I see this across all avenues of the fraternity: the men who’ve been there for decades claim they want to see it thrive. They claim they want young men to be interested, invested, and dedicated. They claim they want to retain their existing members. And yet, for similar reasons you have mentioned, they seem often unwilling to do the work to change the culture of Masonry to meet the needs of a modern man. Let be clear: Masonry does not need fixing. It is an ancient system veiled in a flavor that was interesting and relevant for the past few hundred years. A savvy man can work to see the light it has offered mankind since before any can claim to remember. But Masonry can change, has changed, and it will again. If we cannot evolve, adapt, and grow, then we deserve to fade into the annals of time.
What I notice is a poisoning of the lodge. Well meaning men, who have pride in the craft and it’s illustrious work and celebrated history, are unwittingly causing it’s demise. They assume, erroneously, that just because it’s been done that way since they’ve been members, that changing it would be a bad thing. They hold onto the glory days of our craft when it was perhaps little more than a social club and had the admiration and respect of our communities. The tragedy being that those men who come to it now, at its lowest point in popularity in living memory, are the ones who see the deeper, perhaps more ancient intent and meaning. They aren’t joining for the perks, to be sure. But they join only to see that the elders in their lodge don’t seem to take the tenants of our order as seriously, and in fact act so “unmasonically” they lose heart at their most crucial time in their Masonic journey.
I’m not a Scottish Rite, nor York Rite Mason myself. I did join the Shrine last year and it perhaps epitomizes my feelings as above. It is an institution with a mission at its core that is undeniably “the greatest philanthropy”. Yet it’s history and customs are nothing short of fetishizing Middle Eastern culture and it’s practices are so reliant on a “social club” style structure that was very popular the last 100 years or so, but perhaps isn’t just what a modern man finds necessary. Would it harm the institution to exchange the word “lady” for the word “partner” in its numerous appearance in their messaging? It makes an assumption, however innocuous it intent, that to a modern man just reeks of “the old ways”. And it might serve to drive away a good man who otherwise would have made a valuable addition to these institutions.
Like you said, we must reflect upon who we’ve been, who we are, and who we want to become. There’s so much history (and amazing foresight) in each of those avenues, that there is room for everyone.
Brother Haase, YES to everything you said. And I'd like to underscore your objection to the use of the term "lady". When we introduce our partners as "my lady" it implies that our partners are our possessions. I can name at least one wife who finds the term repugnant. "My partner" says we're equals, which is how it should be. We make such a big deal about Brothers meeting on the level, and it is a big deal. If we don't meet our partners on the level we're a sad bunch of hypocrites. I probably won't live long enough to see women made Masons, but come on, it's 2022. Let's stop treating the women in our lives as our ornaments.
We do have female Masons right here in Western Washington. An organized group that I pay attention to online is co-Masonic. I don't know how many members they have, but I do know that they host regular Masonic discussions relating to the philosophical and spiritual sides of Freemasonry, as they post their discussion topics publicly in advance of their gatherings. They also occasionally post papers.
I will say, from what I can see on the outside looking in, that they do a much better job of providing their membership with high quality Masonic education than our average Lodge.
In keeping with the obligations I've taken, I can't of course converse with them Masonically, or visit, but I do acknowledge that they exist, and have existed for a very long time. Their Grand Lodge is not something new.
I would certainly not object if my wife wanted to join. She does not.
So we can converse Masonically with a bunch of guys wearing a fez while driving a miniature car but we can't with women who do a better job of providing high quality Masonic education, even though we are in dire need of better Masonic education. Go figure.
I think it kind of depends on how we define 'converse Masonically.' I've chosen to never push that boundary, not wanting to cause controversy over the issue.
That said, I did, some time ago, participate in a discussion organized by the then Grand Master of California with the GM of a feminine GL. It was certainly interesting.
I imagine that there is much we could learn from them, and that likewise there is much that they could learn from us. (As a quick example, I think that their governance structure is double plus ungood) Perhaps someday.
Brother: All of your points are well taken, thank you.
I'll just focus on one, the use of the word 'lady' because I am certainly guilty of using it myself. I think that when I first became a Mason, I was a bit surprised to see it used so heavily, as it isn't in my work life or social scene. But I guess that I just easily adopted it, because it kind of fits my wife and her view of herself.
