Time for women to engage with Freemasonry?

Absolam · 13-04-2013 3:20pm

Not that it will make a difference, but I don't think there has been more than a couple of years since the last time female membership has been proposed; as I said on previous threads Lodges have hosted visits from Eastern Star and co-Masonry, and GLI hosted a talk from a (female) representative of UK co-Masonry at summer lodge not so long ago. All outside the Lodge, naturally. The subject is far from taboo, but has never in my time garnered sufficient support to even win the backing of one Lodge.

You really are fooling yourself if you think Freemasonry is thriving, but regular Freemasonry is dying. Mimic-Masonry makes up a tiny percentage of what you call the 'flavours' of Freemasonry; it has done for hundreds of years, and that hasn't changed in the last two decades. I understand you need to think that the 'Truth' is in the ascendant in order to feel you're joining something that's not an imitation, but the real thing, but that's just not borne out by the facts.

Again, you're trying to ascribe motivations to others in order to bolster your own position to yourself; I've no vested interest in preventing my wife from knowing what I do with my free time, she know's quite well what I do. You have no reason to say that I do, other than to make yourself feel superior. Freemasonry has never decided not to contemplate the possibility of women being free agents; you say that to try and make it appear Freemasonry is oppressive, to justify your own antagonism. That kind of behaviour doesn't bode well for your 'flavour' of Freemasonry.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2013 3:43pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

You seem to be the one who thinks men are oppressed and disavantaged in our society.

Actually I wrote that "both genders face discrimination and disadvantages. And advantages too; unless you want to give us all a good laugh and claim that family law is gender neutral."

Clearly, you chose to ignore this - is there some reason you wish to frame my argument in a false manner?

As regards family law, I feel it is unfairly biased towards women, and that is a sexism that has no ground and no reason to be!

So men have few or no rights to their children, as an example of how family law works, and you feel women are hard done by? Less said about divorce or how the law treats domestic violence against men. How does family law discriminate against women, that would even compare with that?

Seriously, to try and claim that family law is unfairly biased towards women despite it being pretty clearly the opposite beggars belief at the sanity of such an opinion.

The reasons that led to favoring women in family law are no longer relevant, therefore I support that they should evolve toward more equality in the best interest of children.

Given your view is that only women are discriminated against, I think that would be a pretty laughable claim on your part.

I tend to be consistent in my beliefs, and not twist them according to my own best interest.

I never accused your views are inconstant, only implied that they're bigoted.

eithneoneill · 16-04-2013 3:41am

Absolam wrote: »

I understand you need to think that the 'Truth' is in the ascendant in order to feel you're joining something that's not an imitation, but the real thing, but that's just not borne out by the facts.

So what should I do.
Abandon all interest in Freemasonry just because your guys think it's not lady-like?
Between a Freemasonry that admits and welcomes me, and a Freemasonry rejected my very nature as some form of impurity, I think the choice is quite easy to make!

eithneoneill · 16-04-2013 3:45am

The Corinthian wrote: »

So men have few or no rights to their children, as an example of how family law works, and you feel women are hard done by? Less said about divorce or how the law treats domestic violence against men. How does family law discriminate against women, that would even compare with that?

Seriously, to try and claim that family law is unfairly biased towards women despite it being pretty clearly the opposite beggars belief at the sanity of such an opinion.

Sorry The Corinthian, I was not clear.
I meant that women are favoured by family law, and men are unfairly discriminated in family law (as the rest of my post makes I hope clearer: I support more rights for fathers. Ireland is backward as regards family law, and a lot of it has to do with bigoted organizations who have a backward view of women as breading, raising kids and cleaning.).

There is an unfair positive bias towards (=in favor of) women in family law, and and unfair negative bias towards (=against) men.

I am sorry if my first sentence about bias was not clear: I do think father are hard done in family law.

topcatcbr · 16-04-2013 4:43am

Why are some women so threatened by some men wanting to be in a men only organisation. There is nothing stoping any woman setting up their equal organisation to do whatever interests them. You don't see any men (as far as I know) jumping up and down insisting he be allowed become a Nun.

I am not a mason nor do I wish to be (not disrespecting those who do) but I do understand some wanting to remain men only. I see no problem with this. If someone wants to set up their own organisation and call it free'r masonry and have it mixed or women only that's their prerogative. Few men will lose sleep over it.

