The Burning Taper: Grand Orient of France votes against allowing women to join

Monday, September 10, 2007

Grand Orient of France votes against allowing women to join

—118 comments —

The blog Lost in France reports that at the recent annual meeting of the Grand Orient of France, "sixty percent of the 1,200 delegates attending rejected outright the proposal that was put forward by their slightly more liberated Grand Master Jean-Michel Quillardet to allow women to join their Lodges."

According to the website, the GODF was founded in 1773, and has over 48,000 members.

Masons | Masonic Trial | Females in Freemasonry | Freemasonry | Grand Orient of France | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com

Labels: Female Freemasons, Freemasonry, Freemasons, Grand Orient of France, Women in Freemasonry

Seed Newsvine StumbleUpon Toolbar

Stumble It!

118 Comments:

Theron Dunn wrote:: Well, at least the majority present still have a clear eye on their obligations and the traditions of freemasonry. As for the Grand Master being more "progressive"... well, that is certainly one opinion.

It seems to me they took the only, appropriate, masonic action in the face of a... ridiculous request.

Good for them!; Monday, September 10, 2007 2:26:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: That is a sweet picture, though!
Dig the lid on that dame....
How dare she think she a freemason!
Good, and make sure you keep them coloreds and homosexuals out too!

the nerve of some, really thinking masonry would want those unequals as members.....
Bwahhhhh

Bro Jethro Tull; Monday, September 10, 2007 2:53:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: Oh my goodness! Men are staying true to their word...

How dare they! Don't they know that this day and age you are supposed to sacrifice your word for the PC masses.

I think we should start up a petition to have them censured by the UN for being so bold as to keep their word!

Down with integrity now!

Br. Arthur Peterson

Now if they could just do something about allowing atheists in, we might be able to trust them as Brothers once again.; Monday, September 10, 2007 4:40:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: - Anyway the GOdF have already built or help the building of another GL for men and women and they have the right to visit the lodges of the GOdF.

The only think the GodF don't do is initiation.

- progress is not ridiculous, or maybe there is still a lot of ridiculous things to do in freemasonry.

- Atheist/theist the question anyway is not asked since 1877.; Monday, September 10, 2007 5:37:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: Is it necessarily saying that women aren't equal if they can't be freemasons? I guess I'm just wondering what's wrong with men associating and supporting each other in this organization. Have we progressed any less if we still separate sometimes to associate. And I don't think that homosexuals or african americans, asians, latinos, etc. should be excluded.
I certainly can't see myself trying to join the Red Hat Society. Just a thought.

Bro. Newbie; Monday, September 10, 2007 5:54:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: Damn people

I am always amazed when I see the tyranny of ignorant men. Atheists? Should a sovereign body bow to your interests?
Where would the United States be if our Constitution could not be changed? Slavery would still be legal. Times change. Get with the times.; Monday, September 10, 2007 6:35:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: I'm laughing. Obviously I can't resist commenting on this one-- but if I stop to do so, I'll be late to my lodge meeting!!!

So more later...

p.s. where can I get a dress like hers?; Monday, September 10, 2007 9:00:00 PM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: Sis. Kelley beat me to this one, but I'm going to add my tuppence anyway.

Bros. Dunn, Peterson, et al., there is a reason why some web forums ban (or heavily moderate) discussions about jurisdictional differences, especially about jurisdictions that are not recognized by the mainstream GLs. Like religion and politics, discussions about "clandestine" lodges have a way of devolving into name calling and insults (witness some of the responses here), for no good reason.

Grand Lodges are sovereign entities, but that does not mean that they exist in political vacuums. GOF made a decision not to admit women, but that does not mean anything beyond that they have decided not to admit women. It's not that the decision is "right" or that they are "keeping their word;" it simply means that they are going to continue the tradition that they've had.

There are, obviously, several large jurisdictions that admit women. Some have been around for a couple of centuries, some are newer, but all of them practice the forms of Masonry very closely to the ones that you and I know. Are they Masons? Well, according to how my GL (and yours, I suspect) defines the term, no.

But the more pertinent question to ask is are they Masons according to their own definition? The answer is obviously yes, they are. In fact, my GL (and yours, I suspect) do consider them to be "Masonic" in some fashion, otherwise we would not be having this discussion. They are a body that we regard as Masonic, but unrecognized.

There's an odd twist of logic there. If "The Feminine Rite of Memphis-Mizrain" called themselves "The Feminine Order of Water Buffaloes," then you and I could visit, or even join a lodge. It's only because they call themselves "Masons" that they are off-limits.

My GL has the right to not recognize orders that admit women. That means that I can't associate with them Masonically; it does not give me the moral authority to denigrate them, or indeed, any other group that would consider admitting them.; Monday, September 10, 2007 9:21:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: Bro. Accuosti,

Well spoken. I thank you from my heart, brother.

I have one comment on the whole chicks or no chicks thing--and then one on the GODF.

Freemasonry is a system of morality, not a social club. I am completely in favor of folks *socializing* as they see fit. I am not so much in favor of half of the population saying that the other half cannot access the wisdom of what remains of the western mystery tradition. There is nothing gender specific about wisdom, or self improvement, or honesty, or idealism, or love. And no, the word "fraternity" does not mean all male. Look it up.

I would also posit that the problem with Freemasonry in the US is that it has become too much of a social club, which is what leads to this kind of confusion.

Regarding the GODF. I love the GODF. The GODF lodge in my city helped open my Le Droit Humain (co-freemasonry) lodge, and has been supportive of us ever since. Several of those brothers are actually dual members of our lodges, so our ties are very close.

I am not at all disappointed that they did not go co-ed on that vote. This was not the first vote on the issue, and will not be the last.

It was not a crazy initiative of one wackadoo liberal poobah. As I understand from my GODF sources, it is an ongoing discussion. I don't really care how they decide, I'm just happy that they are willing to think about it. That means they respect me, and my right to be a Mason, and more, they are wondering if working with women wouldn't help them be better Masons. It's their decision to make.

Also, to put their vote into a cultural context, France is a rich in Masonic options. Le Droit Humain is strong there. There is more than one all female GL. There are the godless rabble rousers called the GODF, and there are more conservative masculine obediences that would be more similar to US Masonry. Unlike here in the US, In France, everyone has a chance to find their place in Freemasonry.

When those GODF brothers were voting, they knew their sisters had other high-quality options for participating in Freemasonry--this means that when they vote on whether or not to admit women, the vote is not a shallow PC gesture, nor is it guilt induced, nor is it because of outside pressure to open up.

