Time for women to engage with Freemasonry?

eithneoneill · 30-03-2013 6:37pm #1

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... )

clairefontaine · 30-03-2013 6:43pm

I had a summer job with the Freemasons once.

It is very creepy where all the bosses are men and all the secretaries have to address them as master.

I dont think you can be a woman and a freemason.

Layinghen · 30-03-2013 6:51pm

The Order of the Eastern Star is the women's auxiliary for the Lodge. It is open to all female relatives of Masons. Not sure if there are any in Ireland but in the US 'The Star' is very active.

eithneoneill · 30-03-2013 8:36pm

clairefontaine wrote: »

I had a summer job with the Freemasons once.

It is very creepy where all the bosses are men and all the secretaries have to address them as master.

I dont think you can be a woman and a freemason.

You can be both, in a lodge that is progressive enough to enable it.
That would not be the Grand Lodge, obviously.

Pity you had a bad experience with this flavor of Freemasonry.
It is up to us, women, to be the strong ashlars on which a mixed template can be built from close to nothing.

Grand Orient and Droit Human flavor of Freemasonry is more open and less stiff in their ways.

Layinghen wrote: »

The Order of the Eastern Star is the women's auxiliary for the Lodge. It is open to all female relatives of Masons. Not sure if there are any in Ireland but in the US 'The Star' is very active.

The star is not active in Ireland and not likely to be any time soon.
In any case, anything less than equality is not acceptable: we do not a "widfe's" lodge, but a lodge where men and women can work together for the good of humanity.

Absolam · 02-04-2013 12:53am

eithneoneill wrote: »

Of course I do not even consider the Grand Lodge, as they make clear that women are not equal enough to be initiated.

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...

eithneoneill wrote: »

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... )

Again to inject some even-handedness, GLI doesn't look down on any organisations. It doesn't recognise these organisations as Masonic because they don't fully conform to the definitions of Freemasonry laid down by GLI. I'm not suggesting that's a reason for not joining them, just that your characterisation of the motives of regular Freemasonry is inaccurate.

eithneoneill · 02-04-2013 1:13am

I think we have firmly established that GLI is not going to be the Freemasonry of choice for women.

Maybe all the adult daughters of each R.'.W.'.M.'. should spy on their meetings this year, to force them to initiate them! It happened before, it could happen again.

And all the wives of GLI Master Masons should either refuse to cook for the festive boards, or withhold sex. They can call it "their secret grip on their husbands.
Lysistrata managed to use sex strikes to end end the Peloponnesian War, and the Nigerian Igbo people used to walk out on their husbands as the women's council ordered them to strike to force their husbands to see reason.
But the wives of GLI Freemasons would not do it to obtain anything: just to show their husbands how much they contribute to the craft, and how much more they could contribute within the other chamber...

Absolam · 02-04-2013 2:45am

eithneoneill wrote: »

Maybe all the adult daughters of each R.'.W.'.M.'. should spy on their meetings this year, to force them to initiate them! It happened before, it could happen again.

Maybe, but they'll have a tough time finding R.W.M.s to spy on in Ireland...

eithneoneill wrote: »

And all the wives of GLI Master Masons should either refuse to cook for the festive boards, or withhold sex. They can call it "their secret grip on their husbands. Lysistrata managed to use sex strikes to end end the Peloponnesian War, and the Nigerian Igbo people used to walk out on their husbands as the women's council ordered them to strike to force their husbands to see reason.
But the wives of GLI Freemasons would not do it to obtain anything: just to show their husbands how much they contribute to the craft, and how much more they could contribute within the other chamber...

Perhaps the wives/girlfriends/boyfriends/significant others of Freemasons are happy with the role they do or do not choose to play in Freemasonry? They might resent being told by a stranger what they should and shouldn't do to further someone elses' cause...

eithneoneill · 02-04-2013 7:42am

Absolam wrote: »

They might resent being told by a stranger what they should and shouldn't do to further someone elses' cause...

