded in June 1899. William H. Upton continued to write on this subject with conviction. His work on Black Masonry was an important chapter in Masonic history. He died on November 3, 1906. Upton's sincere interest was demonstrated by a provision in his will that no monument should be erected over his grave until “both colored and white Masons could stand over it as brothers”. In June 1990 the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of Washington passed a resolution recognizing the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and William. H. Upton’s monument now displays the Masonic emblem.
So, our state was the first to attempt to recognize PH back in 1897, and it took almost 100 years to actually get it accomplished. My lodge proudly bears his name as a reminder of his legacy.
>>>So, our state was the first to attempt to recognize PH back in 1897, and it took almost 100 >>>years to actually get it accomplished. My lodge proudly bears his name as a reminder of >>>his legacy.
I hope that every Washington Mason is able to take pride in the work done by the Washington Masons who came before us as they labored to right this injustice.
The recognition of Prince Hall Masonry by my Jurisdiction had been completed prior to me becoming a Mason, so I didn't have to live through unfortunate experiences such as you relate. I'm pleased that your Grand Lodge, and mine, addressed this issue.
Now we just have to pressure that small handful of Grand Lodges in the south to do the same. Hard to accomplish from outside, but hopefully Brothers there are working on it so that this period can finally be put behind us.
Here in Washington we have developed quite a close relationship with the MW Prince Hall GL of Washington and Jurisdiction. During my year in office I was able to attend a Master Mason Degree conferred by them, at a Masonic park owned by us, along with my counterpart GM. He and I were able to attend Lodges together, jointly sponsored events, and each other's major events. It is, I think, a true partnership between the two Grand Lodges, to the benefit of all.
Great question, MW. And one for which it's difficult to isolate a specific yes or no. Generally speaking, in the year 2023, when it comes to the role of women with Freemasonry I don't think we have a clue. Pointing to concordinant bodies that involve women almost evades the real question of if or how women should participate in Freemasonry.
Look around the room at any untyled District or Grand Lodge function and count the number of women in the room compared to the number of men. To get a fair representation of the day-to-day world of most Mason, exclude the Grand Lodge elected offices and their partners. There's a reason that so few women attend these events. Face it, our meetings are for men, and the women who do show up are treated like ornaments. Example #1: I learned that the upcoming Leadership Conference will feature cupcake decorating as part of the women's program. So in 2023 we're going to tell the women to go decorate cupcakes while we do the important men stuff. Example 2#: When I was DDGM we were planning the meal for a District meeting and one Brother suggested we get the Jobies to cook for us? Why? So we could teach them to be good little housewives? Not on my watch. Example #3: At a Grand Lodge installation a few years ago a Brother offered a poem to thank "our ladies" (I really don't like that term). The poem waxed on an on about how grateful we are that our ladies wait patiently for us to return from Lodge meetings, the message being that they had nothing better to do while we're out doing our men stuff. My wife was close to walking out, and I don't blame her.
There's nothing wrong with having men only meetings. There's also nothing wrong with women only meetings, provided that the women set the agenda. And there's nothing wrong with co-ed meetings. I think it's a significant missed opportunity that I can't share what I've learned through our ritual with my wife. If we could shake free from generations of male superiority and figure out how to engage with the women in our lives everyone would get more out of what we aspire to do. And we have our heads in the sand if we don't recognize that upcoming generations won't see the world through male-superior eyes, and that might be the thing that causes them to regard Masonry as irrelevant.
It's in our power to change this. But that's very hard to do. After all, we've never done it that way before.
I have had the girls groups, both rainbow and jobies, handle dinners for stated in the past, and they are incredibly grateful for the opportunity. To degrade what they are doing is frankly chauvinistic. Do you have the same attitude if it was the demolay being asked? They are not “learning to be good little housewives”, they are earning service points as well as money for their groups. They jump at the chance to help. As the JW I was eternally grateful for their assistance, because the brothers certainly got a much better meal than I would have ever provided. It’s called community service.
Second, the women’s program at the LLR is run by the women. It’s their program and we have nothing to do with it. If they want to learn how to decorate cupcakes, or arrange flower baskets, or whatever it is they do, that’s their prerogative. If your wife doesn’t want to join in, that’s up to her.
