The MW Grand Lodge of California is hosting an online discussion featuring the Grand Master of a female only Grand Lodge operating within California.

Seeing some of the reactions that some Brothers are having to this event, I thought that I would take this opportunity to jot down a few of my own thoughts about women in Masonry.

To start, it is just plain wrong to assume that women haven't been doing Masonry for a very long time. One of the more widely known mixed (men and women) organizations, Le Droit Humain was founded in 1893, but there is plenty of evidence to show that some women were made Masons long before that. There are books giving account to some of the more interesting examples of this happening, for those who are interested.

Here in the United States, the best known organization seems to be the American Federation of Human Rights, based in Larkspur Colorado. It can trace its origin in the U.S. as best I can tell to 1903 with the creation of Alpha Lodge, under Le Droit Humain. I believe that the American organization declared itself independent in 1994, and is now commonly known as Universal Co-Masonry. This organization does operate within the State of Washington.

Certainly on paper, their sub-groups, the Masonic Philosophical Society, and their purported focus on Masonic Education appears quite attractive.

All that said, despite its now long existence, and stability in Colorado, the organization seems to have never really found much growth or taken off. My hunch is that membership problems are not the result of any hostility from male Lodges, real or perceived, but rather because of a less than optimal system of governance (Supreme Council as opposed to Grand Master) and because the organization seems to have been taken over by a specific spiritual sect in its early days.

In any event, despite offering Freemasonry for both men and women, all through the greatest growth period for Masonry in American history, the organization never seems to have taken off.

Beyond co-masonry, there are also women only organizations within the United States and around the world. They are I think much less well known, and much less well organized than are the co-masonic groups here. That said, they do offer the same gender specific benefits we enjoy.

It is the leader of such a group that will be addressing the MWGL of California's members.

Certainly, we have all taken obligations upon ourselves which dictate how we must interact with those who are not recognized as Masons by our respective Grand Lodges. I would not argue otherwise, nor would I argue that our obligations be ignored or laid aside.

I do however argue that there is certainly no harm, and likely quite a bit of good in learning just a little bit about these other groups. An informed Mason is always a better Mason, and we gain nothing by putting our heads in the sand.

Diverging a bit into the subject of Regularity, I'd like to touch a little bit on to what it means to me. I see it as a two fold concept.

First of all, my home Lodge, Sultan-Monroe 160 can trace its existence all the way back to the organized formation of the Grand Lodge system. It comes from the GL of Washington, which comes from the GL of Oregon, which comes from the GL... You get the idea, we can trace its existence all the way back to the British Isles. As can every other Regular Lodge in the world.

This is what allows me, as a Sultan-Monroe Mason to visit any other Regular Lodge, in small town and large city, everywhere in the world.

Co-masons and members of strictly female orders can't do that visitation, because their groups lack that Regularity.

Secondly, I see Regularity as a way of tracing my own self as a Mason down through time. I was made a Mason by a man who was made a Mason by a Mason... You get the idea, again, all the way back to the organization of the Grand Lodge system in the British Isles. Likewise I was made Master of my Lodge by a Master of a Lodge, by a Master of a Lodge... again, all the way back.

Maybe this second view of Regularity is a result of my Roman Catholic upbringing and education, but without getting way off track here I see it as a form of spiritual power and authority.

Co-masons and members of female only orders may or may not enjoy this secondary form of Regularity. It would depend upon how their initial members were formed and by whom, likely, it isn't important to them at all.

Looking further into Regularity though, who founded Mother Kilwinning Lodge? Or the Rummer and Grapes Lodge? Under what authority?

The answer of course, as we all know, is that these and the other Time Immemorial Lodges were founded under no authority, because they were founded before there was any Masonic Authority. They were founded under the god given rights of men to freely associate.

These Lodges of course most of us honor above all others.

Contemplating Kilwinning, I must ask myself, if the men of Scotland held the absolute right to create Kilwinning Lodge out of nothing, do not women of today have an equal right to create a lodge for themselves outside of any authority?

Likewise, if we hold the Masonic Initiatory experience, and Masonic philosophy in as high of regard as I do, should those things be kept from half of the population?

Again I am not arguing that any Regular Mason should violate his obligation. I am however of the mind that we do well for ourselves by having at least some knowledge about these other organizations, and that we treat members of them with the same respect as we would like to be treated ourselves. Given that, I salute what the MWGL of California is doing with this conversation.

#CoMasonry #FemaleFreemasonry #MWGLofCalifornia

-Cameron

Cameron M. Bailey Past Grand Master The MW Grand Lodge F&AM of Washington

Subscribe to receive posts via email.