# How do you respond



## Zaden (Jul 24, 2013)

I know the idea of women in the Craft has been discussed and the dead horse beaten, that is not what this is a question about. Rather, how do/would you personally respond when/if a woman, or anyone, I suppose, asked you why women can't be regular Masons? 

My petition is in and my investigation done, now I'm just waiting for the ballot. I haven't had to deal with this so far, but I do have at least a few friends who I can imagine posing such a question should they become aware of my (hopeful, future) membership in the Fraternity (as they likely will, I don't plan on concealing my membership once I do the work to earn it).


----------



## crono782 (Jul 24, 2013)

I've only been asked something similar once and my response was this:

"Freemasonry is a *fraternal* order. Its original founding was to bring men together and make good men better. It is not sexism playing a role here, rather it is men being in the company of, learning from, and drawing inspiration off other men. Such was the original intent and thus it is the current intent. The "secrets" of freemasonry are universal truths and we are not striving to "keep" anything from anybody. Just as a group of all women, in say grief recovery counseling, feeds a mental and emotional need on a deeper than social level, so does a group of all men feed an emotional, social, and sometimes spiritual (not necessarily religious) need. Men are chemically, biologically, socially, and spiritually different than women and have different needs. Nothing agains the fairer sex, but we keep core freemasonry a *fraternal* order as it was founded because it is what we want and what we as men need."


----------



## coachn (Jul 24, 2013)

Zaden said:


> I know the idea of women in the Craft has been discussed and the dead horse beaten, that is not what this is a question about. Rather, how do/would you personally respond when/if a woman, or anyone, I suppose, asked you why women can't be regular Masons?
> 
> My petition is in and my investigation done, now I'm just waiting for the ballot. I haven't had to deal with this so far, but I do have at least a few friends who I can imagine posing such a question should they become aware of my (hopeful, future) membership in the Fraternity (as they likely will, I don't plan on concealing my membership once I do the work to earn it).



You must first understand the difference between the words "Regular" and "Recognition/Recognized."  You shall not be understood by those who have not a clue about the differences and you shall not be agreed with by those who have different opinions.  

That being said...

The simplest response: Females can be Regular Masons to the Order/Jurisdiction to which they belong.  They shall not be Recognized though by Orders/Jurisdictions which do not include females in their membership.

The Reason: Regularity is defined by the Order and Jurisdiction of the Order.  No other Order/Jurisdiction can define this for another Order/Jurisdiction.  Recognition is a different creature.  This has to do with the qualifications an Order and Jurisdiction have established to determine their Regularity AND whether those established qualification by another Order/Jurisdiction are acceptable to the one doing the determining.  

When they are acceptable to the determining Order/Jurisdiction, they may extend to the other "Recognition" and hope that the other would do the same.  

Beyond that, they two might get together further by delving into something called "Inter-Visitation".  But that's a whole other nut to crack.

F&S,

Coach N


----------



## Brother_Steve (Jul 24, 2013)

Just as men cannot join a sorority women cannot join a fraternity.


----------



## JohnnyFlotsam (Jul 24, 2013)

I wouldn't lean too hard on the word "fraternal". Yes we are a fraternity, and that term implies a relationship between males, but that's a really not an answer. The question that might just as accurately phrased thus, "Why is Freemasonry a fraternity and open to men only?" So now what?
My answer has always been an unapologetic explanation that, as crono782 points out, there is a very different social dynamic at work when we (men) are in mixed company versus the company of only other men. I am not saying it's better or worse, just... different.


----------



## coachn (Jul 24, 2013)

I'd go one step further and say that "Freemasonry exists as a Fraternity for some, a Sorority for some, and a co-ed for the rest."  The one you joined is a Fraternity.


----------



## Zaden (Jul 25, 2013)

Thank you all for your responses. Again, this hasn't been brought up since very few people know I've petitioned, but I'm just thinking ahead to have a well planned "PC" response for some of my more "feminist" friends who don't know much if anything about the Craft. Just saying it's a fraternity, knowing them, probably wouldn't cut it and trying to explain regularity would just dig deeper into the various schisms than would, hopefully, be necessary. The social dynamic responses would work for some, others maybe not. Though if it didn't cover it for them, I'm guessing the conversation could/would then take a turn from the Craft toward discussing the differences and similarities of the inherent natures of men and women which is always an interesting conversation.

I suppose I will just let the conversations happen as they happen if it comes up at all.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 25, 2013)

I start out saying that it's a fraternity and therefore a men-only organization.  There are plenty of organizations for women-only so it's only fair that men have their own.  That handles the vast majority of inquiries.

The next level is to point them at the Order of the Eastern Star.  It's a Masonic order that includes women and very many of their members are married couples.  If you're that interested in the Masons you're married to one, right?  That handles the next level of inquiries.

So far only one female friend has persisted past that level.  I suggested that she search out female only Masonry or CoMasonry on line.  I also pointed out the vast disparity in membership totals among male only Masonry, CoMasonry and female only Masonry.  Any woman is welcome to join such an order and we're welcome to not have much interest in their comings and goings.