Is that not what they are told when instructed on cooking for the Festive Boards, but unable to take part in the decisions taken before the board?
Is it not what happens when they are made to benefit from masonic charity, but not allowed to vote on how it is distributed or managed?

They are either serving their male masters, or receiving their charity.
We are in the 21st Century. Do you guys need help to enter the 20th already?

Absolam · 02-04-2013 10:09am

eithneoneill wrote: »

Is that not what they are told when instructed on cooking for the Festive Boards, but unable to take part in the decisions taken before the board?
Is it not what happens when they are made to benefit from masonic charity, but not allowed to vote on how it is distributed or managed?

They are either serving their male masters, or receiving their charity.
We are in the 21st Century. Do you guys need help to enter the 20th already?

Really? Do you honestly think people partners are told or instructed to cook for festive boards? Aside from the fact that the metropolitan Lodges use in house caterers for festive boards (comprised of both male and female staff in case you're wondering), what would your partner say if you instructed her in such a fashion? Presumably much the same as mine.

Nor do I think anyone has ever been made to benefit from Masonic charity. Most people in need of assistance are generally happy someone is offering to help them, but they're free to refuse it. I have no idea why you think the recipients of assistance should be able to vote on how it's distributed or managed, so maybe you can clarify that?

You've noticed we're in the 21st century, which is good. Maybe you could update your prejudices to match?

Standman · 02-04-2013 6:24pm

It's an exclusive society that doesn't admit women as a rule. If members wish to change or leave the rule in place it is their prerogative and they shouldn't be coerced either way from the outside. You are not entitled to have rules changed or be admitted wherever you please just because you are a woman and you want something.

eithneoneill · 07-04-2013 12:29pm

Standman wrote: »

It's an exclusive society that doesn't admit women as a rule. If members wish to change or leave the rule in place it is their prerogative and they shouldn't be coerced either way from the outside. You are not entitled to have rules changed or be admitted wherever you please just because you are a woman and you want something.

And that is why instead we decide to join a more modern, progressive and open-minded Freemasonry.
There would be no point in joining a group of close-minded people stuck in the 19th century.

And there is nothing that they can do about it, because as Droit Humain and/or Grand Lodge grow with the times, the Grand Lodge will shrink with their members increasingly isolated.
With the difference that, as opposed to them, we will then offer a fraternal and charitable hand to them.
That is probably the added touch brought by women to Freemasonry: a genuine concern for the meaning of what Fraternity means, alongside Liberty and Equality.

Absolam · 08-04-2013 10:09am

But neither of these two irregular orders are modern. They've both existed since the 19th Century, have changed about as much as regular Freemasonry has (which is not much at all) in that time, and have been claiming to be about to eclipse regular Freemasonry for all of that time. What's new?

I suspect that regular Freemasonry has endured in the face of these 'modern' organisations because it steadfastly refuses to do what the Grand Orients do; it takes no political positions, it does not advocate or condemn any religion, and doesn't require it's members to fight for its' values in their workplace.

eithneoneill · 10-04-2013 8:59pm

Absolam wrote: »

But neither of these two irregular orders are modern. They've both existed since the 19th Century, have changed about as much as regular Freemasonry has (which is not much at all) in that time, and have been claiming to be about to eclipse regular Freemasonry for all of that time. What's new?

I suspect that regular Freemasonry has endured in the face of these 'modern' organisations because it steadfastly refuses to do what the Grand Orients do; it takes no political positions, it does not advocate or condemn any religion, and doesn't require it's members to fight for its' values in their workplace.

Modern does not have to be recent.
Olympe de Gouges (who had masonic involvement in the 18th century) and Simone Veil (who is still alive) are more modern than hip-hop rapper who promote violence against women, or so called "regular" Freemasons who find women irregular (is Menstruation the real reason women are rejected by your peers?)

Chemical Burn · 10-04-2013 9:01pm

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... )

When men can join the ICA, Curves and do the Mini Marathon, then women can go to the Freemasons.

eithneoneill · 10-04-2013 10:12pm

Chemical Burn wrote: »

When men can join the ICA, Curves and do the Mini Marathon, then women can go to the Freemasons.