Perhaps I can explain using a Brother. About a year ago a very active Mason passed away, someone who I liked very much. He lived his life though, as if he were living in 1890 instead of today. As much as he could, that is how he wanted to live. And his headstone says as much. He designed it himself, and it declares in stone that he was born 100 years too late.
My wife is rather like that. She holds her own idealized vision of the middle of the last century, and she likes seeing herself and her home in those terms. Because of that, she likes old forms of address and certainly doesn't object to the use of the word lady in reference to herself.
That said, I certainly understand the point that you are making. Everyone is different, times change, and vocabulary changes with time. When it comes to those introductions, it certainly does seem that we are locked into 1950, and not all would appreciate that.
I'll try to remember your words in the future. Thank you.
Thank you for commenting MWB. In my own experience, those of us from the Gen X and Millennial designations (who have partners), on average have partners who perhaps passively support (or at least tolerate) our journeys through Masonry. I haven’t met many partners of Masons (male or female) who have expressed much of an interest in our doings. Many (perhaps wisely so) share their uncomfortableness with some of the outdated morays of our craft.
My own wife is supportive as she can be in the sense that modern families often have both parents working or (increasingly common now, myself included) the father is the full time caregiver for the kids. So the time I spend doing Masonic work is an ask on her part to keep the homestead together AFTER her full work day/week. That’s about as much support as I could hope to ask for. It’s rare that she attends any functions open to non-Masons and she would only do so more as a gesture on my behalf.
To add to all of that, imagine someone who feels excluded from joining the shrine or another organization that constantly says “you and your lady”. It pushes away someone unnecessarily that otherwise might have been a welcomed addition. I don’t think it’s intended to exclude people, or cause harm. But, at the very least, it comes across as inaccurate in its description of modern families. That’s all.
>>It pushes away someone unnecessarily that otherwise might have been a >>welcomed addition.
Yes, this makes a great deal of sense given the nature of modern families.
>>So the time I spend doing Masonic work is an ask on her part to keep the >>homestead together AFTER her full work day/week.
This also is undeniably true, and something that all of us do well to remember. My own wife's sacrifices so that I can pursue my path within Freemasonry are significant and ongoing.
All of us who are active Masons need to keep these sacrifices by our partners in mind, for I think that we have a duty to both acknowledge the sacrifice and show our partner the same support we are shown.
Apr 29, 2022·edited Apr 29, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
A few years ago a Brother read a poem at the GM's installation that was overwhelmingly well intended. It was a thank you to the women in our lives ... can't remember if the term "lady" was used. Well intentions aside, the poem created an image of a lonely woman at home, maybe stirring something on the stove, just waiting for her man to come home. The Brother surely meant to thank the women in our lives for supporting us Masons. What a few women heard (I'm sure of this because I heard from them ... emphatically) is that the women don't have anything better to do than sit around and be lonely until her man comes home and then everything will be alright. Perception is reality, especially if we foster the perception.
You just reminded me of a similar experience, many years ago.
The first large Masonic event Melinda ever attended was the Lodge Leadership Retreat. During dinner a fairly young couple got up to give the keynote.
He talked about how he had joined Masonry, and then found all of these other groups, the Rites, the Shrine, &c. Then she talked about how she found all these mixed and women's groups to join, OES, Amaranth, Daughters of the Nile &c.
Then they talked about how they got their kids involved in the youth orders.
They concluded by saying something to the effect of now having all of their nights filled, and being thrilled with it.
I know that the intention behind the speech was to point out that we have a myriad of ways for families that want to be involved, to get involved.
But that isn't how my wife heard it. I distinctly remember her turning towards me and declaring Freemasonry, the whole damn shooting match, a cult.
Given the content of the speech, it was easy to see why she heard it that way, and I was able to properly explain things, but that was one of her first impressions of Freemasonry, and it wasn't good.
I don't really look at the goings on with the appendant bodies, but holy smokes, the links you provided at the end of the article were fascinating. Much like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The amount of unmasonic behavior by members calling themselves both masons and christians is staggering.