It seems to me women's insistence in being included in men's groups Leeds me to think these women feel that men's groups are somehow better than something women can achieve on their own either that or they must show their in control of what men can and cannot do. Afraid of what men might get up to without their supervision.
To me this is sexist behaviour.

Absolam · 16-04-2013 9:14am

eithneoneill wrote: »

So what should I do.
Abandon all interest in Freemasonry just because your guys think it's not lady-like?
Between a Freemasonry that admits and welcomes me, and a Freemasonry rejected my very nature as some form of impurity, I think the choice is quite easy to make!

There you go again. Nobody you said your interest in Freemasonry wasn't lady-like. Freemasonry doesn't reject your nature as impure. You're positing your own biases so that you can react against them. Wouldn't it just be easier (and more honest) not to make things up, then you wouldn't have to fight against them?

topcatcbr · 16-04-2013 11:12am

eithneoneill wrote: »

So what should I do.
Abandon all interest in Freemasonry just because your guys think it's not lady-like?
Between a Freemasonry that admits and welcomes me, and a Freemasonry rejected my very nature as some form of impurity, I think the choice is quite easy to make!

Join or create an organisation that wants you as a member.

The Corinthian · 16-04-2013 11:34am

eithneoneill wrote: »

I am sorry if my first sentence about bias was not clear: I do think father are hard done in family law.

Sorry, but you clearly stated that "the comments on sexism and the quasi-oppression of men in society, I let people judge for themselves how laughable they are."

How unclear is that? How have you suddenly managed to go from laughing at "the quasi-oppression of men in society" (which incidentally no one claimed) to "fathers are hard done in family law" (apparently not men, but only fathers as divorce and domestic violence is handled perfectly fairly) and that you support "more rights" (note; not 'equal') for them?

In short, I don't believe you because there is very little scope for misunderstanding your earlier statements. I believe you likely betrayed your true opinions on the subject and now, having realized your mistake, are trying to do a u-turn.

eithneoneill · 18-04-2013 10:31pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, but you clearly stated that "the comments on sexism and the quasi-oppression of men in society, I let people judge for themselves how laughable they are."

How unclear is that? How have you suddenly managed to go from laughing at "the quasi-oppression of men in society" (which incidentally no one claimed) to "fathers are hard done in family law" (apparently not men, but only fathers as divorce and domestic violence is handled perfectly fairly) and that you support "more rights" (note; not 'equal') for them?

In short, I don't believe you because there is very little scope for misunderstanding your earlier statements. I believe you likely betrayed your true opinions on the subject and now, having realized your mistake, are trying to do a u-turn.

My sorry was about the sentence that made you think I was saying that family law was biased against women. It is in fact (unfairly) biased against men.

It is still laughable to think that men are oppressed in our society, and that they are still not benefiting from most of the rules. Family law is an exception and that exception (they are discriminated against in family law) I do not agree with (they should not be discriminated against).
They are only at a disadvantage in that area.
And only because other men in the past made the rules assuming women's role was in the kitchen and looking after the kids. They should start blaming their forefathers for their lack of foresight.

Overall, women are still at a disadvantage in our society.
It is ridiculous to think that women have an upper hand in all aspects of society. They are losing out in most aspects of society.

It is laughable to say that men are oppressed or quasi-oppressed or discriminated against in general in our society.
The minor exception to that is the area that men have decided in the past to neglect: family. I find that exception unfair, and I also support that in that area men receive a fairer treatment.

And that is why I intend to join an organization that thinks that fraternity is not about gender, that equality is not about gender, and that liberty is not about biological/cultural/racial heritage.
That's what modern Freemasonry is about.

I leave the sexist old-fashion Freemasonry to sexist old-fashion men.
I join the modern Freemasonry, and its openness to the world.

The Corinthian · 19-04-2013 11:28am

eithneoneill wrote: »

It is still laughable to think that men are oppressed in our society, and that they are still not benefiting from most of the rules.

Which rules might these be? I ask because while this claim is sometimes made, when challenged you never actually get any real examples, let alone a demonstration that a majority of the rules favour men.

They are only at a disadvantage in that area.

Actually, this in not true and there are numerous examples of why. Here's one:

Have you ever bothered to look at the criminal justice system and how men and women are treated differently for the same crime? This isn't just down to attitudes, but also because the law will often proscribe different sentences based upon gender.