Men can run the Mini Marathon: they usually wear and dress as mock-women/drag in too obvious a way to fool anyone. It's about having fun, not discriminating. They can run but, you are right, they cannot "compete". But they organized a men's version this year: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=4803

And women can already "go to the Freemasons": with Grand Orient and Droit Humain. (I still have to choose, I give myself a month or two to decide) They cannot go to the macho Grand Lodge flavour of Freemasonry, but they can be Freemasons.
Just like Elizabeth Saint Leger was a Freemason (before the Grand Lodge time, but recognized as a Freemason by the Grand Lodge by the way! They are proud of her, but ashamed of other women for some reason...)

If you want to join the ICA or Curves, then make it your goal to create a mixed ICA Guild, or a mixed Curve Gym. You would be surprised how welcoming they might be, as long as your attitude does not go against their ethos of nurturing activities where women can feel safe from the still dominant macho culture.

In any case, the ICA, Curves and the Mini-Marathon are not somehow magically bound to the destiny of all women's equality. Otherwise you would argue that people from countries where there is no religious freedom should not be allowed to practice their religion in this country.

It is more likely that once the macho culture has stopped, and that even the Grand Lodge re-admit women, the need to have "women-only" events or structure like that will no longer be relevant and will fade away.

But because there are women Freemasons in the first place... your argument does not hold water. (Water which runners in the min-marathon should drink plenty of by the way)

Chemical Burn · 10-04-2013 10:22pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

Men can run the Mini Marathon: they usually wear and dress as mock-women/drag in too obvious a way to fool anyone. It's about having fun, not discriminatin

yes, but women are allowed to compete in the mens only one and they don't have to dress like a man

and women have their own separate slot in the main marathon

eithneoneill · 10-04-2013 10:38pm

Chemical Burn wrote: »

yes, but women are allowed to compete in the mens only one and they don't have to dress like a man

and women have their own separate slot in the main marathon

And unless the Mini-Marathon is somehow a conspiracy by mixed Freemasonry, I do not see how it has anything to do with with women's involvement in Freemasonry.
Involvement that pre-dated the "Grand Lodge", and that has traditionally been promoted by the Grand Orient and by Le Droit Humain.

Chemical Burn · 10-04-2013 10:40pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

And unless the Mini-Marathon is somehow a conspiracy by mixed Freemasonry, I do not see how it has anything to do with with women's involvement in Freemasonry.
Involvement that pre-dated the "Grand Lodge", and that has traditionally been promoted by the Grand Orient and by Le Droit Humain.

but you're avoiding my topic. Please address what I have said. I appreciate your saying that women should be in freemasonary.

But why do men have to dress in drag to do WMM and cannot participate, yet women and can compete in MMM and not dress up ?? same logic. SEXIST !

Absolam · 11-04-2013 4:25am

eithneoneill wrote: »

Modern does not have to be recent.
Olympe de Gouges (who had masonic involvement in the 18th century) and Simone Veil (who is still alive) are more modern than hip-hop rapper who promote violence against women, or so called "regular" Freemasons who find women irregular (is Menstruation the real reason women are rejected by your peers?)

So your definition of modern is pro-feminist agenda?
Allow me to offer an alternative; in the 19th Century it was 'modern' to pursue sexual equality. In the 21st Century it is 'modern' to pursue freedom of individual expression.

Regular Freemasonry doesn't find women irregular; it finds Masonic-like organisations which are a-thiest, political, and admit women, irregular. Trying to reduce that to 'rejecting menstruation' says more about your perspective than the Freemasons.

eithneoneill wrote: »

And women can already "go to the Freemasons": with Grand Orient and Droit Humain. (I still have to choose, I give myself a month or two to decide) They cannot go to the macho Grand Lodge flavour of Freemasonry, but they can be Freemasons.
Just like Elizabeth Saint Leger was a Freemason (before the Grand Lodge time, but recognized as a Freemason by the Grand Lodge by the way! They are proud of her, but ashamed of other women for some reason...)