Brother Glen, I apologize for the misunderstanding that's come from my statements. Written communication has limitations.
I would never degrade a young woman's desire to earn service points. However I condemn the Masons' automatic assumption that these young women should cook for and serve us. That robotic assumption, which I see more often than not, is chauvinistic. I think the opportunity to help young girls learn the benefits of service is wonderful, as long as we don't cross the line and have them earn servitude points.
Cook dinner for us ... is that the best we've got? Really?
And I know that the women's program is planned by women. I agree, if they want to decorate cupcakes then by all means they should. But what about the majority of women in the lives of Masons who chose not to attend these programs? What opportunity are we missing by failing to engage with them.
We need to think very carefully about this. One of the most serious weaknesses we have as Masons is that we do an outstanding job of talking to ourselves. We're charged to take what we learn in the Lodge out of the Lodge. I feel that the quality and impact of our learning is meaningful only if we also bring what we learn outside of the Lodge into the Lodge.
>>>Pointing to concordinant bodies that involve women almost evades the real question of if or >>>how women should participate in Freemasonry.
I agree with this. I always cringe a little when I hear a man tell a woman that she can find what we find in Lodge within the OES (or whatever concordant body it might be.)
I do not think it is true.
Contained within Freemasonry are those things that will help the good man become a better man, if he is open to it. The actual secrets of Freemasonry are such because they are impossible to communicate and must be experienced.
OK, I know I'm getting too woo-woo here... So I'll leave it at that.
Without divulging any part of OES ritual that should not be divulged, I believe that I see within it, reference to those same things. But I have never seen anything like that explored within an OES meeting, or heard anything like that mentioned by an active OES member. Whatever was there, in my opinion, has been lost.
So to tell a woman that OES is somehow comparable to Freemasonry just isn't true. In my opinion.
My wife takes a different view:
As you know, she's a traditionalist who rather enjoys hanging out at Masonic events, helping where she is able. And she is quite comfortable with everything you mention above.
That said. Even she has a philosophical objection to OES.
Her objection is that a man must be present. She wonders why she and the other women are thought to need a chaperone. She finds that insulting, and honestly I can easily see her point.
So yes, I agree, we should not be implying that women will find the teachings of Freemasonry within the OES or the other concordant bodies.
Thanks for your reply MW. I've thought about this issue a lot since chiming in a day or two ago. It occurred to me that tradition plays a large part in Masonry, and from my perspective that's a good thing more often than not. It's interesting to consider the cultural, societal, and household norms that were in place when the traditions were first established vs. what the norms are today. Certainly there have been changes to the norms. Now consider how the norms for men have changed in the last 100 years vs. how the norms for women have changed. Then try to lean on our traditions while we engage with the women in the lives of today's Masons. We don't even have to go back 100 years, 10 or 20 might be enough to validate my initial comment: I don't think we have a clue.
Indeed you are right about change VW Brother.
Change at a dizzying pace, just over the half century that I've been kicking around.
I was thinking about that a couple of hours ago as I was picking my granddaughter up from School. She's in the First Grade. She attends private school, so no busses.
In any event, another school had come over for a basketball game, so I found no parking in the parking lot, and had to park in the street, a ways away. She doesn't walk across the parking lot, let alone the street, without holding my hand. That is natural to her, because of the time she was raised in.
Yet 50 some years ago, on my very first day of kindergarten, I walked myself to school, by myself. I'm not certain how far it was exactly, but at least a dozen blocks, probably a bit further than that.
Somewhere my mother has a goofy home video of me heading up the street, all alone, in my plaid pants. (It was the 1970's, you'll have to forgive the bad fashion.) That was natural to me and my peers, because of the times we were raised in. If a parent were to do that today it would certainly result in a State investigation of neglect.
I guess what I'm trying to say in relating this goofy story is that yes, the world has changed, radically, since the days when you and I were young men. The young men, and their partners, of today lived radically different childhoods from what the current leaders of our institution did, and so therefore will hold different opinions and views. With that in mind, on some level, it becomes difficult for us to understand the young adults of today, and for them to understand us.
But, that said, I do think that one of the great treasures of Freemasonry is the opportunity to learn from the men of previous generations.
The trick for us as leaders of this Fraternity is to get out of the way. Let the younger generation make of Freemasonry what they want and need it to be.