We have enough drama in our own bailiwick, we certainly don't need more of it. I was especially surprised to read what was contained in the first two links and our own GL. As Christopher Hodapp notes, the GL of any jurisdiction has no right to stick it's nose into other appendant bodies business. We don't tell the OES what to do, and we ignore OES when they try to do the same. Well, some blue lodges are lorded over by OES, sadly.
More to the point of your article, I agree completely, although I'd guess a lot of brothers in those appendant bodies may argue otherwise. You know, the ones that only joined the masons to join another group.
Just as a quick FYI, the situation revolving around our Grand Lodge and the Grand Encampment years ago was quite a lot more complex than is made out in that article.
It continued for years and years, but eventually the GEKT mended its ways, and moved beyond it. That author, a great Brother who has done more for this fraternity than almost anyone else, has written a lot more articles about it over time, but I didn't want to make the list too long.
I've also got to point out however that those articles are written from a non-neutral point of view, as I understand that he was one of the men who initially joined the clandestine group, and in one of his articles mentioned the rather surprising amount of money he had to spend in order to do so.
In any event, like you, I have found the whole thing interesting as all get out. Perhaps you and I can discuss it someday, I can fill you in on what I learned in my own researches about it.
This conversation is linked to another issue I have, that I think is related. “Retrograde idealization”. My goodness we look backwards a lot, living on withered laurels. I have read, though not confirmed, that in 1900 about 80% of American homes had fraternal affiliations. Today, I would guess that number might be as high as the single digits. Freemasonry was the most prestigious of the fraternities, and attracted the best men from around the world. When men who shaped the world also had our grand titles those titles seemed legit. Those days have passed. Additionally, a little research will reveal that many of those men were actively pursuing the mysteries and wisdom of their Masonic traditions. And they were rewarded by those efforts with elevation in the fraternity. Yes, there are men like that in our fraternity now, but there is little link between Masonic titles and that kind of work now. Today, if I use all my titles and affiliations and fill my lapel with every Masonic pin, I am entitled to wear I look like a Russian Naval officer, pretending to be an Imperial Romanov!
As our numbers decrease, and we continue to try to maintain infrastructure established when our Lodges were over full, when many off our affiliated bodies struggle to have enough enthusiasm to operate, I think the whole way we think our ourselves needs to be rethought. The core of Freemasonry is the Blue Lodge. There is NO Masonic title more sublime than Master Mason, there is no organization more prestigious, than Blue Lodge. There are more specialized organizations, and there are more specialized titles, but not more prestigious. A man who has achieved some level of success integrating the lessons of the first three degrees is a prince among men, and NO lapel pin is more prestigious that the square and compass of a Master Mason. Calling myself a Knight Templar, or a Master of the Royal Secret means very little if I have not done more than receive the title after a hurried ritual.
I often don't wear any, but when i do its only the ones i had to earn through work. Hiram award, Master Craftsmen, and KCCH, but most often just a square and compass. I also see limiting my dispay of honors as a way to keep my own ego in check, no small task! lol
I too limit myself, but it is to one. I just think that we look goofy as hell loading up our lapels with pins. For most of my time in Masonry I wore the Grand Masters Achievement Award, and now I wear the pin signifying the Past GM Degree.
Except of course when I attend the annual White Socks and Wigs fundraiser put on by Little Falls Lodge. Then I wear a vest that I've quite literally covered with Masonic lapel pins. My effort to be ironic and look like a weirdo.
Jumping on this thread late so I'll not repeat the earlier comments. I will say that I agree with them, and I'll comment on the notion that Knights Templar, or any offshoot from the Blue Lodge, is "better". That any concordant body is better than the Blue Lodge, or for that matter the idea that Masons are better than non-Masons, is ludicrous. It might feel good to think that way, most delusions do. A Brother who joins a concordant body might be seeking more light, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not better. There are other paths to more light. For example, read a book. And the self-congratulatory thoughts that Masons are better overlooks the millions of good men who choose not be Masons for a wide range of reasons, many of which we can't argue with. They're all good men and they're all in some way flawed. And so are we. Hopefully in our individual journeys to become better men we'll each figure that out.