Firstly, anyone can call themselves a Freemason; there is nothing prohibiting it. This is the case with those who join organisations like the Grand Orients, regardless of whether one is male or female. To be recognised as a Freemason by the (vast) majority of Freemasons in the world, one must be a member of a Masonic lodge recognised by the majority (which Elizabeth Saint Leger was). Grand Orients and Droit Humain just aren't recognised.
I'm fascinated that you think Freemasons are ashamed of women; do you have any basis for this bold statement, other than women can't be members? Again, I suspect this is more about your perspective than that of Freemasons...

eithneoneill wrote: »

It is more likely that once the macho culture has stopped, and that even the Grand Lodge re-admit women, the need to have "women-only" events or structure like that will no longer be relevant and will fade away. But because there are women Freemasons in the first place... your argument does not hold water.

I must admit, the idea of Freemasonry as a 'macho culture' is pretty amusing. Putting forward the idea that Freemasonry should re-admit women, because it once admitted a woman a few hundred years ago and trying to create the impression that Freemasonry used to admit women and should again is also quite amusing.

As above; people (including women) may call themselves Freemasons. They can mimic Masonic rituals, and copy Masonic regalia. But it only makes them Freemasons in their own heads. You may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but the ducks know you're not a duck. Or a drake, as the case may be. Of course, it doesn't matter a jot to those who don't care about ducks in the first place.

The Corinthian · 11-04-2013 11:37am

eithneoneill wrote: »

And unless the Mini-Marathon is somehow a conspiracy by mixed Freemasonry, I do not see how it has anything to do with with women's involvement in Freemasonry.

Then you're not really looking very hard.

The point being made is that gender segregated associations exist, many specifically for women and excluding men and there appears to be little problem in the eyes of women when this occurs. Indeed, other than the Freemasons, the YMCA and the Catholic Church's priesthood, I'm hard pushed to think of many men-only associations, while there is no shortage of Women's business networking associations and even gyms - are there even any men-only gyms?

An interesting recent story highlighted demands for quotas to be introduced into female participation in the Teachers’ Union of Ireland leadership. On the surface, given that 70% of the union's membership is female, this makes sense - yet then you ask yourself why are there so few male teachers in the profession? Should they not consider quotas there? Apparently not, and that's when any sympathy you might have for their cause evaporates.

All this leads to the conclusion that gender equality has become defined as something to only benefit one gender and not equality between them - and in the context of this discussion, this means that associations that bar women should be opened up, yet those that that bar men are ignored or even applauded for 'empowering women'.

At the very least, such an inequitable approach to gender equality leads to a lack of sympathy and support for causes such as the one you propose. As a man, why should I support women having the freedom to become Freemasons or members of male-only associations, when the same women asking for my support give no support (and sometimes hostility) to men's freedom to become members of female-only associations?

If women want men to abandon male-only associations, then lead by example and abandon female-only associations. Quid pro quo. The days where equality may be demanded only one way are over.

eithneoneill · 12-04-2013 10:33pm

You guys really think that society is overwhelmingly biased towards women, that men feel threatened and insecure where women know no go-area in society and all places are safe to them.
And of course women earn more than men, have more political representatives at all levels and are the masters of our society where most everything is tailored to their needs and desires.

In which wonderland you guys are living I wonder.
The fact that some societies whose purpose is explicitly to empower women in a society that still sees them as lesser, does not mean that Freemasons should exclude women by principle as inferiors. Quite the opposite: when they are fully empowered, no society will ever see the need to be female-only.

Also, when it comes to the "need" to believe in gods to be a Freemason, it is a huge historical misunderstanding.
The reason why most original Freemason rules include the belief in a Supreme Being, is because in all those society, religion was not separate from religion (is still is not in England, is not totally in Ireland, but is fully in France).
It was socially disruptive to not be religious (what believers call "a-theist", as if it was the rejection of god(s) that actually existed). And one of the real Freemasonry's principle, is that members of society must abide by all laws and not be socially disruptive.
In religious societies, it required the belief in the local divinities.

