Freemasonry and Women

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 06 Oct 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

jmd	06 Oct 2002
Though some Lodges allow women to its ranks, most do not. It has pointed out that there appears to be no satisfactory explanation to this situation - and I personally agree - hence the reason why I at times refer to Co-masonry when the subject arises. I remember that even as a university student, 'man' was used to refer to human beings of either gender. For Freemasonry to now use this term and say that it therefore excludes women is either historically blind or dishonest. That some of the words used in some versions of the ritual excludes the possibility of women being members only highlights the fact that some legitimate Lodges had already included women within their ranks. From the various people whom I know, I can mention that the wives of many Freemasons would not like women to be able to become members in an Order they may personally have no interest in, but would, at the same time, feel threatened should other women be admitted. I think the tide may be slowly changing - but it will do so, I suspect, in quite minute paces. The first step is for Lodges in the Male Craft to recognise that Co-Masonry actually exists, and that it has a legitimate historical connection. The rest will slowly follow.

Diana	06 Oct 2002
jmd: Thank you for this clear explanation to something that has been bothering me ever since I started hearing about FreeMasonry. I have never cared that the Roman Catholic Church excludes Women, because I do not expect anything better from such an Organisation (I do not hold the Roman Catholic church in very high esteem, to be polite), but I have always been rather annoyed at FreeMasonry, because I would have expected them to have evolved. Luckily there are some other old orders who do not seem to bother too much about gender and where I suspect Women do not have to bother to fight for their birthright. And I hope that in time, all (well, at least most) FreeMasonry lodges will free themselves of their chains of prejudice.

Moongold	06 Oct 2002
JMD, Are Freemason's allowed to exclude women from membership now under Victorian Discrimination legislation? Perhaps I should go check to see whether religious organizations are covered by the legislation. I suspect they are not, otherwise the Catholic and some other churches would have been taken to the courts a long time ago in terms of women's access to ordination. Of course, I wonder why women would want to join the Freemasons anyway when there are many other organizations who would welcome their membership in terms of *good works* or worship. However, that's just a personal view. Moongold

AmounrA	06 Oct 2002
I would have to say that the masonic cry of '"Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" does seem to ring a little weak when one considers the attitude towards women. "The first step is for Lodges in the Male Craft to recognise that Co-Masonry actually exists, and that it has a legitimate historical connection. The rest will slowly follow." I completly agree. Some freemasons that I know, when I asked them about this basically said that women had a different spiritual nature to men. That these two different types of nature complement each other and lead to a larger 'whole', but that in essense they walk different paths. They say that lodges and lodge buisness is suited/tailored to the male path. They have no problem with women only lodges on a equal footing to the male lodges. I agree that men and women are different, but I don't know about the seperation. I would come down on the side of totally mixed lodges...getting women in would add another half to the spiritual window...but they would have to be sponsored from the outset.

jmd	07 Oct 2002
Moongold, you ask 'Are Freemasons allowed to exclude women from membership now under Victorian Discrimination legislation?' It is my understanding that this went to court a number of years ago, and that the outcome was that women are permitted to be excluded - but I don't recall the specifics. Since you're talking about Victoria (Aus.), it is worth pointing out that there are about five Lodges of Co-Masonry in Melbourne, and at least one in the Castlemaine area (and maybe others I remain unaware of). AmounrA, I have heard this argument about the difference in gender-specific spirituality - much of which, incidently, I agree with - but the argument that Freemasonry is very male-energy oriented may very well be simply because only men partake in male-only Lodges - a self-fulfilling prophecy! And one which lacks its complement! I tend to agree with your comment regarding a preference for mixed Lodges - but we'll have to wait quite a while for this. Diana, I agree with you that there are other Orders which accept people of either gender - hopefully, Freemasonry will also return to some of its earlier acceptance of the same! And your views, Umbrae?