I like and support your position and have no problem with women freemasonry. I like UGLE's position on the matter. However,it does not really answer your question. The title would have been better, WOMEN IN FREEMASONRY. To answer your question I do not believe that Freemasonry is for everyone. It is only for the men and women who have the iterest, desire and support to become better through its enlightenment. Likewise there are both that should never become freemasons.
W Brother:
You are exactly correct, and I agree, Freemasonry isn't for everyone, as some do not qualify as good people. I was looking for an efficient headline for the article, but yes, it does fall down on accuracy.
More importantly in my mind though, I didn't choose to title it 'Women In Freemasonry' or something similar because I did not only have women in mind while writing it. Whatever our views of it might be, in today's world we are faced with the reality that some people do not identify with the gender they were born presenting, and some people who don't see themselves within a gender binary at all.
While drafting this essay, I hoped to make the point that there are male only Lodges, female only Lodges, and mixed gender Lodges, knowing that people who would not qualify, or would not enjoy a gender segregated form of Masonry might find welcome and a good experience for themselves within those mixed organizations.
Well... By my own lessons and understanding I disagree that there are other types of Masonry out there. Recognition is the law of the land. With that all said great article. Difficult topic and you did well.
Thank you Brother. I'm glad that you enjoyed the article, and yes, it is a difficult topic to write about. I felt it important however. I appreciate your kind compliment.
I understand and appreciate your position on Recognition.
I'm not sure that I agree with it however. I'll try to explain:
As you know, our Masonry pulled Recognition from the Grand Orient of France a very long time ago. I understand why that was done, and believe that it was right and proper for those who came before us to do it. (We did put it back in WWI so that we could visit their Lodges while fighting the war, but heh, expediency and all that.)
Since that pulling of Recognition, our Freemasonry has developed, as has theirs, and now Continental Freemasonry is a massive force with wonderful traditions all its own.
But we kind of act as if it doesn't exist.
I personally think that is a shame. We can, in my view, continue to deny Recognition, while still acknowledging the existence of that long and honorable tradition. We can learn from them, and improve our own Masonry with that which we learn.
One thing about Continental Masonry is the apparent love for the written word shared by large numbers of their Masons. Wonderful books have been written, are still being written, but the average Mason in our Jurisdictions doesn't even know that there is this other huge form of Freemasonry active in our world.
Indeed, one of my favorite Masonic authors is of that tradition. We don't Recognize his Jurisdiction, but how much poorer would our world be I wonder if he had never put pen to paper in the cause of Freemasonry.
Occasionally I post a quote from one of his works on Facebook, and those always seem very well liked. I think that shows that we have more in common than differences between us.
So, none of this is a call for Recognition. It is however a call for acknowledgement.
I think that we can do both. I think that the most recent edition of the Scottish Rite Research Society's Heredom shows us how:
It listed Karen Kidd as a Co-Mason and gave acknowledgement to her Initiation and Jurisdiction. In such ways we can, I think, acknowledge and learn, without Recognition.
My Brother great response. Well said as always. I was told many years ago by one of my academic Brothers that its ok to disagree. That has always stuck with me.
As I said it is a difficult topic. We can acknowledge existence and also not recognize on a Main Stream Masonic Level. I believe that all should be happy and also at the same time be kind. Who joins what doesn't concern me.
Growth as a human is the goal.
I do not believe in "not" acknowledging co-, female or any other type of Masonry. It exists, period.
If my jurisdiction formally acknowledged I would have no problem with it. UGLE did it and their island didn't sink.
I join all types of groups and co-/female craft sights i visit often. I have had had great conversations and read wonderful non main stream articles.
My last thing that I will share is this: "Tradition is everything to me and I truly believe its important not to play around with tradition".
Peace be with you My Brother. Always with Peace and Harmony Prevailing.
Thank you for your kind words as always Brother! I greatly enjoy our 'conversations' here and elsewhere.
Emeth feeds my esoteric hunger that I do not get satisfied in my Jurisdiction. Throw some tougher topics. Love the responses. Some are a bit harsh though. Ha
I'm glad, and please feel free to join us on Sunday nights for Rummer & Grapes too. You'll be receiving login information about that on Sunday afternoon. We have some great discussions there.