Brothers of the GODF are free thinkers in the finest tradition, and I'd like to think they'd not crumble under outside pressure but do what is right for them. If the idea is coming to vote it is because a significant portion of them think they might rather work side by side with women. It's that simple.

If they decide never to go co-ed, that is perfectly fine with me. What I care about is that they are willing consider it. What I care about is that they respect me as an equal. I can and do attend GODF meetings, and they do not question my right to be a Mason in the slightest. That's what counts. Respect.

I am a white woman, and I am sorry to say that the only time I've had an inkling of what it must be like to be a black person walking into an all white room has been the times I have tried to associate with GL Masons at non-tyled meetings and other social events. I've had men refuse to shake my hand, I've had men turn their backs on me, give me the cold shoulder, or scramble away to avoid me.

If I'm standing with my husband (he's also in the Droit Humain), he gets all the eye contact, all the questions. I've had a grandfatherly man point to the acacia sprig on my lapel and quiz me about what it means. Another man expressed astonishment to my husband that I could comprehend the symbols, since they're all based on tools. My poor husband, shocked, could only say that we do a lot of home improvement so that hasn't been a problem.

In short, I don't want to change your lodge, your way of practicing. I'm happy to be "clandestine" . But I will ask you with all due respect to try to open your mind to the possibility that a woman can be a Mason, and ask that if you should ever meet a woman who claims to be a Mason, that you extend your hand to her, because she could prove to be a good friend.

And I know it's against your rules, but we recognize you GL guys as Freemasons, so you if you happen to be in Los Angeles, you can visit my lodge anytime you want if you want to see how a mixed lodge works.

Yours fraternally ---; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 5:11:00 AM
crow zampano wrote:: at the risk of sounding sexist, i really don't see what the big problem with freemasonry being only for males is all about.

don't get me wrong, co-freemasonry is fine in my eyes.

but frankly, as a young male, i find the affects of feminism on this modern age to be quite frightening.

i'm sick of feeling forced to feel guilty because of how males in previous generations have behaved.

there's so many female-solidarity groups, yet when a time-honoured tradition is put in the spotlight, it's labeled as "sexist" and "not progressive".

i enjoy spending the night with well-mannered, distinguished men who all have the same goals as i regarding their morality and personal development. it gives me a chance to get away from the world (including women), and enjoy an evening of brotherly solidarity.

and i really don't see the problem with that.

peace and blessed be,

c.z.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:12:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Tom,

Well I can only speak for my jurisdiction, but here, they are not recognised as "Masonic".

The only way a woman can be a Mason is for a Brother to violate his obligation. This is actually what happened and the Masons involved were expelled for it.

My Masonry teaches that a man IS his word.

That is obviously different than what theirs teaches, because they had to break their word to exist.

So plainly what they consider to be Freemasonry and what the rest of us consider to be Freemasonry, are to distinctly different things.

It is not about sexism, elitism, or anything other than keeping your word.

You can dress a wolf in sheeps clothing, it still remains a wolf.

and no, I am not saying they are wolves, literally.

Too often on the internet you see regular Masons trying to make it into something that it isn't. As if trying to take the moral high ground on an issue that has none.

Br. Arthur Peterson; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:15:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Sister Kelly,
Excellent post!
I agree with you 100%.
If male masons want to meet with men only, fine, if men and woman want to practice freemasonry together, great, and if woman want to practice masonry alone, great.
Why should it matter?
If I belong to a male only lodge, then a woman may not enter, does not mean I should not recognise her, it is just I belong to a male only lodge. A man from a co masonic lodge should and would be able to sit in our lodge, just not a woman, and if I wanted to experience a co masonic meeting, I should be allowed to attend by my GL if the co masonic lodge would admit me.
I love and honor all who seek light!
I know a woman who is an MM from a California co masonic lodge, very knowledgable woman, I have no problem talking with her on masonic matters that are non secret.
Life is too short to adhere to divisional ideals.
Tom Coste
Halcyon
http://www.halcyontemple.org/; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:15:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: "A man from a co masonic lodge should and would be able to sit in our lodge"

Tom C., are you saying that your Grand Lodge recognises male Masons who were raised in Co-Masonic lodges?

If not your lodge should not be allowing him to attend.

If that is what you are saying, I believe your Grand Lodge is the only one in the US (and perhaps the world, as far as "Regular" Grand Lodges go) that does so.

Br. Arthur Peterson; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:47:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: I fail to see a problem here. Didn't the male-only Grand Lodge vote to remain male-only?

What's the issue then? The blurb said they voted to not initiate women into their lodges. It said nothing about women Masons in general.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:47:00 AM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: Well I can only speak for my jurisdiction, but here, they are not recognised as "Masonic".

Bro. Peterson, that was a poor choice of words on my part.
The paradox of recognition is that "clandestine" (or the more polite term "unrecognized") jurisdictions are acknowledged to be a form of Masonry; they are forms that our own GL has decided not to associate with, for reasons of politics and tradition. And please note that I'm not saying that these reasons are wrong or right. Each GL has the power to decide what it wants to do, and I agree that they should.

If I started my own lodge and imitated everything that an AF&AM lodge does, but called it "Antient Free & Accepted Machinists," you could join and not be in violation of your GL rules. But as soon as I call it "Masonry" then it's an unrecognized lodge, and you can't be a member.

Similarly, Sis. Kelly is an unrecognized Mason, which means that on some level my GL acknowledges that Masonry is involved on some level.

My Masonry teaches that a man IS his word.

That is obviously different than what theirs teaches, because they had to break their word to exist.

I understand this argument, and I believe it to be specious at best. Our current obligations state this quite clearly, but how do we know that obligations of two centuries ago did the same?

In a similar vein, though, is the idea of breaking obligations. History shows us that what we practice WRT the forms and rituals of Masonry are different than what they were in 1707 or 1507. How does that happen? After all, the obligation that I took as a WM stressed that I was to make no changes or innovations; likewise, the obligations that our GMs take stress the same thing. So how is it that we now have ritual books, "open house" days, and GMs showing Masonic workings on TV?

Again, I want to stress that I don't disagree. Personally, I enjoy belonging to an all-male lodge, and I believe that it would change the dynamics of the fraternity should we move to co-ed lodges. But just because I prefer it does not mean that I can't consider Sister Kelly a brother.

Err... let me rephrase that...
;-); Tuesday, September 11, 2007 9:55:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: "I understand this argument, and I believe it to be specious at best. Our current obligations state this quite clearly, but how do we know that obligations of two centuries ago did the same?"

Tom,

I prefer not to make things more complicated than they need to be. Perhaps , my mind can't handle it, or perhaps I believe it creates unnecessary obfuscation.