Diana	07 Oct 2002
I can understand some men's reticence in letting women into something they feel is a man's thing. And I suppose that if some men prefer not to interact with women during their search, it is better this not be forced upon them until they are ready. But this does not mean that women should be excluded from any of the learning process. Anyway, you all know I'm not a FreeMason, and I doubt I will ever be one (not until they've sorted out this gender business in a manner which puts women on an equal footing. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years?) So I should not really be talking about stuff I don't know anything about. But I sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut! :D

Laurel	07 Oct 2002
I have considered Co-Masonry before in my life. My feelings on Freemasonry and their policies about women are mixed. I have a hard time articulating them; not sure how to put it in words. I think its important for Freemasonry to change slowly on this issue and not simply out of pressure from "Political Correctness". I would be more than satisfied for Freemasonry to give Co-Masonry "separate but valid" status and leave it at that. That is definately the first step. The resistance to change on the part of Freemasonry doesn't bother me. As a historical institution and foundation for the subsequent occult revival, Freemasonry is extraordinary. Its traditions are a source of its strength. These days, its lore are available in almost any used book store- anyone who wanted to see what "those Masons are really up to" wouldn't have a hard search. The only problem arises when the internal and external worlds intertwine- when membership in Freemasonry (or any gender/racially exclusive org for that matter) conveys a status in the general community such that one has an "edge" when running for political office, etc. Laurel

Moongold	07 Oct 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Diana Anyway, you all know I'm not a FreeMason, and I doubt I will ever be one (not until they've sorted out this gender business in a manner which puts women on an equal footing. Perhaps in a couple of hundred years?) So I should not really be talking about stuff I don't know anything about. But I sometimes just can't keep my mouth shut! :D I must acknowledge that I am quite ignorant as well. I simply thought that Freemasonry was some kind of men's club that was anti-Catholic but that did charitable works from time to time and had a secret handshake. Now, that comes from way back in my own Catholic childhood. A very quick internet search last night revealed not much more. It seems that Freemasonry has been somewhat involved in the history of the occult? My interest was sparked by the male only membership issue and the fact that I have been an Equal Opportunity consultant. The Freemasons in Victoria operate a hospital, some very good aged services and possibly a whole lot more than I'm aware of. Moongold

Umbrae	08 Oct 2002
Although history tells us the Masons date back to the 1700’s, artifacts tell us that the Masons go back to at least the 1300’s in one form or another. There is a history here. I have very mixed feelings about women in Freemasonry (afterwards, simply Masons), and CoMasonry is unheard of out here on the west coast of the US. Golly, allow me to back up a tad… Masonry is a fraternal organization. Fraternal comes from what Latin roots? It is not pretty, but it is a fact, men act different when women are not present. Call it less posturing or posing – call it what you will, there is a difference (I do not condemn nor condone – merely point out the fact that this exists). For me (personally), it is good to be able to go to and be part of a group where there is no posturing – where we can be and are, truly fraternal. Nowadays we live in a society where we are supposed to be enlightened and equal (a couple months back there was a scientific report that discussed that women and men process information differently, and indeed are different…what a surprise). Women have successfully petitioned entry into what until recently were men-only, institutions. Has it been worthwhile? Has it enriched our society as a whole or in part? A while back, I attempted to join the YWCA. I was told, “Sorry, women only”. So I went to the YMCA for a swim. “Sorry, this is the Women’s Only Swim time”. “But I want to swim! Not date!” “ Sorry, you’re a man…” Later I went to a women’s clinic for medical treatment. I was refused…it was explained that women have ‘special needs’. (Try as I might, on a women’s anatomy chart I am unable to find either a prostate or testicles). Then there is the Lifetime Television (programming for women)… Sometimes I feel that although NOW (National Organization of Women) is okay, as soon as we start an NOM, they will cry unfair and petition for membership. I had a friend of 27 years before his passing. We were brothers, though not by blood. My wife was also acquainted with him before meeting me. There was closeness between us that has been unparalleled. It was a fraternal relationship. We were brothers. In today’s highly charged and civilized world, there are fewer opportunities for these types of relationships. Hunting and fishing trips are scorned by many, though they serve as a bonding agent between men. It is good to have an opportunity to be part of a fraternal organization where we are not having to kill stuff; where sexual definition is not an issue; that is of a spiritual nature – that teaches and guides us to be better men – and thus, better humans.