I see this across all avenues of the fraternity: the men who’ve been there for decades claim they want to see it thrive. They claim they want young men to be interested, invested, and dedicated. They claim they want to retain their existing members. And yet, for similar reasons you have mentioned, they seem often unwilling to do the work to change the culture of Masonry to meet the needs of a modern man. Let be clear: Masonry does not need fixing. It is an ancient system veiled in a flavor that was interesting and relevant for the past few hundred years. A savvy man can work to see the light it has offered mankind since before any can claim to remember. But Masonry can change, has changed, and it will again. If we cannot evolve, adapt, and grow, then we deserve to fade into the annals of time.
What I notice is a poisoning of the lodge. Well meaning men, who have pride in the craft and it’s illustrious work and celebrated history, are unwittingly causing it’s demise. They assume, erroneously, that just because it’s been done that way since they’ve been members, that changing it would be a bad thing. They hold onto the glory days of our craft when it was perhaps little more than a social club and had the admiration and respect of our communities. The tragedy being that those men who come to it now, at its lowest point in popularity in living memory, are the ones who see the deeper, perhaps more ancient intent and meaning. They aren’t joining for the perks, to be sure. But they join only to see that the elders in their lodge don’t seem to take the tenants of our order as seriously, and in fact act so “unmasonically” they lose heart at their most crucial time in their Masonic journey.
I’m not a Scottish Rite, nor York Rite Mason myself. I did join the Shrine last year and it perhaps epitomizes my feelings as above. It is an institution with a mission at its core that is undeniably “the greatest philanthropy”. Yet it’s history and customs are nothing short of fetishizing Middle Eastern culture and it’s practices are so reliant on a “social club” style structure that was very popular the last 100 years or so, but perhaps isn’t just what a modern man finds necessary. Would it harm the institution to exchange the word “lady” for the word “partner” in its numerous appearance in their messaging? It makes an assumption, however innocuous it intent, that to a modern man just reeks of “the old ways”. And it might serve to drive away a good man who otherwise would have made a valuable addition to these institutions.
Like you said, we must reflect upon who we’ve been, who we are, and who we want to become. There’s so much history (and amazing foresight) in each of those avenues, that there is room for everyone.
Brother Haase, YES to everything you said. And I'd like to underscore your objection to the use of the term "lady". When we introduce our partners as "my lady" it implies that our partners are our possessions. I can name at least one wife who finds the term repugnant. "My partner" says we're equals, which is how it should be. We make such a big deal about Brothers meeting on the level, and it is a big deal. If we don't meet our partners on the level we're a sad bunch of hypocrites. I probably won't live long enough to see women made Masons, but come on, it's 2022. Let's stop treating the women in our lives as our ornaments.
We do have female Masons right here in Western Washington. An organized group that I pay attention to online is co-Masonic. I don't know how many members they have, but I do know that they host regular Masonic discussions relating to the philosophical and spiritual sides of Freemasonry, as they post their discussion topics publicly in advance of their gatherings. They also occasionally post papers.
I will say, from what I can see on the outside looking in, that they do a much better job of providing their membership with high quality Masonic education than our average Lodge.
In keeping with the obligations I've taken, I can't of course converse with them Masonically, or visit, but I do acknowledge that they exist, and have existed for a very long time. Their Grand Lodge is not something new.
I would certainly not object if my wife wanted to join. She does not.
So we can converse Masonically with a bunch of guys wearing a fez while driving a miniature car but we can't with women who do a better job of providing high quality Masonic education, even though we are in dire need of better Masonic education. Go figure.
I think it kind of depends on how we define 'converse Masonically.' I've chosen to never push that boundary, not wanting to cause controversy over the issue.
That said, I did, some time ago, participate in a discussion organized by the then Grand Master of California with the GM of a feminine GL. It was certainly interesting.
I imagine that there is much we could learn from them, and that likewise there is much that they could learn from us. (As a quick example, I think that their governance structure is double plus ungood) Perhaps someday.
Brother: All of your points are well taken, thank you.
I'll just focus on one, the use of the word 'lady' because I am certainly guilty of using it myself. I think that when I first became a Mason, I was a bit surprised to see it used so heavily, as it isn't in my work life or social scene. But I guess that I just easily adopted it, because it kind of fits my wife and her view of herself.