Perhaps the obligation was different two centuries ago. So? I did not take an obligation written two centuries ago.

What if my Grand Lodge voted to no longer allow men who wear green hats? Would I be any less obligated to conform?

I may think it is silly, but I will still have to abide by what the majority of my brethren decided was proper, or I could demit.

If I demit, I am still obligated to not share the secrets according to my obligation.

As to the innovations, I believe that applies to the ancient landmarks as established by your particular Grand Lodge and the norms of Masonry.

If our rituals were still spoken the same as they were 200-300 years ago, who would understand what was being said?

The material must be updated from time to time to ensure that the message does not become unintelligable.

Lastly, of course you can call Kelly Brother. I call a lot of people brother who are not masons. I personally would not call Kelly Brother, simply because it offends my ears.

I would not and I know you would not, discuss the secrets of Masonry with them.

Br. Arthur Peterson; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:31:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Brother Peterson, you are aware that the Masonic obligation is different in different parts of the world, aren't you?

Just because you had to promise to keep out the cootie carriers doesn't mean that every Mason did.

It just seems silly to to me want to deny light to 50% of the population. On the other hand, I honestly can't imagine why a woman would want to belong to a mainstream jurisdiction. Hell, *I* don't want to, it's just all I have access to here in the Crossroads of America.

Bring on the Grand Orient, I say.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 11:58:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: "Brother Peterson, you are aware that the Masonic obligation is different in different parts of the world, aren't you? "

Are you suggesting that your obligation doesn't say you are to obey your Grand Lodge, and doesn't your Grand Lodge state that a Candidate for Masonry must be a Man?

How about being specific and telling us your Grand Lodge so we can go look it up ourselves?

Br. Arthur Peterson; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:19:00 PM
Widow's Son wrote:: I have an idle speculation here, much akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

The obligations and rules say women can't be Masons.

At some time in the past, in regular Freemasonry, women secreted themselves inside a working lodge and heard and saw the rituals. Because they then had possession of these secrets, the lodges made them Masons. (One such woman was Elizabeth St. Leger, who was initiated in the regular Cork Lodge No. 95, working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Ireland, in the early 1700s. Records indicate she was active in Masonry during her life, and upon her death was given Masonic honors.)

Questions:

Were these regularly initiated women "really" Masons?

Did the Masons who inducted them violate one obligation in order to fulfill another, that of making sure secrets were kept?

Source: Freemasonry.bcy.ca. See also on the same page information about early Masonic references to initiates as "he or she."

— W.S.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:59:00 PM
Ephraim wrote:: Great point WS.

In my personal opinion. MY opinion only. If we are practicing PURE masonry, why can't women share the same benifits? I don't see why not.

But becuase we arn't in the perfect world, freemasonry is a fraternity. Frater, latin root for brother. meaning brotherhood.

I will never hold something against someone that they have no say over. Being Gender, Race, or Age. Learn to accept people for what they CAN help, being their attitudes, effort, ect.

Ephraim.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 2:19:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: W.S.

You know and I know that that incident took place before the formalisation of Lodges under a Grand Lodge system.

It happened before brethren had seperate buildings for lodge purposes. In fact this particular incident happened in the home where lodge was being conducted.

However, since the Grand Lodges were established no woman has been initiated into a "regular" lodge. The absense of women being one of the defining characteristics of what makes a lodge "regular".

Why can't women be Masons?

Because we are a private organisation of MEN who sets standards for membership. One is that you be a MAN.

Why doesn't the National Organisation for Women offer scholarships to worthy men?

Why doesn't the NAACP fight equally hard for the advancement of caucasions?

Why can't a black man join the KKK?

Why can't a homosexual be an Eagle Scout?

Why can't I just come into your home and help myself to dinner when I feel like it?

Sheesh... with all the problems in the world you would think folks had better things to focus on than allowing women into regular Masonry.

Br. Arthur Peterson

P.S.

Ephraim, what is PURE masonry?; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:08:00 PM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: I prefer not to make things more complicated than they need to be.

I can appreciate that ;-)

I was addressing what I believed to be your point that at some time in the past obligations had to be broken in order to make women Masons.

We do both agree, though, that our current obligations are important now.

As to the innovations, I believe that applies to the ancient landmarks as established by your particular Grand Lodge and the norms of Masonry.

In Conn, the WM and (IIRC) the GM are charged accordingly:
"That no innovation can be made upon the body of Masonry without the consent of the Grand Lodge having first been obtained. "

and

"You promise to pay homage to the Grand Master for the time being and to his Officers when duly installed; and strictly to conform to every edict of the Grand Lodge or general assembly of Masons that is not subversive of the principles and ground work of Masonry."

"You admit that it is not in the power of any man or body of men to make innovations in the body of Masonry."

I would assume that most US states are pretty similar.

My point was that at some period, it may not have been a breaking of one's obligation to make women Masons, in which case those jurisdictions that recognize them are not predicated upon oath breaking. Likewise, Grand Lodges that make changes to the ritual seem to be doing so on their own volition.

Again, this is one of the reasons why discussing Droit Humane or Co-masonry is an issue. The next time I'm in Sis. Kelly's neighborhood, I'd like to stop in; I'll just have to do so on a "public event" night.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 3:45:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: Bro. Zampano, please be at peace. You will always be able to work with whom you choose, how you choose. No guilt. I respect that right absolutely.

It seems in this conversation, in Bro. Peterson's comments especially, this notion that if women can be intellectually acknowledged to be Freemasons, then it follows as a matter of course that your lodges will be invaded and your vows broken.

The one does not follow another. Try to separate the two ideas. You can be part of an all-male body of Freemasons, and proudly so, and still acknowledge me as a Freemason.

There is room for more than one kind of Freemasonry. The Temple is very large.

As I said in my previous post, in France there is a "brand" of Freemasonry to suit anyone with an inquiring heart.

I think that is beautiful. This is what I want to see in America. I will spend the rest of my life building the American Federation of Le Droit Humain, to provide a home for my brothers and sisters of like mind.

WS, there are many stories about the woman who had to be initiated to preserve secrets. I don't know that it always happened that way. Read the first pages of Margaret Jacob's "Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in 18th century Europe". In those pages she describes how in the 1740's in France, FM's were under police scrutiny and constantly had their meetings busted and their members taken in for questioning. Police records from that time list names and descriptions of lodge members. They include women and black men.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:31:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: Are you suggesting that your obligation doesn't say you are to obey your Grand Lodge, and doesn't your Grand Lodge state that a Candidate for Masonry must be a Man?

Mine? Why, yes it does. I wish it weren't so, but it does and I conduct myself accordingly.