Nearly quoting one of their website I finally found yesterday:

Modern Freemasonry considers that the "Supreme Being", or the "Architect of the Universe" is an organizing principle of order and ethics.
It can be science, consciousnesses, justice and the Law even, and in religious society it can be a god too! Something sacred if you will.
But it does not have to be god(s).
[Bu the way, "atheists" only believe in one lesser god than monotheists, who thus are also atheists as regards all the other gods.]

That is why they do not use "books of the sacred law" but "of the sacred lore".

Absolam · 13-04-2013 1:30am

Well, I certainly don't live in a fantasy land where society is overwhelmingly biased towards men, that women feel threatened and insecure where men know no go-area in society and all places are safe to them. Where men earn more than women, have more political representatives at all levels and are the masters of our society where most everything is tailored to their needs and desires.
I think that society ceased to exist a long time ago, if it ever existed at all,and whilst it's obvious that absolute sexual equaliy is not totally prevalent across all aspects of first world society, neither can women take the easy road of blaming society for their failure to achieve any more; just like men these days it's much more about you, much less about your sex. The idea that until society meets your requirements for equality it is acceptable to maintain a double standard and have female only organisations ( who will of course disband once utopia arrives) whilst decrying male only organisations is just a little Orwellian...

I understand it's that kind of 'poor me, I'm oppressed' perspective that leads you to make statements like

eithneoneill wrote: »

The fact that some societies whose purpose is explicitly to empower women in a society that still sees them as lesser, does not mean that Freemasons should exclude women by principle as inferiors.

, but you know Freemasonry doesn't exclude women as inferiors. Blatantly lying to bolster your apparent 'oppression' really doesn't help your argument.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Also, when it comes to the "need" to believe in gods to be a Freemason, it is a huge historical misunderstanding.

Actually, I think you're the one who is misunderstanding here. The requirement of belief in a supreme being is a current one. How it came to be a requirement is interesting in an academic sense, and obviously open to debate, but the fact that it is a requirement admits of no debate at all.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2013 9:33am

eithneoneill wrote: »

You guys really think that society is overwhelmingly biased towards women, that men feel threatened and insecure where women know no go-area in society and all places are safe to them.
And of course women earn more than men, have more political representatives at all levels and are the masters of our society where most everything is tailored to their needs and desires.

No one suggested that society is overwhelmingly biased towards women, so please spare us your strawman nonsense.

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.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, one might be living in some wonderland where society is overwhelmingly biased towards men, where only women are discriminated against and men only for. In that twisted fantasy, I'm certain that 'reform' that only helps women makes perfect sense then - that the road to gender equality is a one-way street.

And unfortunately, that does tend to be the approach of many nowadays; quotas for areas where women are in the minority, yet other areas such as child custody or jobs in industries such as HR or teaching where men are in the minority go ignored.

So I understand your wish that women be admitted into the Freemasons (actually, I have difficulty at the best of times understanding mens' wish to be Freemasons), but given that you've no problem when the shoe is on the other foot, I may understand but I frankly neither care nor offer support.

Come back when what you want to see changed is going to benefit both genders and not just your own.

eithneoneill · 13-04-2013 11:20am

Absolam wrote: »

[...]Actually, I think you're the one who is misunderstanding here. The requirement of belief in a supreme being is a current one. How it came to be a requirement is interesting in an academic sense, and obviously open to debate, but the fact that it is a requirement admits of no debate at all.

It is only a current requirement for religiosity-based Freemasonry. Not for all Freemasonry. Not for the modern Freemasonry!

As for the comments on sexism and the quasi-oppression of men in society, I let people judge for themselves how laughable they are. I giggled

What matters is that there is no no objective reasons for Freemaosnry to be "men-only", except the desire of the most sexist of its members, which seem to be the majority.
You said yourself in another thread that the reason women are not accepted in your flavor of Freemasonry is by choice of the members, who make the rules... so there is no reason other than them not wanting women around.