Diana	08 Oct 2002
Umbrae: I acknowledge that men and women do not all want to mix on all levels. For instance, I would not expect monks and nuns to live together under the same roof, that would be nonsensical. And on a more simple level, when I have a girl's night out with my girlfriends, the last thing we want is to have a guy around, because we can't talk about our girls' stuff. But I repeat (well, more or less) what I said in my post above - I think it is a shame to not give women the opportunity to uncover and/or recover the same knowledge that men are able to in the Freemason movement. That is my issue. If some men want to keep the lodges to themselves, let them. If some are open to co-lodges, that's great. Perhaps some women would like to have their own gender lodges? My question is now: What are the Masons trying to preserve, by not allowing Women, in some form or another, reach the highest echelons? Is it just gender prejudice, or is it something else? Of course, if it is something else, no-one is going to tell me, so I don't know why I bother to ask. :(

AmounrA	08 Oct 2002
Umbrae, I understand your concerns. If women went through the same entry path as the men do, it should ensure the quality of member. I also feel that if a woman was not accepted in, they should have no cause or path for complaint.....no quotas should be expected. A major advantage about freemasonary is that you can only get in by invitation, not application. There are in my mind certainly women who would add to the [living] orders, and the sex barrier should be removed. Freemasons , it could be argued, did a hell lot to create the free thinking societies of the west, they have been ahead of there times, and by ending the men only rule, they would show they have a lot to give to the 21st century. I would also say that women did have an enormous case for fair and equal treatment by society [in the west] and still do in other parts of the world [india, china,middle east etc] It saddens me in many ways that the feminist movement was taken over by lesbians and extremists, instead of focusing there attention on womens rights around the world.

Moongold	08 Oct 2002
Hi Umbrae, I think most people have no difficulty with the concept of men having the opportunity to be fraternal. I am simply interested in people having equal opportunity to employment, education, recreation, health, housing and countless other things that many of us take for granted. Gender, disability, racial background, sexual preference. parental status, political & religious beliefs have often been the grounds for denying people access to these rights. I have little interest in freemasonery per se but I would be concerned if I was not considered for employment if I was gay, Moslem or have a disability for example. That's all. In Australia, if groups feel they really need to get exemption from equal opportunity legislation they can apply. In one place where I worked we felt we needed male workers to balance staff teams in psychiatric disability services and we had no difficulty getting exemptions from the legislation. If we didn't have this kind of consciousness (EO) you would still have slavery in the US and women wouldn't have the vote either. One could go on. I know almost nothing about freemasonery but I imagine that if they were given an exemption under our EO legislation they would have had a good case. Exemptions are usually time limited and the legislation simply means that groups have to continually look at their values and modus operandi. Nobody would stop you and your mates going fishing. Most women I know would be pleased to see their menfolk taking the time out to do that. And there are good reasons to have gender specific health services. I'm sure the one you went to was probably one of a range of health services in the area and that if you really needed health care you could have got it in your community. Lastly, I abhor the fact that women are not allowed access to the priesthood in the Catholic and other Churches but accept that change in these massive institutions must occur internally. There are all sorts of complex issues around the separation of Church and State involved here as well. But the changes are happening. The Catholic priesthood is dying out in the western world precisely because of the gender and celibacy issues and eventually another Pope will initiate a process of positive change within the Church. Some things just take time. Moongold