Perhaps I can explain using a Brother. About a year ago a very active Mason passed away, someone who I liked very much. He lived his life though, as if he were living in 1890 instead of today. As much as he could, that is how he wanted to live. And his headstone says as much. He designed it himself, and it declares in stone that he was born 100 years too late.
My wife is rather like that. She holds her own idealized vision of the middle of the last century, and she likes seeing herself and her home in those terms. Because of that, she likes old forms of address and certainly doesn't object to the use of the word lady in reference to herself.
That said, I certainly understand the point that you are making. Everyone is different, times change, and vocabulary changes with time. When it comes to those introductions, it certainly does seem that we are locked into 1950, and not all would appreciate that.
I'll try to remember your words in the future. Thank you.
Thank you for commenting MWB. In my own experience, those of us from the Gen X and Millennial designations (who have partners), on average have partners who perhaps passively support (or at least tolerate) our journeys through Masonry. I haven’t met many partners of Masons (male or female) who have expressed much of an interest in our doings. Many (perhaps wisely so) share their uncomfortableness with some of the outdated morays of our craft.
My own wife is supportive as she can be in the sense that modern families often have both parents working or (increasingly common now, myself included) the father is the full time caregiver for the kids. So the time I spend doing Masonic work is an ask on her part to keep the homestead together AFTER her full work day/week. That’s about as much support as I could hope to ask for. It’s rare that she attends any functions open to non-Masons and she would only do so more as a gesture on my behalf.
To add to all of that, imagine someone who feels excluded from joining the shrine or another organization that constantly says “you and your lady”. It pushes away someone unnecessarily that otherwise might have been a welcomed addition. I don’t think it’s intended to exclude people, or cause harm. But, at the very least, it comes across as inaccurate in its description of modern families. That’s all.
>>It pushes away someone unnecessarily that otherwise might have been a >>welcomed addition.
Yes, this makes a great deal of sense given the nature of modern families.
>>So the time I spend doing Masonic work is an ask on her part to keep the >>homestead together AFTER her full work day/week.
This also is undeniably true, and something that all of us do well to remember. My own wife's sacrifices so that I can pursue my path within Freemasonry are significant and ongoing.
All of us who are active Masons need to keep these sacrifices by our partners in mind, for I think that we have a duty to both acknowledge the sacrifice and show our partner the same support we are shown.
A few years ago a Brother read a poem at the GM's installation that was overwhelmingly well intended. It was a thank you to the women in our lives ... can't remember if the term "lady" was used. Well intentions aside, the poem created an image of a lonely woman at home, maybe stirring something on the stove, just waiting for her man to come home. The Brother surely meant to thank the women in our lives for supporting us Masons. What a few women heard (I'm sure of this because I heard from them ... emphatically) is that the women don't have anything better to do than sit around and be lonely until her man comes home and then everything will be alright. Perception is reality, especially if we foster the perception.
You just reminded me of a similar experience, many years ago.
The first large Masonic event Melinda ever attended was the Lodge Leadership Retreat. During dinner a fairly young couple got up to give the keynote.
He talked about how he had joined Masonry, and then found all of these other groups, the Rites, the Shrine, &c. Then she talked about how she found all these mixed and women's groups to join, OES, Amaranth, Daughters of the Nile &c.
Then they talked about how they got their kids involved in the youth orders.
They concluded by saying something to the effect of now having all of their nights filled, and being thrilled with it.
I know that the intention behind the speech was to point out that we have a myriad of ways for families that want to be involved, to get involved.
But that isn't how my wife heard it. I distinctly remember her turning towards me and declaring Freemasonry, the whole damn shooting match, a cult.
Given the content of the speech, it was easy to see why she heard it that way, and I was able to properly explain things, but that was one of her first impressions of Freemasonry, and it wasn't good.
I don't really look at the goings on with the appendant bodies, but holy smokes, the links you provided at the end of the article were fascinating. Much like watching a train wreck in slow motion. The amount of unmasonic behavior by members calling themselves both masons and christians is staggering.