You went to Kindergarten in the 70s? Wow, I just assumed you were older than me since you're so much smarter. I started Kindergarten in September 1959. So now that I know I'm older, and since you said Masons like to learn from older men, just tell me what you want to know.
Ready when you are, CB! (LOL)
I shall not accept the 'smarter' appellation. I'm pretty darn sure that you take that honor my Brother!
In reading some of the comments, I think the argument comparing women masonic groups to how Masons treated Prince Hall lodges (long before my time) is a weak one. We recognize PH lodges (mostly throughout the US) because one of our requirements is that a candidate is "Free-born". Nothing in our code or ritual mentions race, ethnicity or even religious preference - save for believing in a supreme being.
It's critical that men and women have their own organizations so that they may grow among their peers who will whisper wise counsel, hold them accountable and allow them a place to be vulnerable and open up with thoughtful discussions. As you alluded to, when men an women get together in formal settings, they tend to "put on a show". Masonry is not a little league t-ball team where the one tomboy chick in the neighborhood just wants to play with friends that she grew up with. This is a fraternal organization. Just like in college, guy have fraternities and ladies have sororities. There's no prohibition against socially interacting and cooperatively supporting one another and we've seen the epic shit show that allowing girls into Boy Scouts of America caused; it killed both groups.
I would be honest in saying that in Washington State, there are no recognized "Female Freemason" lodges, rather there are women-only and co-ed concordant bodies that are within the masonic family. For things like OES, where a Master Mason must sponsor a woman into the organization, I feel that, based on tradition and the symbolism therein, a man who is a Mason should be present at all meetings because it's the Masonic men who serve as the foundation and cornerstone that such concordant bodies exist.
Out initial oath specifically states that we will not give our consent to making a woman a mason, nor be present and such an occasion, nor converse masonically with a woman mason, nor visit a clandestine loge. We also swore to the preamble version of honoring the rules and regulations of a lodge on the first and second degrees as well.
As I'm composing this response, I'm reminded of this quote by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, "We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim." We, as men, need to stop pandering to "Wokeism" under the auspices of "inclusivity". We are an elite fraternity and we better start acting like it or else we'll all suffer the fate of 'Oprah Masonry' where the motto will be, "...and you get a square and compass, and you get a square and compass, everyone in the audience gets squares and compasses!!"
We owe it to ourselves and the women and children that we hold so dear.
I certainly agree that single gender organizations are important, for the reasons you mention. I am quite pleased that my Lodges, and Grand Lodge are male only institutions, and I would not want that to change. Were it too, I don't think that I would find nearly the value that I do. For the reasons mentioned.
I also do not disagree, there are indeed no Recognized Female Freemasonic Lodges in Washington, or anywhere else, as we are unable, due to our Masonic Law, from Recognizing such bodies. Our code is quite clear on that subject. As are our customs and traditions, existing since time immemorial.
I do however acknowledge that there are Female Freemasonic organizations, as those organizations define themselves, operating within this State and throughout the country. Mixed obediences as well. I believe those organizations to be quite different from our own related orders. This acknowledgement is not a violation of any part of the obligations we have taken. Participating would certainly be, acknowledging that women have taken the Degrees of Craft Masonry, in their own form, is not.
That is my view of it anyway.
Excellent article about women in freemasonry.
My name is Wilson J. Gonzalez. I'm the WM of a lodge that works in the Egyptian Memphis Mizraim rite here in the states. I won't mention the name of the lodge because I'm writing on my behalf. This rite accepts both man and women.
There is nothing wrong in accepting women in freemasonry, since freemasonry symbolism contains both masculine and femenine aspects. The masculine aspect is in the jewel of the SW and the femenine aspect is in the WM jewel.
I started my masonic journey in a scottish rite lodge, but as my knowledge increase I realiza that there is nothing wrong to have women working the rituals.
I'm not saying that every lodge should start initiating women, if the lodge want to stay men only, that is ok. But what is not ok is to think that women are not worthy of becoming a freemason. Recognition is the first step.
How can I preach about equality if I do not consider women on my same level?
How can I preach liberty if I restrain half of humanity?
How can I preach fraternity if I'm not willing to share with everybody?
Thank you for sharing this perspective with us. I appreciate it.