Laurel	08 Oct 2002
Thank you for writing what you did, Umbrae. It helped me put together my own thoughts. I think that fraternal orders and sisterhoods should exist. I support the idea of Freemasonry remaining a fraternal order; I'm greatful for the existence of Co-Masonry, because I believe that the traditions and insights of the Freemasons are valuable to both men and women and am relieved that there is an outlet for women to be involved in them. However, the reasons -why- women are excluded from Freemasonry are ones I can accept. The Catholic priesthood is another different matter to me, but a very complicated one. As a non-Catholic, I don't think I deserve much of a say in the matter, though. LOL. I personally could not join any religious or philosophical tradition where the priesthood was segregated by gender, race, or sexual preference/identification. Laurel

jmd	08 Oct 2002
I am only going to add a small comment related to Diana's 'I think it is a shame to not give women the opportunity to uncover and/or recover the same knowledge that men are able to in the Freemason movement'. Has as been mentioned, women are given - through (mixed and women only Lodges of) Co-Masonry - the opportunity to discover for themselves the 'secrets' of Freemasonry, which remain, however, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. It is to these that the seeker must slowly turn their attention to and penetrate with wisdom and with understanding. That many Freemasons remain primarily focussed upon its charitable works (such as its hospitals or aged care facilities) also remains important for some. As to whether they will thereby be able or even interested in its inner Mysteries is another question. I suppose that it is to these latter to which Diana, amongst others, were hinting. As to Co-Masonry's existence on the West coast of the US, I thought that they did have Lodges... but I do not have any details. If any are interested in membership, do not wait to be 'invited' - ask! Only then may the invitation be extended.

Macavity	09 Oct 2002
Someone remarked on a commonality between occult groups and Free Masonry. I think it is well established that a number of founding fathers (sic) of these groups were indeed also high ranking masons. Alistair Crowley was indeed one(?) and adapted symbolism, grade structure etc. for the Golden Dawn. ISTR he claimed a *continuing* membership of Masonry, but it also seems anecdotal that he was EXPELLED at some stage? :D On a positive note, he appeared to encourage female membership of early GD, yet (ironically?) retained the view that Masons should remain exclusively male! Yet, on looking at pictures of "Crowley Women" one can hardly fails to note they are seemingly so often naked, or imprinted with some sort of "ownership" mark? Hmmm. In fairness, this was perhaps individual and (hopefully) things have changed within the GD, Masonry and much more besides since 1900s? :) Clearly noone these days would attempt to deny women access to hidden knowledge, to contribute to charitable work, to cultivate (equally nefarious!) "business" contacts etc. But instinctively I remain somewhat concerned for those FIRST women to penetrate traditional "male only" groups. Having once been a member of well known (public approved!) male *dominated* (albeit NON-masonic) group it was apparent that women members did "chaperone" younger/newer ones - often away from SOME men! With reason? :( In fairness, real problems were few, but they WERE anecdotal. But minor "incidents", jealousies, mind games were (imo) all too common for comfort - Some wives had reason for suspicion? :) Overall, one was left feeling that such "pathologies" were significantly MORE common than in everyday society, perhaps simply by dint of opportunity(?) or encouraged by the culture of "secrecy" - Even from family members. But "issues" aside, my prevailing feeling was that it REALLY was a bit like taking a step into the PAST! To a pre-60's, pre-women's liberation time? IT just ALL seemed such a retrograde step, particularly for the women and frankly not that much more FUN for the men involved either? These days, I feel that if I want esoteric knowledge, spirituality, male company, heck even a (female) "date", then there were simply *BETTER* places... and perhaps where motives are LESS confused in some minds. Perhaps one should not dwell on negativity? I often feel a modicum of common sense is helpful on primary safety issues! But back to those (poor beleagured) Masons - I think someone once said that attitudes prevailed for a time scale of "living memory". There are good reasons to asign a value of 200 years to this! Maybe there is still time for change? :) One can but sincerely applaud attempts at increasing openness about the nature of these otherwise fascinating organisations, particularly via the Web. But finally, perhaps an interim solution is to build up sufficient members of a single sex group, then suggest combining male and female groups. Better still START with a balance of ages/sexes etc.? Join as a couple etc. Mac "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as member" })

jmd	10 Oct 2002
Moving-in to Golden Dawn matters, it was that order's founding members who determined that women be part of the order, not Crowley, who was only made a member by the already relatively removed Mathers when this latter had somewhat lost touch with the developments in the UK (in which the GD was located). The grade structure 'follows' SRIA structures, on the whole, and these are clearly different from those of Freemasonry. The SRIA and its derived Golden Dawn and various other orders follow far more eclectic and syncretic Rosicrucian and Hermetic lines than Freemasonry would ever be comfortable with. Nonetheless, I do think that Macavity brings quite important considerations into this discussion. For me, the most important one is that we are bound to find certain similarities amongst various esoteric or initiatic Occidental orders. After all, these reflect the Occidental traditions, and are thus embedded within the same expression of the Spiritual, and, more importantly, these organisations will need to emerge with particular forms for their effectiveness upon our similar spiritual and thus global human condition.