Are we presuming that every Grand Lodge across the face of the planet has the same obligation?

We are a provincial bunch, aren't we?

I would far rather sit in lodge with Sister Kelly than a good many mainstream Masons I know, as her understanding of the precepts of Freemasonry seem a great deal more evolved from the posts I've been fortunate to read. If LDH had a lodge near here I'd certainly be looking it up.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:44:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: "The one does not follow another. Try to separate the two ideas. You can be part of an all-male body of Freemasons, and proudly so, and still acknowledge me as a Freemason." - Sis. Kelly

Well that is your opinion which you hold for obvious reasons.

However, I disagree. My understanding of Freemasonry says that women can not be Freemasons.

Are there women Freemasons today? Not to my knowledge.

I know that there are organisations which allow men and women and claim to be Freemasonry, but I don't know what they practice, I don't know what they teach, I don't know what their landmarks are.

What I do know is they do not fall within what I have been taught and what I believe constitutes a legally constituted Master Masons lodge.

I do not care that you call yourself a Freemason. I am not trying to make it illegal for you to do so.

All I am saying is that as far as what I know Freemasonry to be, you are not.

Michael Jackson could start up his own little club for men who like boys and dress it in Masonic Regalia, initiate his members through ritual books he acquired, and declare himself Grand master of a new Freemason branch, does that mean that I have to recognise him as such?

Br. Arthur Peterson; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:53:00 PM
Widow's Son wrote:: Bro. Peterson wrote:

I know that there are organisations which allow men and women and claim to be Freemasonry, but I don't know what they practice, I don't know what they teach, I don't know what their landmarks are.

The principles of co-masonry were outlined on the same freemasonry.bcy.ca page I referenced earlier. They seem to hold the same beliefs and principles that all "regular" Freemasons do.

A. E. Waite wrote in 1922 that "American and British male freemasons would recognize and follow Co-Masonic work with ease, for the allegories and symbols are universal throughout Freemasonry."

Hardly the kind of group that Michael Jackson would form.

— W.S.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 5:33:00 PM
Jeff Peace wrote:: Maybe we should be more worried about making Freemasonry relevant in the 21st century than arguing over whether or not women can be Masons. If we don't begin to address the real problems and issues soon we won't have to worry about men or women becoming Masons.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 6:00:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: I know that there are organisations which allow men and women and claim to be Freemasonry, but I don't know what they practice, I don't know what they teach, I don't know what their landmarks are.

Yet you're willing to say that they're not Freemasons.

That lack of intellectual curiosity is a big part of the reason our order is where it is.

Perhaps, before you make proclamations about whether they are or are not Freemasons you should endeavor to find out what they practice and teach.

There's not a thing in the world wrong with not recognizing their order. There is definitely something wrong with disparaging them before you know the first thing about them aside from their differing genitalia.; Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:49:00 PM
Chris Hodapp wrote:: Brother Peterson,
I note that the UGLE several years ago made the official statement in 1998 that two English women's jurisdictions are regular in practice, except for their inclusion of women, and while not formally recognized, these bodies may be regarded as part of Freemasonry, when describing Freemasonry in general.

I can't speak for the wording in your jurisdiction, but my obligation simply said that "I will not be present at nor give my consent" to making a woman a Mason. I have no power to give or withhold consent to the actions of another Grand Lodge jurisdiction.

My obligation further says I will not communicate Masonically with a clandestine Mason. It's that "Masonically" that is ambiguous. Does that mean secrets (grips, words, steps, etc)? Does that mean any conversation about Masonry at all? Does that mean I won't sit in one of their "communications" (an older term for a stated meeting)? Does that mean if I am at a conference and a female Mason begins to read a paper, I am supposed to run screaming from the room with my fingers in my ears, going "la-la-la-la-la?"

Regarding women who have been otherwise regularly made Masons as regular, but not recognized, creates no conflict with my personal philosophy. They can't sit in my lodge, and I would not attempt to sit in theirs. But I will say that if there was a feminine Grand Lodge working in Indiana, my wife would sign up for it in a heartbeat – and I would not discourage her, because we both would regard female Masonry as more philosophically "authentic" than Brother Morris' OES invention. Frankly, I would have no problem renting space in our lodge building to a female lodge either, because taking their rent money does not constitute communicating Masonically.

Where this discussion gets tricky is when it involves even more groups. The reasons for questions of regularity and recognition are good ones – otherwise, we would open ourselves up to any street corner con artist who puts up a shingle, straps aprons on the neighborhood fellas, charges them all $1000 and makes them "Masons" with no authority other than the ability to read out of Lester's "Look To The East." In places like New York, Chicago and elsewhere, it's a problem. At least 12 Grand Lodges have been identified in New York State, and something like 14 in Italy. We have 4 or 5 in Indiana, which virtually none of our members are aware of. God knows how many there are in France.

That's why the simpler answer at least in the US has been to only recognize one, or possibly two when there is a Prince Hall Affiliated GL available. It keeps chaos to a minimum. But the old problem of a strange Mason showing up in town and scamming five or six lodges before skipping to the next village down the street isn't nearly the problem it was 100 years ago. So should we recognize all of them, none of them, or some of them? Who should decide that criteria?

We pronounced Memphis-Misraim lodges clandestine in the 1800s, but were they any more spurious than the York Rite or Scottish Rite? Frankly, I'd like to see those 96 degrees, but I can't. How did some rites become regular while others did not? Who decided, since none of our rituals were passed from God's lips to Preston or Webb's ear?

Making decisions on recognition must be made carefully, or the specialness of being called a Mason and being so recognized almost universally in the world will lose its cachét. But my Grand Lodge and I have no power to stop feminine Grand Lodges from initiating Masons. There is much that female Masons may not share with us, simply because regular, recognized Freemasonry is the 1000 pound gorilla in the Masonic living room. But we have no monopoly on the philosophy of brotherly love, relief and truth, just because we say we do.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:00:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: to the question :
"So should we recognize all of them, none of them, or some of them? Who should decide that criteria?"

It's quite easy : treaty between GL mine have mutual relations with height others GLs in France five in Belgium two in the united states etc...

Who should decide ?
the masons of a GL,
I am pleased to have intervisit with certain GLs I am glad not to be recognize by some others.

The automatic recognition may also be a moral problem, In some extreme case, non democratic or racist country.

We are 6 billions of humans and certainly less than two millions of freemasons including all categories women, athesit etc...
... so no paranoia there is place for everyone.

About chaos, there is a moment where there is no more chaos : death.

Imagine a timeline of the masonic history :for every decade you can find one or several major evolution. And that most of the actual mason believe to be from time immemorial, of course.
I have faith in one masonic tradition : Evolution.

