Excuses given for the Exclusion of Women

[Tamrin]

We read in Steven Bullock’s Revolutionary Brotherhood (pp.180/1):

As early as 1796, Joseph Dunham identified the question, ‘Why are not ladies initiated into these mysteries?’ as one ‘which has exited the curiosity and wonder, not only of that sex, but of the world at large.’ Benjamin Gleason noted the same issue in 1805 as a ‘capital Quere, at the present day.’ Despite the prevalence of this question, Masons never agreed … on a single line of response. Brothers variously suggested that women could not attend secret meetings without scandal, that women would cause jealousy within the brotherhood, and that Freemasonry was designed to soften men, providing moral improvement that women did not require. More commonly, brothers pointed to the exclusion of women from colleges and governments, noting that no one questioned that practice. ‘It would be as great a burlesque upon female delicacy,’ Charles Train argued in 1812, ’to be raised to the sublime degree of Master Mason, as to be honoured with a commission in the American army, or with the degree of L.L.D.

Source:

Bullock Steven C., 1996, Revolutionary Brotherhood: Freemasonry and the Transformation of the American Social Order 1730 – 1840, published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamburg, Virginia, by the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

[Tamrin]

In 1924, John Lawrence wrote (pp. 188/9):

He would be a bold man who ever predicted any limit to the curiosity or ambition of womankind. When the first venturesome lady ascended an omnibus, or perched herself on the top of a bicycle, it was felt that anything was possible. Little by little the temples dedicated to the professions, the arts and sciences, even those of Themis and of Æsculapius [law & medicine], have thrown open their doors to the sex, or had them forced open, and the remaining strongholds still held intact by the stronger (?) sex are being subjected to fierce and daily bombardment, the Masonic Temple is still, happily, one of these, and still more happily no very serious attempt has yet been made to take it by force. Constitutionally, the fairest and wisest of her sex is still a Cowan, and the Brother whose duty it is to repel such would, we feel sure, stand firm and do his duty in the face of any allurement to the contrary.

Source:

Lawrence, John T., 1924, Sidelights on Freemasonry (new & revised edition), A. Lewis, London

[Tamrin]

A few examples of the argument that women are excluded
from Freemasonry because they were never Stonemasons:

His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, (the Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England since 1967), on being asked: ‘Sir, in 1986 how do you justify the exclusion of women?¹

’That is I think largely an historical affair. It's simply that Freemasonry as you may know stems right back into the Middle Ages, there were no practicing women Masons who operated on building sites as they were in those days, and it was from those origins that Masonry largely derives, and it is simply that this is the way it has grown up. I wouldn't say that this is a situation that will necessarily persist forever, but certainly for the moment I don't think it is regarded as a live issue in Freemasonry.

Robert Ramsay, 1880, Voice of Masonry:²

The ancient regulations, charges, and obligations, one and all, exclude her from a participation in the ceremonies.

René Guénon, 1964, Studies in Freemasonry & the Copmpagnonnage:³

The true reason for the absence of any feminine initiation in the contemporary West is that all the initiations it retains are based essentially on trades the exercise of which pertains exclusively to men...

Robert I. Clegg, 1898, Mackey's History of Freemasonry:⁴

Operative Craft from of old has been by law restricted to men. These ancient regulations were doubtless in the first place due to custom and to courtesy due to the female sex. That the labor of the builder and stonecutter was universally thought as peculiarly befitting the strength and place of men seems to us most probable.

Dr. Crucefix, 1877, The Royal Masonic Cyclopaedia:⁵

The only reason why ladies cannot be present in an open Lodge of Freemasons is, that their mysteries, being symbolical of labour as performed by men, could not in that case be shared by women...

Eugen Lennoff, 1934, The Freemasons:⁶

[When he] … expressly barred women from admission into the Society, Anderson only followed the principles of the ancient operatives, to whose gilds members of the female sex were in no circumstances admitted.

Robert Macoy, 1869, A Dictionary of Freemasonry:⁷

As Masonry, at its origin, and through many centuries, was occupied solely with physical labors, in which females do not participate, the instructions of ancient Masonry are only suited to the male sex; consequently women would not find themselves interested in our symbolical Lodges.