AmounrA	10 Oct 2002
I think what is high lighted here is a difference between 'occult orders' and 'religion' is evolution. In many ways religion becomes chained by dogma, and cannot move forward except in different interpretations. The occult on the other had is fairly fluid. The golden dawn could be seen as a growth from Rosicrucian systems & Masonic traditions. The golden dawn then spit many ways..... one way is with Crowley, and the thelmites. Here the occult central core is not what went before, but new information, namely the Aiwass changelings made by Crowley in Egypt (1904). The thelmite system is an evolution, if you choose to belief the 1904 communication (I do). For this Crowley used his wife as a 'Scarlet women’, Crowley was a big believer in using women in such rituals. Thelma is open to men and women. Crowley went on to cross the Abyss in 1909 Crowley was admitted to the highest grade (33) of the Ancient Scottish Rite of masonry on 1910 Crowley was only so devoted to mathers because he thought mathers was in contact with secret chiefs. Mathers was not only head of the (hermatic order of) golden dawn, but also head of an order called 'order of the red rose and the golden cross’, a Rosicrucian order. The golden dawn is the first order of the great white brotherhood, the red rose and the golden cross is the second order of the great white brotherhood. The name great white brotherhood is unfortunate today as it seems to suggest a klu klux klan type of affair........ it means nothing of the sort however, and the white merely refers to white magick. The top order of this brotherhood is known as Argenteum Astrum. Crowley did go on to get into this order, open only to those who have crossed the abyss. The golden dawn is very much the first step, of an extremely clever and mysterious occult system. The occult often takes on new ideas and developments, its up to the seeker if s/he wishes to believe and use the new branches.

Macavity	11 Oct 2002
In fairness, I should perhaps clarify that MY observations are specific to a rather short-term (and negative!) experience with one particular (albeit benign?) "religous cult" (sic). Fwiw, both these terms are used in accordance with the generally accepted legal status of that group. These experiences may or may not suggest similarities to any other groups, but I think this thread has highlighted (to me anyway) how a group (or perhaps it's leadership) attitude to WOMEN can be a useful litmus test or predictor of how I might LATER feel disposed to it's more general attitudes and ideas? :) Thanks for the clarifications re. the Golden Dawn. Probably not much should be read into my post except perhaps that I speak from a position of uhm... limited knowledge? ;) But a large tome on OTO, GD, Rosicrucianism etc. has been beckoning to me from a shelf at the local bookstore for some time! It is perhaps typical (unsurprising) that so many religious, spiritual, cult, occult, santanic groups seem to be rather stereotyped in introductory texts by a vocal/radical subsets of membership - Doubtless Notoriety sells? Nevertheless, there are (imo) also some fascinating insights into the pedigree of these groups... Best, Mac

DarkElectric	11 Oct 2002
Equal rights are not special rights. If indeed the argument is for places to bond with one's own gender, then, what is wrong with a YWCA, or a Women's lifetime channel or anything else? How many years were women told "This is men only" and actually had to put up with it? So we have a few things for ourselves, (just like men have always had. The proportionate disbalance in favour of males in this department throughout history is overwhelming) and men complain? Ok. In 1995 (yes) a woman sued our local country club, because she was a single female and was denied membership based on this. Here was a woman who had paid cash for her luxury home, owned a company, made over 250 thousand a year, and was denied membership because she didn't have some HUSBAND? Give me a break. She won, by the way. And if men choose to act differently around women, you know, choice is the operative phrase here. Nobody has to. Why don't they feel free to be themselves? What are some men so afraid will show, that they think women don't know already? Are many men trying to collectively hide something? Maybe a lot more women would stop hating men if they felt that there was no more facade for whomever's benefit. Or detriment. I personally don't hate men. But I know a lot of women who do. And the male privilege thing has a LOT more to do with this than many men seem to realise. People are people. Let's all get with that and make the world better.