Parisfred; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:33:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Last post on this issue here...

What bugs the tar right out of me about this issue is anytime this subject comes up and someone voices an opinion like mine, they are met with statements like "your sexist", "your unenlightened", Your intolerant", etc. etc.

So what?

There are a whole lot more "regular" masons who agree with me than there are who don't. The issue is NEVER talked about in lodge, certainly never brought up at Grand Lodge, and never will.

99.9% of Regular Masons world wide understand this issue. It is clearly stated in our obligations and in our Graand Lodge rules. It is a non-issue for regular Masonry.

Only online do you see such a topic brought up. Nine times out of ten it is by a disgruntled Mason using it as an excuse for why our Fraternity is so bad. 1 out of 10 times it is brought up by a member of one of these groups who is disappointed that a regular Mason somewhere chose not to recognise them.

Get over it folks!

If you want to call an irregular Mason Brother, knock yourself out. I don't give a hoot if you even sit in lodge with them. Its your conscience that must be your guide.

However, extend the same courtesy to me and Brothers like me. How about being tolerant of our view! How about letting our conscience be our guide?

If you all want to kick this horse around till hell freezes over, fine by me. I know where I stand, and why I stand there, and this circular conversation isn't going to change it.

Br. Arthur Peterson; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:15:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Brother Peterson, people like you are the reason I no longer attend lodge and will probably eventually demit.

Freemasonry isn't relevant because Freemasons insist that it not be, because Freemasons won't think about the issues, won't try to be any more than they are. Any time any issue that makes you think and reason is brought up Freemasons respond the way you did in your last post.

It's sad, but it's what I've grown accustomed to and why I'm looking for another Grand Lodge where Masons are willing to think and reason. The mainstream ain't it.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:49:00 AM
Widow's Son wrote:: Bro. Arthur wrote:

"99.9% of Regular Masons world wide understand this issue. It is clearly stated in our obligations and in our Grand Lodge rules. It is a non-issue for regular Masonry."

It has been an issue for at least 100 years. It's been debated and written about extensively.

"Only online do you see such a topic brought up. Nine times out of ten it is by a disgruntled Mason using it as an excuse for why our Fraternity is so bad. 1 out of 10 times it is brought up by a member of one of these groups who is disappointed that a regular Mason somewhere chose not to recognise them."

Where do you get such statistics? Can you provide links to at least 10 discussion areas where this has been brought up, with analysis of the mindset of those who brought it up?

The subject was "brought up here" as a simple newsworthy item: The Grand Orient of France voted not to accept women. Nowhere in my article did I voice an opinion about their actions or about women as Masons.

"If you want to call an irregular Mason Brother, knock yourself out. I don't give a hoot if you even sit in lodge with them. Its your conscience that must be your guide."

Irregular Masons are by definition Masons. George Washington was an irregular Mason, having been raised in a lodge that did not yet have a charter, if I remember correctly. Yet everyone loves to refer to him as "Brother."

"However, extend the same courtesy to me and Brothers like me. How about being tolerant of our view! How about letting our conscience be our guide?"

You view, as is everyone's here, is welcome and tolerated. Debate and opposing viewpoints are encouraged. Unlike many Masonic online forums, the Burning Taper appreciates spirited conversations, uncensored and basically unmoderated. No one here is going to shut down a topic because it "got out of hand" or because someone's favorite cow got turned into hamburger.

"Tolerance" of your view doesn't mean others can't disagree with it. That's what conversation is about, the exchange of ideas.

— W.S.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:54:00 AM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: If we don't begin to address the real problems and issues soon we won't have to worry about men or women becoming Masons.

Don't worry, Bro. Jeff. The sky isn't falling in every jurisdiction. Various DH lodges are reporting increases in numbers, as are many mainstream jurisdictions. And in Conn, we are seeing an upswing of younger members who are already taking places in the lines and committees and helping to get things done, and finding interesting things to do.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:53:00 AM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: Bro. Chris -

Well said! Those are my sentiments exactly.

Bro. Peterson -

I want you to know that while I disagree with your opinion, I do understand it and hope that you do not think that I was disparaging. Your understanding of Masonry is your understanding of Masonry; if your GL does not consider women to be Masons, then so be it. You are obliged to abide by your GL rules, and I respect that.

I'm often surprised when issues of recognition become heated, but I've learned that it's best to drop the subject before it reaches the boiling point.

As to other "brothers" intimating that you are sexist, old-fashioned, or whatever, they should take a step back and remember that you are bound by your obligation, whether you - or they - agree with it.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:01:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Anonymous (of course) wrote:

"Brother Peterson, people like you are the reason I no longer attend lodge and will probably eventually demit."

The sooner the better based on how you have replied to these posts, for you and Freemasonry.

"Freemasonry isn't relevant because Freemasons insist that it not be, because Freemasons won't think about the issues, won't try to be any more than they are. Any time any issue that makes you think and reason is brought up Freemasons respond the way you did in your last post."

If you can't handle the will of the majority, it is perhaps best for you to look elsewhere for happiness.

"It's sad, but it's what I've grown accustomed to and why I'm looking for another Grand Lodge where Masons are willing to think and reason. The mainstream ain't it."

If you are so against how the "mainstream" handles its affairs, at least have the integrity to get out of it BEFORE you sit back and trash it.

Do notice that I never once ran you through the mud for your views, yet you can't help yourself from doing just that to "mainsttream" Masonry.

Br. Arthur Peterson; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:54:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: Tom A,

No worries Brother. I understand that we simply disagree.

I don't believe that any of us have the completely "correct" opinion on this matter, and I don't think there is one.

It is one of those subjects that each Mason must make up his mind on based on the facts and his own conscience.

Br. Arthur Peterson; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:05:00 PM
Theron Dunn wrote:: I see three or four guys regularly posting on this subject... you guys need to get a life and start practicing masonry.

Who cares? I mean, nice that the GOdF voted 60% to maintain tradition. Nice. Hip hip hooray. I have visited many lodges and am very active in regular masonry. I have to tell you, the issue of women's obediences just doesn't come up, one way or the other.

We are usually busy talking about masonry, not worrying about these outside, and really, irrelevant issues.

Now, one thing you all seemed to just slide on by was Sis Kelly telling us that she recognizes us as masons (how sweet), and then doing what NONE of us would consider, asks us to VIOLATE OUR OBLIGATIONS and our honor, and our integrity, by coming by and joining her in a lodge meeting.

THAT's how you define masonry or masonic?! ASKING, inviting brothers to violate their obligations, the rules of their grand lodge, their given word?