In the flavor of Freemasonry I am interested in, in which I am considered an equal and not an object, members have decided to accept women.

If you were sincere in your "it's a member's choice", then the Grand Lodge would not exclude Lodges that may decide to admit women for themselves, following in the footstep of that great Freemason woman, Elizabeth Saint Leger! (Other lodges may be free to refuse visitation right on their own sexism)

But you are saying that if Elizabeth Saint Leger was still alive, or was time-travelling, or was coming back to life, she would no longer be welcome in "regular" Freemasonry.
I find that offensive to her memory.

eithneoneill · 13-04-2013 11:30am

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one suggested that society is overwhelmingly biased towards women, so please spare us your strawman nonsense.

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.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, one might be living in some wonderland where society is overwhelmingly biased towards men, where only women are discriminated against and men only for. In that twisted fantasy, I'm certain that 'reform' that only helps women makes perfect sense then - that the road to gender equality is a one-way street.

And unfortunately, that does tend to be the approach of many nowadays; quotas for areas where women are in the minority, yet other areas such as child custody or jobs in industries such as HR or teaching where men are in the minority go ignored.

So I understand your wish that women be admitted into the Freemasons (actually, I have difficulty at the best of times understanding mens' wish to be Freemasons), but given that you've no problem when the shoe is on the other foot, I may understand but I frankly neither care nor offer support.

Come back when what you want to see changed is going to benefit both genders and not just your own.

What a twisted view of what I said.

First, there is a difference between promoting women in some areas where they are historically under threat, and wanting an Amazon-society.

Second, the DOE has launched initiatives to promote recruitment of male teachers. Nothing stops men from becoming teachers if they want to, it is now even promoted to attract them, not to remove hurdles that do not exist. Same for HR or nursing, there is no hurdle, just less interest.

Third, the women-only clubs mentioned have a stated aim of being women-only support groups.
Freemasonry has a history of being men-only, but the essence of Freemasonry does not have a single reason to be men-only. Historically, only Free Citizens were allowed: thus women and slaves, who were not allowed to vote and were in submission in those societies, were not allowed.
Once slavery stopped, and women gained the right to vote and manage their lives equally, they became equally free adults, who (if of good character) have no reason to not be admitted.
(And since not being religious or theist is no longer a sign a bad character in our societies, the requirement for the belief in gods became obsolete too)

The so-called "Regular" Freemasonry behaves like the Catholic Church:
- It knows things have changed
- It knows its rules were created in a different time, to cater for different circumstances
- But it pretends these rules are landmarks that cannot be changed now, even if they are no longer relevant

The do not care about the Truth, but they only care about wjhat they perceive as Traditions. But a Tradition that defies its original purpose is an oppression.
At the time of the "Free Men" rule, no one in society ever imagined a women would every be free. but they wanted to ensure all Free people were allowed to join.
Now, more than 50% of the Free people are rejected by that dying strand of Freemasonry, just like in America some may reject Black people! Just because when the first lodges were create, Black people were only seen as Slaves in America, so when they were freed their former owners made sure they sere not allowed in Lodges!

The Corinthian · 13-04-2013 11:33am

eithneoneill wrote: »

As for the comments on sexism and the quasi-oppression of men in society, I let people judge for themselves how laughable they are. I giggled

So, other than climbing down from your earlier strawman whereby men are "overwhelmingly" to now only being "quasi" oppressed, you still deny - indeed simply dismiss - the notion that there is any discrimination against men, ignoring even the example of family law.

You appear to be the only one laughing here.

I find that offensive to her memory.

And many of us find your views pretty offensive too.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2013 11:41am

eithneoneill wrote: »

First, there is a difference between promoting women in some areas where they are historically under threat, and wanting an Amazon-society.

Ultimately not. If you only promote one gender, often to the detriment of the other, and either ignore or even oppose the promotion of the other, then the result is the same.

Nothing stops men from becoming teachers if they want to, it is now even promoted to attract them, not to remove hurdles that do not exist. Same for HR or nursing, there is no hurdle, just less interest.