I am not apologetic to feminists.  The fact that other orders exist that only takes females will handle any sincere feminist and thus any who keep going after that point are not sincere in my eyes.  They are the ones who want not equality but domination.  I have no interest in or duty to cater to such as those.  And in the one case who asked me about female lodges she didn't join as she did get my point that other orders exist that only take women not men.


----------



## jmflores (Jul 25, 2013)

I'm so glad our interviews went well, and I am anxiously awaiting the results of the ballots. 
Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## JJones (Jul 25, 2013)

Regardless of what you may answer, I think the worst thing any mason can do is feel as though they have to apologetically justify our being a male only organization.

They don't have to like it, they can't join anyhow.


----------



## Ilja van Reede (Aug 3, 2013)

I believe that two men can't have the conversation they could have if they were joined by a woman. Vice versa also.

Sent from my HTC One X using Freemason Connect HD mobile app


----------



## Mac (Aug 4, 2013)

When it comes to the philosophical side of the fraternity, I don't see why women wouldn't benefit from the lessons and discussions we have.  I have no interest in making our fraternity co-ed, like so many business and professional fraternities, but neither would I necessarily be opposed to it.  As I understand it, some would say they should join OES, but OES is not Female Freemasonry.  If my wife was a member of my Lodge, maybe I wouldn't need to spend so much time away from her for the two stated meetings, floor schools, degrees, etc.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 4, 2013)

I will gladly give a woman (or a man, for that matter) the contact information for the Supreme Council of American Co-Masonry.

As to explaining to a woman why she can't join my Lodge, I will explain the Landmarks as best I can. If she wishes to play the exclusionist card, there are plenty of women-only organisations and events for me to trump her with. Then again, if they go down that road, it's usually a fools errand to try to explain it, and I must remember the First Degree Charge and walk away.


----------



## Zaden (Aug 4, 2013)

trysquare said:


> I will gladly give a woman (or a man, for that matter) the contact information for the Supreme Council of American Co-Masonry.
> 
> As to explaining to a woman why she can't join my Lodge, I will explain the Landmarks as best I can. If she wishes to play the exclusionist card, there are plenty of women-only organisations and events for me to trump her with. Then again, if they go down that road, it's usually a fools errand to try to explain it, and I must remember the First Degree Charge and walk away.



What examples do you use?


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 4, 2013)

The Girl Scouts, every college sorority, Women's Flat Track Derby Association, DAR. Then I get out the local classified ads and flag every sewing circle, yoga class, or sweat lodge marked "women only." The list is endless if you look hard enough. Fortunately, even the most feminist women I know think Freemasonry (and a single-gender spiritual/philosophical enterprise) to be a good thing. They know me and base their opinions on my actions.


----------



## Roy Vance (Aug 5, 2013)

jjones said:


> regardless of what you may answer, i think the worst thing any mason can do is feel as though they have to apologetically justify our being a male only organization.
> 
> They don't have to like it, they can't join anyhow.



I like that!


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 5, 2013)

coachn said:


> I'd go one step further and say that "Freemasonry exists as a Fraternity for some, a Sorority for some, and a co-ed for the rest."  The one you joined is a Fraternity.



And, therefore, you also believe that Freemasonry embraces atheism.

It only follows. After all, there are groups running around calling themselves "Freemasons" that are atheistic.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 5, 2013)

trysquare said:


> The Girl Scouts, every college sorority, Women's Flat Track Derby Association, DAR. Then I get out the local classified ads and flag every sewing circle, yoga class, or sweat lodge marked "women only." The list is endless if you look hard enough. Fortunately, even the most feminist women I know think Freemasonry (and a single-gender spiritual/philosophical enterprise) to be a good thing. They know me and base their opinions on my actions.



I am reminded of my college. It had a "Womyn's Center" (allowing "men" in the name would have been offensive). Men were not allowed to set foot in it. It was on campus, but it was a private school. Anyway, while I was there, some guys formed "F-Troop", a "men's discussion group". They did not demand or even request space or funding from the college. There was an uproar within the student body over F-Troop. It was actually denounced. Eventually, the Womyn's Center overreached and tried to enlist some of the more outspokenly feminist female faculty. They were informed that denying men a group while demanding a group for women only would not only be unfair but was also actually antithetical to the radical feminism they claimed to espouse. I got to see two sides of radical feminism--the strident, frankly man-hating side, and the older side, more willing to actually adopt their own principles for everyone.


----------



## coachn (Aug 5, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> And, therefore, you also believe that Freemasonry embraces atheism.
> 
> It only follows. After all, there are groups running around calling themselves "Freemasons" that are atheistic.



Brother, you have taken liberty and have wrongfully representing my belief.  

Furthermore, your logic is assumptive, oversimplified and flawed.  

Moreover, your conclusion also does not embrace reality.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 6, 2013)

coachn said:


> Brother, you have taken liberty and have wrongfully representing my belief.
> 
> Furthermore, your logic is assumptive, oversimplified and flawed.
> 
> Moreover, your conclusion also does not embrace reality.



My conclusion embraces the reality of the logical extension of your outrageous claims. If it is valid to say that Freemasonry can violate the Landmarks and be a sorority, it is equally as valid to violate the Landmarks have a "Freemasonry" that is atheist. If you can throw out one Landmark, why not others? Why cherry-pick?