Not very masonic at all.

But she is just one member of that lodge. I am sure they don't all wish us to violate our given word... after all, that would be... unmasonic.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 12:34:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: in my obligation as a MM, I am not supposed to be present at the Initiating,p,r-ing of a woman, old man in dotage, young man under age, madman, fool or atheist.
now, at our 1 day GM classes, how many old men in dotage were given all 3 degrees? Plenty!

many men in electric wheel chairs who could never even kneel at an alter, or in the middle of the lodge room, or probably can't even give the real grip of a MM or the substitute, are now fez wearing, 32nd degree masons.

Making members not masons.

How many GL officers were present at this initiation of many old men in dotage?

well, if a GL can circumvent that "rule", women and atheists should get the same exemption, no?

I would rather have intellectual discussions in a lodge with an educated atheist over an old man in dotage, who could not work his way into a Lodge, but came in on a 1 day pass?

Rules and regulations have been cherry picked for centuries by men who can circumvent them with edicts.
The legal age of a person joining has changed too.

I never want to sit in my Lodge with a woman, but I am open to recognising them as masons and trying to promote universal brotherhood through masonry for all of mankind. If women spend more time with our children in their deveolpmental stage, would we not want the mothers to have some masonic principles to instill into the children as well while the fathers are away working and attending meetings?

Their is nothing wrong with two parents being exposed to freemasonry and creating an environment of masonic principles in the home.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 1:42:00 PM
Widow's Son wrote:: I've discovered that men who tirade on and on about their honor and integrity often have little or none. I think Robert Pirsig wrote a book about that back in the 1970s.

Bro. Theron, you've said that Sister Kelly isn't a Mason, at least in your opinion. At best, you've said her Masonry is "outside" the purview of your Masonry, and "irrelevant," too. Let's grant that is true, for a moment, for the sake of this comment.

If she's not a Mason, then how can she act in an unmasonic manner?

And, how would she even know what your obligations are, if you and others weren't online violating their obligations by telling what they are?

Sister Kelly's invitation to us to her lodge doesn't violate her obligations. I think she's honoring us by inviting us to her temple. Her group seems to have a grasp of "brotherly love" that many mainstream lodges can't match, with their long lists of who is recognized and who is clandestine.

You don't have to take her up on her offer, but it would be the polite thing to respond, "No, thank you. I'm not allowed to do that," when offered a graciousness by a fellow human being.

— W.S.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:02:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: Bro. Theron,

I apologize for that rather flippant invitation. It was born of frustration. I am caught in a Catch-22 situation in regards to you fellows, because some of you say I can not possibly be a Mason, because you don't know what I do in Lodge -- yet I am prevented from interacting with you in any way at all, making it impossible to demonstrate to you that I am a Mason.

Then by saying that our doors are open to you, I have invited you to violate your oaths, and so have proved once and for all that I am not a Mason.

It's all rather tidy and inescapable, isn't it?

At any rate, if I have offended the general readership of this blog with that invitation, I do apologize, and beg you to remember that my oaths are different than yours. My oaths do not forbid me to communicate with you. I do not know what your oaths are, except as I've seen them mentioned here.

As an outsider to your system, I have no way of knowing if a particular way of doing things is due to a solemn oath, or some kind of jurisdictional rule or regulation, or what is merely long standing custom. But I do understand the nature of a solemn oath, and do respect them.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:30:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: It's perhaps interesting to note that every "argument" Art Peterson makes against "recognizing" female Masons, is equally valid when applied to any other minority group.

He writes:

"If you want to call an irregular Mason Brother, knock yourself out. I don't give a hoot if you even sit in lodge with them. Its your conscience that must be your guide. However, extend the same courtesy to me and Brothers like me. How about being tolerant of our view! How about letting our conscience be our guide?"

Substitute "Prince Hall Masons" for "Le Droit Humain Masons," or any other Masonic group, and you have an excellent example of the "reasoning" that's used by many grand lodges to justify denying recognition to Prince Hall Masons.

Of course, the issue with "recognition" of Prince Hall lodges is more complex than it at first appears. It has traditionally been claimed by EVERY "regular" grand lodge in the US, that only ONE "recognized" grand lodge can exist in any particular geographical area.

In today's society, however, all exclusionary attitudes that are based on race, or can be perceived to be based on race, are essentially untenable. It's become so politically incorrect to be a "racist," that even racist groups like the KKK have learned to instinctively deny the term. That's made it virtually impossible to resist the political pressure of "recognizing" Prince Hall Masons, and in almost 40 "regular" jurisdictions in the US, recognition has been granted in the last 20 years.

The "problem" with that, however, is that it has the potential to open the floodgates to all other Masonic groups. When "regular" grand lodges officially "recognize" Prince Hall grand lodges in the same geographical areas, they're backsliding on their doctrine of "one territory, one grand lodge." Obviously, the question then becomes: "If a Prince Hall grand lodge can be recognized in a 'regular' grand jurisdiction, why can't other grand lodges be recognized as well?"

Sooner or later, Masonry is almost certain to evolve as Christianity did. For the first several centuries of Christianity, the only "regular" church was the Catholic Church. All "regular" Christians were Catholics, and no other Christian groups were "recognized."

In a very real sense, Le Droit Humain lodges and Prince Hall lodges, are equivalent to Protestant churches. They're "splinter groups" of the original, which some view as an improvement and others view as a corruption.

The reason "regular" grand lodges are so reluctant to recognize alternative lodges, is the same reason the Catholic Church was (and is) reluctant to "recognize" Protestant churches. They view them as threats to their control and authority, and they want the parishioners and the money those parishioners contribute.

After several centuries, Christians of all denominations have (for the most part) learned to "recognize" members of other denominations as Christians. Most denominations hold some beliefs that distinguish them from other denominations, but few still deny that members of other denominations are really "Christians."

Art Peterson obviously that thinks "his" Masonry is the only "real" Masonry, and he certainly isn't alone in that belief. As a matter of fact, I'd say the vast majority of "regular" Masons still believe that, although many (particularly the younger ones) now espouse much more inclusive beliefs.

Here's something for Art and others to consider: If (as our ritual teaches) Masons eventually meet in the celestial lodge above, will Prince Hall Masons be recognized there? What about Le Droit Humain Masons?

If "regular" grand lodges here on earth vote to extend "official recognition," does that mean we can then sit together in the celestial lodge above?

How exactly does that work, Art? "Thy will be done in heaven, as it is on earth?"; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:06:00 PM
Anonymous wrote:: Masonry labors to improve the social order by enlightening men's minds, warming their hearts with the love of the good, inspiring them with the great principle of human fraternity, and requiring of its disciples that their language and actions shall conform to that principle, that they shall enlighten each other, control their passions, abhor vice, and pity the vicious man as one afflicted with a deplorable malady.