By the same logic, nothing stops women from running for office or to prioritize career over family (the reverse of which is where the pay gap comes from). Yet apparently quotas are the solution there - is what is good for the goose, not good for the gander?

Third, the women-only clubs mentioned have a stated aim of being women-only support groups.

Women-only gyms are support groups? Or if a men-only business networking association were to be set up, you'd have no objection?

Sorry, but coupled with your previous dismissals, I'd not support anything born of such a mindset, any more than I would any campaign initiated by the Klu Klux Klan.

Absolam · 13-04-2013 12:45pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

It is only a current requirement for religiosity-based Freemasonry. Not for all Freemasonry. Not for the modern Freemasonry!

Actually, it is a requirement for modern Freemasonry. It is not a requirement for organisations that call themselves Freemasons, but are not recognised by modern Freemasonry.

eithneoneill wrote: »

What matters is that there is no no objective reasons for Freemaosnry to be "men-only", except the desire of the most sexist of its members, which seem to be the majority.

What matters is there is only one objective reason for Freemasonry to be men only; the members are free to associate with whom they choose. What the motivation is for that choice, be it sexism, traditionalism, or simple contrariness, is irrelevant; it's their right to choose.

eithneoneill wrote: »

You said yourself in another thread that the reason women are not accepted in your flavor of Freemasonry is by choice of the members, who make the rules... so there is no reason other than them not wanting women around.

As I said the reason is not really all that relevant, except to those who have a stake in it. The members are entitled to choose the membership, and they have chosen not to include women.

eithneoneill wrote: »

In the flavor of Freemasonry I am interested in, in which I am considered an equal and not an object, members have decided to accept women.

Again you leap from not permitting women to be members, to treating women as objects. There is no corellation; there's no evidence for your assertion, simply your own prejudice putting the two together.

eithneoneill wrote: »

If you were sincere in your "it's a member's choice", then the Grand Lodge would not exclude Lodges that may decide to admit women for themselves, following in the footstep of that great Freemason woman, Elizabeth Saint Leger! (Other lodges may be free to refuse visitation right on their own sexism)

. You seem to have missed a step in your logic. The Grand Lodge does not exclude Lodges that decide to admit women for themselves; no Lodges decide to admit women. Organisations that mimic Freemasonry, are not excluded by Grand Lodge. They were never included in Freemasonry in the first place. What exactly do you think made Elizabeth St Leger a 'great' Freemason? Which particular aspect of her behaviour do you think is worthy of calling on people to follow in her footsteps?

eithneoneill wrote: »

But you are saying that if Elizabeth Saint Leger was still alive, or was time-travelling, or was coming back to life, she would no longer be welcome in "regular" Freemasonry. I find that offensive to her memory.

. Are you even aware of the circumstances under which Elizabeth St Leger was initiated? She was hardly a 'great' Freemason, as you say, nor a heroine. She wasn't exactly 'welcome' in Freemasonry in the first place; she was caught spying on her father and his friends, and they decided the only way to ensure she kept the secrets she had witnessed was to have her swear the oath of an initiate. She's not exactly a role model or poster girl for women in Freemasonry. In what way would refusing to initiate her today be offensive to her memory?

Absolam · 13-04-2013 1:59pm

eithneoneill wrote: »

Freemasonry has a history of being men-only, but the essence of Freemasonry does not have a single reason to be men-only.

That's a pretty nebulous assertion; what qualifies you to determine what the essence of Freemasonry is? You're not a Freemason.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Historically, only Free Citizens were allowed: thus women and slaves, who were not allowed to vote and were in submission in those societies, were not allowed. Once slavery stopped, and women gained the right to vote and manage their lives equally, they became equally free adults, who (if of good character) have no reason to not be admitted. (And since not being religious or theist is no longer a sign a bad character in our societies, the requirement for the belief in gods became obsolete too).