A 14-year old boy who has sex with his 15-year old girlfriend can be prosecuted for rape. Oddly enough, she is immune from prosecution. Even a 30-year old woman cannot be prosecuted for rape of a 12-year old boy. It's the law.

Now would you like to come out with more statements about discrimination, or lack thereof, of men that you clearly have no clue about? Or maybe, rather than wallow in a pit of how you're so oppressed yourself, do a little research and educate yourself?

It is ridiculous to think that women have an upper hand in all aspects of society. They are losing out in most aspects of society.

It is laughable to say that men are oppressed or quasi-oppressed or discriminated against in general in our society.

No one here other than yourself has said that women have an upper hand in all aspects of society. No one here other than yourself has said that men are oppressed or quasi-oppressed. Indeed, I've already pointed this out to you, but obviously you weren't listening.

Both men and women suffer aspects of discrimination. Who suffers more is difficult to gauge at this stage as in some areas men clearly do, while others women do.

However, you've repeatedly tried to dismiss the notion that men are discriminated against. Eventually you conceded that this may be the case in family law alone, but for you this is only a "minor exception" and ultimately men's fault anyway as we "have decided in the past to neglect" the carer role in the past.

The ignorance and hate of such views is both palpable and repulsive. And it is because of such bigoted view that I and a rapidly increasing number of people refuse to give any sympathy or support to those who promote them.

Maybe you should go and find a misandrist forum to seek support for your views?

eithneoneill · 20-04-2013 2:54pm

OK The Corinthian, we live in a women's world and the rules are made for and by women.

I love equally men and women, from a humanity point of view, and when I see negative bias towards one or the other, I find it unacceptable.
By and large I see more bias against women in this world, but I must be blind and totally mistaken, because it is now obvious that in this world men are oppressed and anyone who fights for women's equality is mistaken and a man-hater.

Is that what you want me to say?

In any case, this conversation to me is a diversion on the thread, which aims at discussing women involvement in the Freemasonry that welcomes women.
It does not aim at excluding men from Freemasonry!
It aims at discussing women in the Freemason orders that welcome women equally to men.
In modern Freemasonry, men and women are strictly equal, and can all reach the highest level of Freemasonry: Master Mason.

I will shy away from conversations about other topics, and I will myself stick to that topic. Feel free to do what you like.

The Corinthian · 20-04-2013 4:47pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

OK The Corinthian, we live in a women's world and the rules are made for and by women.

More strawmen... clearly this in my last post went over your head (again):

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one here other than yourself has said that women have an upper hand in all aspects of society. No one here other than yourself has said that men are oppressed or quasi-oppressed. Indeed, I've already pointed this out to you, but obviously you weren't listening.

Is there a reason you're at this stage intentionally doing this? Seriously, I have to ask; is it that you're not reading what's written, a short-term memory issue, psychosis or that you're intentionally using strawmen to attack my argument?

I love equally men and women, from a humanity point of view, and when I see negative bias towards one or the other, I find it unacceptable.

Clearly untrue, given some of your arguments here. You've shown little more than contempt at the notion that discrimination takes place against men and where you were forced to concede there is, you played it down and then managed to blame men for it.

If you love men, you have a very patronizing way of showing it - so on balance, I doubt you do.

Is that what you want me to say?

Honestly, I'd rather if you didn't say anything more, given there's as much chance in you climbing out of your entrenched views as North Korea holding free elections next Tuesday.

In any case, this conversation to me is a diversion on the thread, which aims at discussing women involvement in the Freemasonry that welcomes women.

And my initial response to you was relevant to this. Ignoring and dismissing areas of gender discrimination against men, while seeking support for an area of discrimination against women, as you were with Chemical Burn, is not going to gain you much support from us penis-wielding oppressors.

If you are so blinkered in your views that you still cannot accept that it's not black and white, with women naturally being the oppressed, then stop whining to us about it because we're fed up with that kind of BS.

Absolam · 21-04-2013 11:32am

eithneoneill wrote: »

In modern Freemasonry, men and women are strictly equal, and can all reach the highest level of Freemasonry: Master Mason.