Freemasonry is the universal, eternal, immutable religion, such as God planted it in the heart of universal humanity. No creed has ever been long-lived that was not built on this foundation. It is the base, and they are the superstructure. "Pure religion undefiled before God the Father is this; to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." "Is not this the fast that I have chosen to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?" The ministers of this religion are all Masons who comprehend it and are devoted to it; its sacrifices to God are good works, the sacrifices of the base and disorderly passions, the offering up of self-interest on the altar of humanity, and perpetual efforts to attain to all the moral perfection of which man is capable.

To make honor and duty the steady beacon-lights that shall guide your life-vessel over the stormy seas of time; to do that which it is right to do, not because it will insure you success, or bring with it a reward, or gain the applause of men, or be "the best policy," more prudent or more advisable; but because it is right, and therefore ought to be done; to war incessantly against error, intolerance, ignorance, and vice, and yet to pity those who err, to be tolerant even of intolerance, to teach the ignorant, and to labor to reclaim the vicious, are some of the duties of a Mason.

Masonry is engaged in her crusade,---against ignorance, intolerance fanaticism, superstition, uncharitableness, and error. She does not sail with the trade-winds, upon a smooth sea, with a steady free breeze, fair for a welcoming harbor; but meets and must overcome many opposing currents, baffling winds, and dead calms.

bro pike; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 4:31:00 PM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: At any rate, if I have offended the general readership of this blog with that invitation, I do apologize,

Sis. Kelly -

When I was investigating Masonry, I had a lot of contact with members of non-mainstream lodges. There were none close enough to me that I found interesting, and it's just as well, because I find that I'm pretty happy where I am. I haven't had the negative experiences that some Masons seem to have had, and my lodge really does have a great bunch of guys.

In the last half dozen years, I've had several invitations to visit unrecognized lodges. I'm certainly not offended; in fact, I'm honored to be invited. I do, however, thank them and ask them to let me know when there is a public event. IOW, I try to take it in the spirit in which I believe it was given.; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:37:00 PM
Hannah wrote:: Women don't sit at home all day taking care of kids, ironing clothes, and waiting for husband to get home to serve dinner.

Today, Women are more involved in social networking and they contribute to society in a much more multi-faceted way, more so than when the rules were written that women aren't to be recognized by the mainstream as Freemasons.

To deny that women make a contribution to the ultimate purpose behind Freemasonry is doing a disservice to society.

Now if it's that one has an aversion to sitting in a lodge with a woman, fine, but to not recognize women and to refer to them as "clandestine" is total misogyny.

For those mainstreamers with the cocky attitude toward women, I say, if you believe in evolution, act like it!; Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:10:00 PM
Theron Dunn wrote:: The issue here ISN'T whether or not women can or should be masons. Lets not get lost in this PC arguments about it.

The Grand Orient d'France voted against allowing women to join. That is the headline, that is what happened. They did not vote that women can't be masons, nor that women AREN'T masons. They voted that they will not allow women to join their lodges.

That is a long way from saying a woman can't be a mason! Now, despite what our erstwhile host implied above, I never stated that a woman can't be a mason. That would be foolish, since many of them act as masons and claim to be masons, and have lodges and Grand Lodges set up.

Sister Kelly,

You claim to be a mason, and on that assurance alone I am more than willing to assume that your invitation was sincere, and that you just really don't know that our obligation prevents us from assisting in or being present at the making a woman a mason.

This carries forward, logically, that if you can't be present or assist in making a woman a mason, you can't be present in a LODGE of women masons.

Further, at least, as I understand it, most regular grand lodges do not consider women's obediences to be regular, and since we cannot have masonic communication with someone from a clandestine lodge, we cannot sit in lodge with you at any tyled session.

I have been to dinners and other functions from many clandestine lodges, I just politely recuse myself when asked to participate in any tyled session. I assumed that as a member of LDH in Los Angeles that you would be very well acquainted with the rules regarding intervisitation.

My point seems to have been lost on my brothers here, who are doing to you precisely what they seem to be accusing Br. Peterson of, denigrating women. You are a smart woman, yet the argument turned into one that essentially was "she doesn't know any better" and making excuses for you because you are a woman.

The one is as bad, in my opinion, as the other. Either you are a mason, and can stand up and take responsibility for your actions, or you aren't and can't be expected to do so.

OR, applying brotherly love to the situation, one can assume that you just didn't know any better. My point was not an attack on you, it was a point that my brothers here were simply ignoring what you had, inadvertently I am sure, done.

And why were they ignoring it? Because you are a woman. How sad a commentary on the real value they place on your masonry is that, then?

My point is that my obligation says I cannot, and asking me to violate it asks me to violate my honor and my integrity. It is not a statement of my oh so superior level of integrity or honor, but a simple notation of what was being asked.

Now, you are either a mason or not. That has nothing to do with the Grand Orient d'France. They chose to continue the tradition of male only lodges, which is not a bad thing in and of itself, nor is it a statement against women masons... nor one FOR them, either, to be sure.

However, and this is the challenge I have with this whole issue, is that it seems less about recognizing women are masons, than about forcing regular grand lodges to throw open their doors and allow women as masons into our lodges.

Now, why should regular masonry do that? Why is it so difficult to allow separate masonry to exist as it does today?

Really, any man can visit a co-ed lodge... by quitting regular masonry and joining one. And if a man feels that strongly, by all means, he should do so.

Why, however, try to change masonry to mean or be something else for the sake of political correctness?

Of course there are women masons. Sheesh.; Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:33:00 AM
Tom Accuosti wrote:: Bro. Dunn -

I think that you may have read too much into Sis. Kelly's "invitation." Certainly, you read much more into it than I did; when I saw this:

And I know it's against your rules, but we recognize you GL guys as Freemasons, so you if you happen to be in Los Angeles, you can visit my lodge anytime you want if you want to see how a mixed lodge works.

She acknowledges that it's against our rules. I have every confidence that Sis. Kelly was not issuing a tempting siren's call, but instead was using a bit of tongue-in-cheekiness to make a point. I'm sure that she didn't expect you, me, or anyone else to take her up on the offer. To consider this to be subterfuge is really a stretch, IMO.

And again, this is an example of why some web boards moderate discussions on this topic.

Hannah -
Now if it's that one has an aversion to sitting in a lodge with a woman, fine, but to not recognize women and to refer to them as "clandestine" is total misogyny.