John G. Sullivan, 1986, Prosper the Art:⁸

Freemasonry stems from the all-male culture of the ancient stonemason where the presence of women was unknown. Subsequently, the constitution of our speculative order was so framed as to forbid the admission of females into Masonic assemblies.

Robert L.D. Cooper, 2006, Cracking the Freemason's Code:⁹

As there were no women stonemasons in medieval times, Freemasonry is simply continuing a centuries-old custom and practice by not admitting women today.

Roy Wells, 1982, Freemasonry—Men Only!¹⁰

Why is Freemasonry under the United Grand Lodge of England restricted to men only? It is a question that is frequently raised and the only way to understand that situation, and to avoid hasty conclusions, is carefully to examine the roots of organised Freemasonry as well as the behaviour which was built into it, by conduct required and encouraged amongst stonemasons and the trade guilds in the sixteenth century and even earlier.

Albert Mackey, 1874, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry:¹¹

Now, as we admit of no innovation or changes in our customs, Speculative Masonry retains, and is governed by, all the rules and regulations that existed in and controlled its Operative prototype. Hence, as in this latter art only hale and hearty men, in possession of all their limbs and members, so that they might endure the fatigues of labor, were employed, so in the former the rule still holds, of excluding all who are not in the possession of these prerequisite qualifications. Woman is not permitted to participate in our rites and ceremonies, not because we deem her unworthy or unfaithful, or incapable, as has been foolishly supposed, of keeping a secret, but because on our entrance into the Order, we found certain regulations which prescribed that only men capable of enduring the labor, or of fulfilling the duties of Operative Masons could be admitted.

Masters' and Past Masters' Lodge, 1972, ‘Questions and Answers’:¹²

The restriction of Freemasonry to men alone is obviously due to its operative origins, it being evolved from the Lodges of Operative Masons in the Middle Ages, membership of which was, by reason of the nature of the trade, restricted to the male sex.

J.W. Stubbs, 1967, ‘The Last Fifty Years’ (an official history of the U.G.L. of England):¹³

In 1921 an approach was made to Grand Lodge for recognition by the `Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Masonry'; in a reply starting for obvious reasons `Dear Madam' the Grand Secretary made it plain that the admission of women was utterly foreign to the original plan of Freemasonry to which English Freemasons had adhered from time immemorial.

Women Builders (detail). Roman des Girart von Roussillon, Cod. 2549, f.167v,
Flemish, 1447, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna.

¹Interviewer & H.R.H. the Duke of Kent, quoted in S.C.R.L., op. cit., p.13.

²<www.themasonictrowel.com/Articles/General/female_files/masonry_and_woman.htm#top>.

³R. Guénon, op. cit., p.55.

⁴R.I. Clegg, Mackey’s History, op. cit., v.6, p.1992.

⁵Dr. Crucefix quoted in Kenneth Mackenzie, 1987 (org. 1877), The Royal Masonic Cyclopedia, The Aquarian Press, Wellingborough, U.K., p.217.

⁶Eugen Lennhoff, 1978 (org. 1934), The Freemasons: The History, Nature, Development and Secret of the Royal Art, (trans. E. Frame), A. Lewis, London, p.335.

⁷Robert Macoy, 1989 (org. 1869), A Dictionary of Freemasonry: A Compendium of Masonic History,Symbolism, Rituals, Literature and Myth, Bells Publishing Company, New York, p.394.

⁸Sullivan, John G., 1986, ‘Women and Freemasonry’, Prosper the Art, Square One Publications, Melbourne, p.56.

⁹Robert L.D. Cooper, 2006, Cracking the Freemason’s Code: The Truth about Solomon’s Key and the Brotherhood, Rider, London, p.199.

¹⁰Roy, A. Wells, n.d., Freemasonry—Men Only!, audio tape, (start of side two): Adapted from his 1982 inaugural address as President of the London Grand Rank Association, 20 May 1982, Freemasonry—A Male Exclusive, at Conway Hall, Led Lion Square, London, (unpublished draft or transcript with corrections).

¹¹A.G., Mackey’s Encyclopedia, op. cit., p.1013.