If I may correct you point slightly;
In modern Freemasonry, men and women are strictly equal, although women are not admitted as members. Mimic-Masonic orders exist which admit women, but are not recognised by modern Freemasonry.

eithneoneill · 22-04-2013 5:44pm

Absolam wrote: »

If I may correct you point slightly;
In modern Freemasonry, men and women are strictly equal, although women are not admitted as members. Mimic-Masonic orders exist which admit women, but are not recognised by modern Freemasonry.

If I may correct you strongly: that is the point of view of old-fashion Freemasonry, self-styled as "regular", forgetting at the same time the Lady Mason that rose from its own rank, in a regular lodge, regularly recognized despite initiating a woman.

Looking down on the Freemasonry represented by the Grand Orient and Droit Humain does not change that they are Freemasonry too, and that they accept women as equal (as opposed to calling them equal, as long as they do not ask for actual equality). They are the modern Freemasonry, and they are regular in their ways. You just don't want to accept it because you think regular = conservative.

Absolam · 23-04-2013 4:46am

You're completely ignoring the fact that it's not (just) an issue of female membership; even if the organisations you mention chose not to accept women members tomorrow, they still would not be accepted as part of Freemasonry as they do not adhere to the Fundamental Principles of Freemasonry. The Lady Mason herself (even though she never 'rose' in the ranks as you say, which doesn't mean we forget her) would agree; they are not Masonic organisations.

However I never said I look down on them; the fact that they're not Masonic doesn't make them any less, that's just your own interpretation of what people are doing when they disagree with you. Nor did I say, or even indicate, that I, or Freemasons, call women equal as long as they don't ask for equality. You're back to making things up that you can feel offended about, when no one is offering you offence.

eithneoneill · 29-04-2013 9:13am

3 weeks before my initiation.
Very exciting!

Eadbhard · 28-05-2013 10:52am

eithneoneill wrote: »

I have learnt a lot in the past few days about Freemasonry, and now I want to join them.
But I wonder how other women, or gay men, feel about it?
Of course I do not even consider the Grand Lodge, as they make clear that women are not equal enough to be initiated.

But I am wondering which of the other two Irish Freemason Orders are best for women?
The Grand Orient who has already initiated women? (www.gmoirl.com)
Or the Droit Humain about whom I can find nearly no information about, but who are known for welcoming women and minorities in other countries?

Is there a point in joining these humanist Freemason Orders? (Which the Grand Lodge looks down at and consider as not masonic just because they do not recognize them... )

Beside the conservative Grand Lodge of Freemasons in Dublin, which follows the route London dictates them, there is a second masonic body in Ireland since 2010 which is liberal, adogmatic and open to men and women, they installed already a lady in one lodge as master of the lodge and founded recently a lodge in Dublin. Conservative masonry asks for a belief in God and does not accept women (thus excluding 50% of the population) and atheists etc while the liberal system does not ask for a belief and leaves it as private matter to the members and accepts women. They have strong links with France and other GrandLodges in Europe.

discus · 02-06-2013 4:34am

It's masonry-lite.

Eadbhard · 03-06-2013 12:50pm

Masonry-lite?
Conservative masonry in Ireland is completely different from that practized on the continent.
99% of members in Ireland are Anglican and in the North also members of the Orange Order, which in my understanding is
not in keeping with the tolerance idea of Freemasonry. it is more a sub-club of Protestantism.

Due to business I know a few liberal masons in France which have a different approach to Masonry, not religious, open, intellectual and engaged in sociological questions, I presume this system is followed by the liberal Grand Orient masons in Ireland. Hopefully.

Absolam · 03-06-2013 2:48pm

Irregular Masonry is quite popular on the Continent, but I wouldn't say it's completely different; just different in significant areas. The idea that the membership of Freemasonry in Ireland is primarily Anglican, or even Protestant, is one of those silly ones that get thrown around every so often. It might have been true at the turn of the last century but one, but these days most Roman Catholics are not so worried about the Church's disapproval, and there is more than a smattering of other religions in Ireland as well as simply straightforward agnostics. Of the hundreds of Freemasons I know, I would think less than a third are Protestant Christians; it's hard to say since religion is not discussed in Lodges, but just going by candidates I've interviewed 30% would be a high number.

I'm sure there probably are some Freemasons who are members of the Orange Order, though I think not so many as some would have you believe, since as you say the principles are inimicable to Freemasory. Interestingly enough, irregular Masonry actually has more in common with the Orange Order, since both have political agendas, whereas Freemasonry eschews involvement in either politics or religion.