----------



## coachn (Aug 6, 2013)

_


BryanMaloney said:



			My conclusion embraces the reality of the logical extension of your outrageous claims. If it is valid to say that Freemasonry can violate the Landmarks and be a sorority, it is equally as valid to violate the Landmarks have a "Freemasonry" that is atheist. If you can throw out one Landmark, why not others? Why cherry-pick?
		
Click to expand...


*Some new Light for you: *There exists a multitude of "Recognized" Jurisdictions who don't recognize Landmarks at all.  Furthermore, the few that do recognize Landmarks don't agree amongst themselves upon what these Landmarks actually are.  

*Suggestion: *When you feel insulted that someone would dare offer Light that differs from what you have naively chosen to embrace, try to accept that there is much more in heaven and earth that are dreamt of in your philosophy.  Freemasonry is practiced in many ways and in many differing forms that are seemingly contrary to the structures that you, in isolation, are being raised within.  When you get to Travel a bit, you might possibly just see this yourself.  Until you do, you remain invalid in many of your logical conclusions.

BTW - I don't cherry-pick.  I leave that up to the various Jurisdictions to do on their own free will and accord. It appears though that your ignorance of different Freemasonic structures is only outrageously exceeded by your ignorance of my beliefs.  I pray that this shall change for you sometime soon.

*Future reference: *It is not valid to say that "Freemasonry can violate the Landmarks and be a sorority".  Therefore, what you claim to be equal is invalid too._


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 7, 2013)

No amount of injured pride on the part of the clandestine when called out for their illegitimacy can change that. Admitting women is the act of an irregular and clandestine body.

What specific regular Masonic jurisdictions admit women as "Brothers" (or is it "Sisters")? Name them, and we will see if they are truly regular.


----------



## coachn (Aug 7, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> No amount of injured pride on the part of the clandestine when called out for their illegitimacy can change that. Admitting women is the act of an irregular and clandestine body.
> 
> What specific regular Masonic jurisdictions admit women as "Brothers" (or is it "Sisters")? Name them, and we will see if they are truly regular.



Your points and questions are mote.  The issues you bring forth are convoluted.  You confuse "Regularity" with "Recognition".  The former is determined by the Organization alone.  What is "Regular" to one Organization, may not be to another.  

Likewise, "Recognition" is extended between Organizations who have determined their separate Organizations are compatible enough to warrant such.   

Irregularity and Clandestine bodies are not Irregular or Clandestine to themselves; only to those bodies who do not consider them Regular and choose not to Recognize them.  There is no Patent, copyright or ownership of Freemasonry.  That's what makes all these "variation" possible.  The GL era created a standardizations and franchise-ment between themselves and those who choose attachment.  This does not mean one can dismiss one's obligations to one's GL.  It merely means the judgments one places toward and upon other organization should be tempered in this Light. 

BTW - Clandestine Bodies is often a misused term since clandestine means "secret".  They cannot be Clandestine if you know about them.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Aug 7, 2013)

And that tells me everything I need to know. It is the sort of defensiveness that is very common among the irregular and clandestine when asked about specifics. Whether or not an organization is irregular or clandestine from the point of view of this bulletin board tends to follow the usages of the Grand Lodge of Texas, or so it has appeared. If you are saying that GLoTX is wrong, okay, but you still refuse to name specific organizations, so they can be specifically known. As for the use of "clandestine" herein, its non-Masonic use does not necessarily determine its Masonic use.


----------



## coachn (Aug 7, 2013)

BryanMaloney said:


> And that tells me everything I need to know. It is the sort of defensiveness that is very common among the irregular and clandestine when asked about specifics. Whether or not an organization is irregular or clandestine from the point of view of this bulletin board tends to follow the usages of the Grand Lodge of Texas, or so it has appeared. If you are saying that GLoTX is wrong, okay, but you still refuse to name specific organizations, so they can be specifically known. As for the use of "clandestine" herein, its non-Masonic use does not necessarily determine its Masonic use.


It appears that you're fooling yourself once again.  I belong to a GL that is Recognized by your GL, among many many others.  What you "interpret" as defensiveness is you're own prejudices deceiving you.  As far as what one GL puts forth as acceptable use, I have shared nothing herein that conflicts with this.  Regarding refusal, I participate in fruitful discourse with well informed Brethren.   I don't expect you to understand, agree or to see anything differently than how you've been trained.  My responses on this thread are not for your benefit; they are for those Brothers who want Further Light, are open to receiving it and have the ability to see it without biases.  BTW - I'm not defending anything.  I'm merely share available Light.


----------



## Mac (Aug 7, 2013)

And I think we've hashed that particular area of the discussion out as far as it needs to go. Any further discussion between the two of you is probably best done via private messages. 






Freemason Connect HD


----------



## coachn (Aug 7, 2013)

Mac said:


> And I think we've hashed that particular area of the discussion out as far as it needs to go. Any further discussion between the two of you is probably best done via private messages.
> Freemason Connect HD



I agree.


----------