You're assuming the intent (at the time) was to only admit free citizens, and thus all other qualifications flowed from that intent. Can you provide any evidence for your assumption? Historically, being a free man was one of the qualifications, because only a free man was free to enter into an obligation. This, historically, excluded bondsmen, which included serfs and slaves. But the organisation was from the outset a fraternity, which excluded women quite apart from the fact that in some societies women might not have been free to enter into an obligation. Your idea that theism is an obsolete requirement is purely based on your opinion that being being a theist was a requirement based on it demonstrating good character. Can you provide any evidence for that assumption? In all, you're arguing against qualifications for membership based on your own assumptions for their existance.

eithneoneill wrote: »

The so-called "Regular" Freemasonry behaves like the Catholic Church:
- It knows things have changed
- It knows its rules were created in a different time, to cater for different circumstances
- But it pretends these rules are landmarks that cannot be changed now, even if they are no longer relevant

I honestly can't see how any of these things make Freemasonry like the Catholic Church. I suspect, because the Catholic Church doesn't have women priests, and Freemasonry doesn't have women members, they are just the same to you, and all else follows...
However, I'll just pick up the one point 'it pretends these rules are landmarks'. If Freemasonry chooses to says its' rules are its' landmarks, who is entitled to say different, other than its' members? It's not pretending; it's a fact, because the members say so.

eithneoneill wrote: »

The do not care about the Truth, but they only care about wjhat they perceive as Traditions.

Freemasonry is not a religion; the 'Truth' is not really our province.

eithneoneill wrote: »

But a Tradition that defies its original purpose is an oppression.

Is Christmas an oppression? Who does it oppress? Anyway, what Masonic tradition defies its' original purpose, and who does it oppress?

eithneoneill wrote: »

At the time of the "Free Men" rule, no one in society ever imagined a women would every be free. but they wanted to ensure all Free people were allowed to join.

Even at the time of the "Free Men" rule, there was no intent that all Free people were allowed to join; there were other qualifications for membership, as you have said yourself.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Now, more than 50% of the Free people are rejected by that dying strand of Freemasonry, just like in America some may reject Black people! Just because when the first lodges were create, Black people were only seen as Slaves in America, so when they were freed their former owners made sure they sere not allowed in Lodges!

This dying strand of Freemasonry, which for the last two hundred years has been mimicked by these wonderfully 'modern' organisations, yet still remains? Trying to join your cause to racial emancipation doesn't really help you; when Lodges were first formed in America many negroes were slaves; and free negroes were being admitted to Lodges long before slavery was abolished. Regular Freemasonry in America today does not exclude black men; just women.

eithneoneill · 13-04-2013 2:09pm

Absolam,
when was the last time that your members voted on the joining of women?
Otherwise all you are saying is that long-dead members are ruling the roost, and no hen is allowed in!

And I am not saying Freemasonry is dying: it is thriving!
Your old-fashion strand of conservative Freemasonry is dying. You may think it is the only real Freemasonry (like Catholics think they are the only true Christians), but it is not!

But you will never be able to see that, so what is the point of me wasting more time with you?
I will only interact further with people who engage with the concept of women engaging in Freemasonry, not with people whose vested interest is to prevent their wife to know what they do with their "free" time.

eithneoneill · 13-04-2013 2:16pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, other than climbing down from your earlier strawman whereby men are "overwhelmingly" to now only being "quasi" oppressed, you still deny - indeed simply dismiss - the notion that there is any discrimination against men, ignoring even the example of family law.

You appear to be the only one laughing here.

And many of us find your views pretty offensive too.

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

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!
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.
The kind of views that prevailed in society when Freemasonry decided to not even contemplate the possibility that one day women would be free agents. Ironically your argument of why women are not welcome in Freemasonry are the same arguments that resulted in men being (this time really and objectively) discriminated in one of the few areas in society where they have not prevailed: family law.

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. (Same argument as for same-sex marriage)
The reasons that led to favoring white men in Freemasonry are no longer relevant, therefore I support that they should evolve toward more equality in the best interest of humanity.
I tend to be consistent in my beliefs, and not twist them according to my own best interest.

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.

Time for women to engage with Freemasonry?

Comments