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not only incorrect, you're also missing the bigger picture. It's not that men hate women (which is the definition of "misogyny") but that the organization of Freemasonry, especially the "mainstream" branch, is rooted in a very long tradition. It's also a politically charged issue - it's not like a men's club deciding to open its doors to women. Each Grand Lodge has dozens, perhaps hundreds of cross-recognitions. If one changed, others would withdraw that recognition - as would be correct within their operating charters.; Thursday, September 13, 2007 12:22:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: "Of course there are women masons. Sheesh."

Bro. Dunn, if I had a blog like WS, I'd put this quote right at the top.

Also, I wanted to address this:

"However, and this is the challenge I have with this whole issue, is that it seems less about recognizing women are masons, than about forcing regular grand lodges to throw open their doors and allow women as masons into our lodges."

I cannot speak for all female Masons, I can only speak for myself. But I believe I have said more than once in this debate that I have no interest in forcing American GL Masonry to open their doors and allow women into their Lodges.

In my comment about the GODF, I said I understood their decision, and spoke with respect of my GODF brothers who do recognize me as Mason, while still maintaining their all-male identity. To me, that is an ideal state of affairs.

I believe that Masons should have the right to choose to work in a single sex environment. The energy is different, and the bonding that happens there can be very meaningful. Believe me, I have no wish to see that taken away from anyone, nor do I disrespect the traditions of American GL Freemasonry.

But I do hope to see the day when there are more options available for Americans who are Masons in their hearts but do not fit into the mold of American GL Freemasonry--whether that be due to their plumbing, the color of their skin, or their beliefs considering the metaphysical.

And if someday in the future, the American GLs can ever find their way through the political and historical tangle of recognition in such a way that they might be able to recognize a few of these alternative forms, and allow visiting and cross pollination, that would be good for everyone, imho.

But no, I'm not holding my breath!; Thursday, September 13, 2007 4:49:00 PM
Hannah wrote:: Acousti,

misogyny is not just "hatred" of women. It is dislike, distrust, etc. I guess I was not using it in the most harshest of ways that it can be used.

But recall what Sis. Kelly said when she said:

"I am a white woman, and I am sorry to say that the only time I've had an inkling of what it must be like to be a black person walking into an all white room has been the times I have tried to associate with GL Masons at non-tyled meetings and other social events. I've had men refuse to shake my hand, I've had men turn their backs on me, give me the cold shoulder, or scramble away to avoid me."

What is THAT?; Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:12:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: Hannah,

Being the recipient of that treatment, I'll hazard an answer.

But before I do I will add that though those incidents tend to stick with me, as unpleasant incidents do, I must say that those men DO NOT represent all of American Freemasonry-their actions cannot indite the institution-and that at those same events, after some trial and error, I did end up having good conversations with good men.

I would not call it misogyny. I'd call it a lot of other things. Different for each man.

-: A knee jerk reaction to me presenting myself as a Mason when they are taught that is impossible. Therefore, I look like an imposter, someone posing as a Mason who has no right to be one.

-Guilt.

--And lots of anxiety--fear I'd badger them, guilt trip them, demand to visit their next meeting, threaten to sue, whatever

But out and out misogyny? No, I don't think so. It's not a dislike of women, it is more like puzzlement.
Why does this women think she's a mason?

Sort of like if I walked into a room of physicians 100+ years ago and announced I'd like to join the AMA. They wouldn't understand how I'd ever got my training, or why a woman would ever be interested in medicine, and would wonder why I wasn't satisfied with just being a nurse.; Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:49:00 PM
kelly wrote:: Hannah,

Just a quick add that the above is what this long conversation has led me to understand. I probably still have it wrong, but that's my opinion, anyway.; Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:55:00 PM
Br. Warwick wrote:: Brothers-

I believe that some of us are missing the big picture here. What we really seem to be discussing is the definition of a freemason. In this it seems to be somewhat akin to the current debate over gay marriage. If the S.C. decides to change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman to between two people, it opens a whole can of worms under the equal protection clause, simply because people will be able to say "you changed the definition for them, now you have to change the definition for me." Now you have a man and 3 women getting married, and on and on. It is plausible that if Freemasonry makes a drastic change such as allowing women in, we may not recognize it as such in 100 years.; Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:13:00 PM
hannah wrote:: Sis. Kelly,

Maybe I'm missing the issue. Do these GL people believe that they are the only true Masons?

Kind of like people from the Church of Christ believe that they are the only true Christians?

Do these GL people claim Ben Franklin as one of them?; Thursday, September 13, 2007 11:49:00 PM
sis:. kelly wrote:: Hannah,

That is really something for the brothers to answer, not me.

Looking at the comments above, I'd say that the majority of the brothers demonstrated knowledge of and/or tolerance for alternative forms of Masonry.

Of course, the gentlemen who frequent the Taper are a pretty spiffy crowd.; Friday, September 14, 2007 12:57:00 AM
Anonymous wrote:: What are "GL people"???

Even Sis. Kelly's obedience has a GL, so this haphazard term should be terminated quicker than "mainstream" as being wholly inaccurate for this discussion.

While it would be nice to untangle ourselves in our morass of recognition issues, and even nicer to not have you hold your breath for so long, consider that the former wish was an un-needed jab at what appears to be our inability or unwillingness to become enlightened enough to recognize you.

Here's my take just so I can be thankfully distinguished by the troglodytes that thought you a leper:

Consider that while I have several co-masonic friends and I have no problem with anyone's choice in this regard; the issue is dead to me and many of my brethren, who are indeed open-minded, by the way. Frankly, I could care less because it has nothing to do with my enlightenment, my value as a human being, my masonic journey, or how I interact with women and other legitimate members of my human race, etc.

Obviously there are those both recognized and non that wish to extend Freemasonry beyond the individual sphere and into the social. Fine--this has been a major sticking point between several traditions for over a hundred years (AASR or GOdF anyone?). However, there are those of us who prefer the quietude of individual contemplation without the burning itch to make it a social cause.

I think Bro. Chris said it the best on this issue and I'll leave it with that.

But as an aside, the fact that some may believe Sis. Kelly may not know any better is totally bogus. While I am fully aware that there are different strains of Freemasonry, there are many things that remain the same. AND, given that many of the co-masonic and feminine orders are some of the most voracious and dedicated readers of all things masonic, I doubt that Sis. Kelly would have missed the part about our oaths forbidding our presence at the making a woman a Freemason.

S. & F.

Bro. Negredo

Ps. Bro. Theron, it's Grand Orient de France and not Grand Oriend d'France. An apostrophe, when required, is only used with a vowel.; Friday, September 14, 2007 1:57:00 AM