We have enough drama in our own bailiwick, we certainly don't need more of it. I was especially surprised to read what was contained in the first two links and our own GL. As Christopher Hodapp notes, the GL of any jurisdiction has no right to stick it's nose into other appendant bodies business. We don't tell the OES what to do, and we ignore OES when they try to do the same. Well, some blue lodges are lorded over by OES, sadly.
More to the point of your article, I agree completely, although I'd guess a lot of brothers in those appendant bodies may argue otherwise. You know, the ones that only joined the masons to join another group.
Just as a quick FYI, the situation revolving around our Grand Lodge and the Grand Encampment years ago was quite a lot more complex than is made out in that article.
It continued for years and years, but eventually the GEKT mended its ways, and moved beyond it. That author, a great Brother who has done more for this fraternity than almost anyone else, has written a lot more articles about it over time, but I didn't want to make the list too long.
I've also got to point out however that those articles are written from a non-neutral point of view, as I understand that he was one of the men who initially joined the clandestine group, and in one of his articles mentioned the rather surprising amount of money he had to spend in order to do so.
In any event, like you, I have found the whole thing interesting as all get out. Perhaps you and I can discuss it someday, I can fill you in on what I learned in my own researches about it.
I agree with everything you said.
This conversation is linked to another issue I have, that I think is related. “Retrograde idealization”. My goodness we look backwards a lot, living on withered laurels. I have read, though not confirmed, that in 1900 about 80% of American homes had fraternal affiliations. Today, I would guess that number might be as high as the single digits. Freemasonry was the most prestigious of the fraternities, and attracted the best men from around the world. When men who shaped the world also had our grand titles those titles seemed legit. Those days have passed. Additionally, a little research will reveal that many of those men were actively pursuing the mysteries and wisdom of their Masonic traditions. And they were rewarded by those efforts with elevation in the fraternity. Yes, there are men like that in our fraternity now, but there is little link between Masonic titles and that kind of work now. Today, if I use all my titles and affiliations and fill my lapel with every Masonic pin, I am entitled to wear I look like a Russian Naval officer, pretending to be an Imperial Romanov!
As our numbers decrease, and we continue to try to maintain infrastructure established when our Lodges were over full, when many off our affiliated bodies struggle to have enough enthusiasm to operate, I think the whole way we think our ourselves needs to be rethought. The core of Freemasonry is the Blue Lodge. There is NO Masonic title more sublime than Master Mason, there is no organization more prestigious, than Blue Lodge. There are more specialized organizations, and there are more specialized titles, but not more prestigious. A man who has achieved some level of success integrating the lessons of the first three degrees is a prince among men, and NO lapel pin is more prestigious that the square and compass of a Master Mason. Calling myself a Knight Templar, or a Master of the Royal Secret means very little if I have not done more than receive the title after a hurried ritual.
I made a promise to myself I'd limit the number of lapel pins I wear at two.
I often don't wear any, but when i do its only the ones i had to earn through work. Hiram award, Master Craftsmen, and KCCH, but most often just a square and compass. I also see limiting my dispay of honors as a way to keep my own ego in check, no small task! lol
I too limit myself, but it is to one. I just think that we look goofy as hell loading up our lapels with pins. For most of my time in Masonry I wore the Grand Masters Achievement Award, and now I wear the pin signifying the Past GM Degree.
Except of course when I attend the annual White Socks and Wigs fundraiser put on by Little Falls Lodge. Then I wear a vest that I've quite literally covered with Masonic lapel pins. My effort to be ironic and look like a weirdo.
Very well said VW Brother. Thank you!
Jumping on this thread late so I'll not repeat the earlier comments. I will say that I agree with them, and I'll comment on the notion that Knights Templar, or any offshoot from the Blue Lodge, is "better". That any concordant body is better than the Blue Lodge, or for that matter the idea that Masons are better than non-Masons, is ludicrous. It might feel good to think that way, most delusions do. A Brother who joins a concordant body might be seeking more light, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not better. There are other paths to more light. For example, read a book. And the self-congratulatory thoughts that Masons are better overlooks the millions of good men who choose not be Masons for a wide range of reasons, many of which we can't argue with. They're all good men and they're all in some way flawed. And so are we. Hopefully in our individual journeys to become better men we'll each figure that out.