Laurel	11 Oct 2002
There's an excellent book out there called _Women of the Golden Dawn_ that discusses the role women had in that order from its earliest days, starting as the very first Iniate. (Fiona Matthers was the first one put through the Neophyte Ritual). There's nothing wrong with the YWCA and Lifetime programming. There's nothing wrong with the YMCA and "The Man Show". There's nothing wrong with Freemasonry being a fraternity. There's nothing wrong with Co-Masonry being open to women as well as men (There is a Co-Mason lodge here in Seattle with a female lodge master; I know this because her husband, a neuro-surgeon from Brazil, attends archangelic evocation classes with me.) There's nothing wrong with women-only Empowerment groups. There's nothing wrong with man-only Empowerment groups. The best way to empower women in Freemasonry would be for more women to become Co-Masons and empower Co-Masonry. I have no idea how strong or widespread co-masonry is. If Co-Masonry didn't exist, it would be time to create it. Now that its been created, women who would like to be masons should join it. :) Another side note: Several Freemason lodges here in the Seattle allow the OTO (Crowley's thelemic Ordo Templis Orientis) to hold events such as Mass or the Planetary Rites inside lodges, and the OTO is mixed gender. I've participated in public OTO events inside Freemason lodges. In fact, the local Freemasons are extremely giving in time and resources to both the occult and mundane community in general.

DarkElectric	11 Oct 2002
Right on, Laurel. We need progress, not politics.

jmd	12 Oct 2002
Not having made a worthy link in this thread, I thought I should attach one on, specifically: Women and Freemasonry Even brethren in the male Craft may be surprised at some of the information!

Moongold	12 Oct 2002
Had a casual look through some books and on the internet this evening and discovered a little more about the connections of Freemasonry with Tarot. Court de Gebelin and Gerard Encausse ......There seems to be a very rich history.....and I've only scratched the surface. This extra material looks very interesting, and now I understand a lot more about the Freemasons who were our neighbours many many years ago as well. Thanks again, Moongold

jmd	12 Oct 2002
Just thought I would add a few personal remarks - more as addition rather than any response. I personally have always found it quite interesting that many men interested in the Tarot have also been interested in Freemasonry - though the reverse certainly doesn't hold true (I would say that of the 20 000 + Freemasons in Victoria alone, only a very small handful would have Tarot interests). I suppose that as in Freemasonry, the Tarot provides us with allegories illustrated with symbols - though in Tarot's case, the allegories remain unstated - which, of necessity given our interests, we seek to understand. But here the analogy between the two ends. Encausse (Papus), de Gebelin, Alliette (Etteilla), Mathers, Levi and numerous others had interests in both, but one shouldn't assume that there must therefore be a connection between the Tarot and Freemasonry. Any connection remains, as far as I am concerned, neither historically nor spiritually correct. Historically, the two emerge in different locations and contexts, and spiritually, whereas Freemasonry works mainly upon the Moral Intuitive Will, Tarot works upon the True and Imaginative Thinking.

Diana	12 Oct 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Encausse (Papus), de Gebelin, Alliette (Etteilla), Mathers, Levi and numerous others had interests in both, but one shouldn't assume that there must therefore be a connection between the Tarot and Freemasonry. I hear you, jmd. But if you could see the look on my face, you would see it is a very sceptical look, accompanied by a slow shake of the head. I know next to nothing about Freemasonry symbolism, obviously. But I have in my mind the picture of the chained figure on the left of the Devil arcanum in the Camoin Marseilles deck, and the figure on the right on the Sun arcanum, and I wonder....... But I believe you to be an honest man, so I will keep this in mind while I empty the library shelves.

The Freemasonry and Women thread was originally posted on 06 Oct 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.