¹²A.R. Chambers, (Editor), 1972, Questions and Answers: The Questions and Answers dealt with in the Transactions of the Masters' and Past Masters' Lodge up to June, 1971, Masters' and Past Masters' Lodge No. 130 (New Zealand Constitution), p.307.

¹³Stubbs, J.W., 1967, ‘The Last Fifty Years’, Grand Lodge: 1717 – 1967, printed for the United Grand Lodge of England, London, pp.163/4.

[Tamrin]

The history of men's opposition to women's emancipation
is more interesting perhaps than the story of that emancipation itself

Virginia Woolf

[Tamrin]

[Tamrin]

Elsewhere, we find the assertion that, "Truly, the above falsehoods are not at all representative of modern Malecraft scholarship, where much of this old stuff is embarrassing." From a cursory survey of malecraft Grand Lodge websites, this embarrassment does not appear to be much of a factor outside the narrow confines of masonic scholarship. Their FAQ pages which address the exclusion of women still commonly appeal to these historical fallacies (others have now opted for a variety of inane responses).

[Tamrin]

We also find elsewhere the following opinion:

For one of the reasons there is Malecraft Masonry is so that men who cannot deal with women on anything but a sexual level will have a place to go.

I realize there are many who consider this a character flaw and seek to smooth ashl*rs other than their own by forcing these Brothers to improve in that direction. I agree it is a character flaw. But I don't believe it so severe that such men should be barred from the Light. They can go to Malecraft Lodges and progress from there.

Should men having the same issue working with women have the right to male only employment!?

[Gaslight]

Dec 13, 2008 22:11:49 GMT 10 Tamrin said:

Elsewhere, we find the assertion that, "Truly, the above falsehoods are not at all representative of modern Malecraft scholarship, where much of this old stuff is embarrassing." From a cursory survey of malecraft Grand Lodge websites, this embarrassment does not appear to be much of a factor outside the narrow confines of masonic scholarship. Their FAQ pages which address the exclusion of women still commonly appeal to these historical fallacies (others have now opted for a variety of inane responses).

I followed the link to 'Elsewhere' and browsed the relevant topic. The heat of the debate didn't surprise me, but the decision of one of the administrators to declare the forum henceforth restricted to Co-Masonry and Feminine Masonry did.

The quotations above list many of the traditional excuses, but I've seen a few more creative ones on other Masonic boards, whenever the subject has turned to women in Lodge.

• The presence of women will weaken male bonding.
  
• The presence of women will distract the men.
  
• Wives will withdraw their support when they discover that their Masonic husbands are spending their evenings in the company of other women.
  
• The presence of women will affect the egregore generated when a lodge is working in spiritual harmony.
  
• Unacceptable changes will have to be made to the ritual to avoid the baring of breasts.
  

The last I find particularly strange. It usually comes from US Masons, many of whom resort to degree costumes that are one step short of a burka, completely covering the body and providing only tiny flaps for access to a square inch of flesh. Such brethren would probably die of shame in my lodges, where the upper torso is covered in only a loose cape, shifted left, right or back as appropriate.

[Tamrin]

May 18, 2009 23:00:46 GMT 10 Gaslight said:

I followed the link to 'Elsewhere' and browsed the relevant topic. The heat of the debate didn't surprise me, but the decision of one of the administrators to declare the forum henceforth restricted to Co-Masonry and Feminine Masonry did.

I have only posted there once in the past six months.

[Tamrin]

May 18, 2009 23:00:46 GMT 10 Gaslight said:

The quotations above list many of the traditional excuses, but I've seen a few more creative ones on other Masonic boards, whenever the subject has turned to women in Lodge.

• The presence of women will weaken male bonding.
• The presence of women will distract the men.
  
• Wives will withdraw their support when they discover that their Masonic husbands are spending their evenings in the company of other women.
• The presence of women will affect the egregore generated when a lodge is working in spiritual harmony.
• Unacceptable changes will have to be made to the ritual to avoid the baring of breasts.

From my weary perspective, the mention of such excuses, when held-up against the examples of Co-masonry (where men and women seem to happily meet as Masons) and the wider society, is often enough to discount them. Do you believe any of the excuses warrant being looked at more closely?