Eadbhard · 03-06-2013 4:59pm

I always find the term "irregular" a funny one. How can somebody declare somebody "irregular" and who made the rules for it.

Who is qualified to be "regular" then?

isn't it a bit of an inhuman view of other fellow creatures, if that is masonry than good night....

Absolam · 03-06-2013 11:35pm

I've always thought it was pleasantly quaint myself. In Freemasonry a Mason is taught that he should endeavour to make his work regular, with straight lines, correct angles, and in accordance with the plan of the architect. The metaphor is extended to organisations that copy Freemasonry; if they conform to the fundamental principles and landmarks of Freemasonry then they are considered regular by Freemasons, if they do not they are considered irregular.

So Freemasonry decides which organisations are Masonically regular or not.

I don't think it's particularly inhuman.... It's more an organisational description really, not an appellation for individuals.

Eadbhard · 04-06-2013 1:23am

Freemasonry decides....who is Freemasonry? Are they hiding behind a special term?
Tell us names ...

Absolam · 04-06-2013 2:49am

Assuming you don't want a list of all of the millions of Freemasons worldwide who can have a say on the subject?

To break it down each Grand Lodge jurisdiction chooses who it recognises as regular. In practice, the three original Grand Lodges (England, Ireland and Scotland) tend to be regarded as authoritative in most areas, although, of course, they would never tell another Grand Lodge what to do. So, for instance, some North American Grand Lodges who are themselves recognised as being regular, might recognise organisations as regular, but those organisations are not recognised as regular by other Grand Lodges in North America, or around the world, making them irregular to the majority of Freemasonry.

T runner · 28-06-2013 4:09pm

Absolam wrote: »

To be fair, the Grand Lodge of Ireland only makes it clear that women are not male enough to be initiated, and offers no judgement whatsoever on equality...
.

Rejecting a persons membership of an organisation based on no other reason than their gender (with no mitigating explanation as to why their gender is relevant) is a judgement on gender equality.

It is like saying the KKK having a "not white enough" rule offers no judgement on racial equality.

Sooner or later your organisation will lose its grasp on its ability to protect itself. This country, among others, will be a far better place when that infestation is driven from their secret holes.

Absolam · 29-06-2013 6:33am

Actually, it's a judgement based on gender, not a judgement on gender equality. Whether the gender is equal doesn't come into it, just what the gender is.

I'm not sure what you think the Freemasons are protecting ourselves from (or what grasp you think is required to do so), but we hardly infest secret holes; we're pretty open about our meeting places as a quick google will show you.

On a separate note, since the thread is revived, it would be nice to hear from EithneO'Neill how her initiation went. I'm hoping she had a great experience.

The Corinthian · 29-06-2013 9:42am

T runner wrote: »

Rejecting a persons membership of an organisation based on no other reason than their gender (with no mitigating explanation as to why their gender is relevant) is a judgement on gender equality.

So when Ivana Bacik hosted a women-only meeting in the Oireachtas to discuss the abolition of custodial sentences for women, you would be equally critical such such gender segregation as employed by her?

clairefontaine · 30-06-2013 12:38am

The Corinthian wrote: »

So when Ivana Bacik hosted a women-only meeting in the Oireachtas to discuss the abolition of custodial sentences for women, you would be equally critical such such gender segregation as employed by her?

Government is different from private clubs. In government secret meetings and lack of transparency is tyranny. Different ball game.

The Corinthian · 30-06-2013 9:46am

clairefontaine wrote: »

Government is different from private clubs. In government secret meetings and lack of transparency is tyranny. Different ball game.

Firstly, it's not actually government - it was a private meeting organized by a politician.

Secondly, even if it were government sanctioned sexual discrimination, it doesn't stop T runner from holding an opinion on it, which is what I asked.

Presuming we ever get a response from T runner.

eithneoneill · 15-01-2014 5:05pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

3 weeks before my initiation.
Very exciting!

I did join the Droit Humain, but now I have resigned because the news broke:

A man who had more than 50 images of child pornography on his computer at his Dublin home has been spared a jail term.

Instead of being punished by the Lodge, he has been promoted, and that I am not happy with. And we were kept in the dark. Worst than the Catholic Church!

I do not blame the Order, but the miscreants that lied to us and to the Order.

Time for women to engage with Freemasonry?

Comments