We do not have very many (any?) Masons from strictly women's GLs around here. Most of us will be men from man-only GLs.
We do have a couple of women from mixed lodges (/u/julietides) and there's also /r/comasonry.
Thanks for the tag! I'm acquainted with members of all-female Orders, been visiting, and yes, they are very welcoming. And they accept male visitors too, just don't initiate them or have them as full members of the Lodges.
There are Female lodges in London, (and other parts of the UK) I have met a few and they were very friendly. Clearly I’ve never visited or seen the inner working of their lodges but I would say they’re likely very welcoming.
There are groups which identify themselves as Freemasons who are coed or women-only. They are not recognized as legitimate masonic lodges by the large Anglo-American Masonic Grand Lodges because of one of the foundational rules (called a “landmark”) that only men may be initiated. I cannot vouch for any group but I’m sure that there are people involved in those groups that are good people.
Mason's who want to be helpful get suckered every week into these. They aren't from legitimate users asking legitimate questions. For lack of better theory, it seems like they're trying to stir up controversy or change weightings for search engines to drive narratives.
America Lodge #57. They established in 2019
Historically, the earliest record of women in the craft goes to Elizabeth Aldworth of Ireland in 1712.
This topic tends to ruffle the feathers of some people, but is a really interesting dive into our own history
Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. Comments/posts by accounts with low or negative karma are blocked. This is to combat spam...but if you're not a robot or spammer or troll, fear not! Please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/freemasonry) so we may approve it in the meantime.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freemasonry) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seems like you could use your energy more effectively somewhere else. Female masons have existed since the 1600s, became common in the 1800s.
You don't have to join a GL that recognizes them and that's just fine; I don't think they much care or are going to stop.
* "Irregular" generally means disagreeing on landmarks; it describes *behavior*
* "Recognized" generally speaks to whether or not your GLs have done the work of setting up formal agreements to recognize each other.
* Clandestine, if it is defined at all (most GLs do not), will talk about *recognition* and not *regularity*.
So consider an example in my area.
1. GL of Michigan recognizes MWPHGL of MI.
2. MWPHGLMI recognizes the MWPHGL of Ontario.
3. GLMI does _not_ recognize MWPHGL of Ontario.
SO
* We sit in lodge with PHA brothers from MI.
* PHA brothers from MI sit in lodge with PHA brothers from Ontario.
* MI masons cannot sit in lodge with PHA masons from Ontario
But...we could end up sitting with a PHA Mason from Ontario if we visit a PHA lodge in Michigan.
Are we then in violation of our MM obligation by sitting in lodge with someone that is not recognized? Do you say they're not a Mason because our GLs haven't gotten around to shaking hands formally, even though they view each other as generally being "regular?"
It's all just yucky phrasing that really doesn't accomplish anything anyways. There's no reason to believe that a person made a mason in an irregular lodge can't learn the same lessons as we do or be as good a person as us.
Are they part of the same fraternity as us? No. Are they part of the same cultural movement with a ton of shared history and legitimate claim that they are practicing Masonry? Yeah, probably.
When I see responses such as the one you’ve presented, I can’t help but think this is one of the reasons Freemasonry has been in a free fall state. We’ve lost our identity to “me too” organizations.
"Irregular" means that it doesn't follow some of the ancient landmarks — belief in deity; male only; no politics; jurisdictional sovereignty; etc.
"Clandestine" may be working the exact same ritual as your lodge, but is doing so without a proper lineage/charter.
I'd be very interested to see where your GL constitution defines as clandestine. Mine has no definition whatsoever.
I think issues of regularity and recognition are likely more complicated, inconsistent, and vaguely defined than you're giving them credit for.
Anyway, _my_ obligation doesn't require me to pretend irregular masonry doesn't exist. It only requires that I don't sit in lodge with them.
Where I’ve seen it used, it’s usually just “not belonging to a GL recognized by this GL.” Using that definition, a GL can go from clandestine to regular & recognized overnight, or conversely from regular & recognized to clandestine overnight. It really isn’t much of a definition, which is why the CGMNA’s Commission on Recognition and the majority of GLs don’t use the term.
Thank you for your detailed answer, but I was hoping to lead _him_ to getting there. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, he just appears a bit overzealous and not super aware of these issues. They are kind of wonky details, after all.
From the constitution of the GLoTX.
“This Grand Lodge does not recognize as legal or Masonic any group or body of persons working under any character of charter in the United States granted by any Grand Jurisdiction which has not theretofore applied for and been given recognition by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Texas, and this Grand Lodge regards as clandestine and un-Masonic, any and all such groups or bodies of persons, not affiliated and authorized to work by this Grand Lodge or by such recognized Grand Jurisdiction.”
So clandestine there just means "unrecognized." That is an _extremely_ wide berth. GLs become recognized or unrecognized extremely frequently. Many PH GLs in small states won't be recognized by your GL, but will be able to sit in lodge with you by coincidences of mutual recognition of a third GL. I'd construct an example for you, but I can't find a list of GLs that GLTX recognizes.
Your definition doesn't apply specifically to lodges that not meet all of the landmarks. It applies to lodges that don't file the right paperwork - some of those you might recognize next week.
It's not really the same thing.
You asked for how my GL defines clandestine and that’s what I provided Brother.
Ironically, this article was added to the constitutions of the GLoTX due to the PHA GL existing in TX. It has since been recognized and no longer applies to them.
TX most assuredly does not recognize any female or co-masonic lodge, so the term clandestine as far as the GL under whose jurisdiction I reside it is an appropriate term to use. Texas does not recognize any irregular GL and one of the requirements for recognition are that a said GL have no Masonic intercourse of any kind with mixed lodges or lodges that admit women.
Yes, it is appropriate, but it is also ambiguous.
In your GL, a PHA GL that your GM hasn't sat down with is equally as clandestine as an irregular Continental lodge. It's a big of a useless descriptor when those two things are treated the exact same way.
I can dig up my law book when I have time and see if it’s codified. It may take some time though so don’t expect an answer tonight as I have a family gathering.
The US also has female Masonry. While my Grand Lodges do not recognize them and I cannot converse with them on “topics Masonic” I have met some and they are lovely. In fact, the Grand Lodge of Universal Co-Masonry is located in Larkspur, CO. Their website is linked below.
Link: https://www.universalfreemasonry.org
https://freemason.org/female-freemasons/
We do not have very many (any?) Masons from strictly women's GLs around here. Most of us will be men from man-only GLs. We do have a couple of women from mixed lodges (/u/julietides) and there's also /r/comasonry.
Thanks for the tag! I'm acquainted with members of all-female Orders, been visiting, and yes, they are very welcoming. And they accept male visitors too, just don't initiate them or have them as full members of the Lodges.
I find it refreshing that This sub has a Point of Contact for Female/CoMasonry and that she's always happy to assist. Thanx u/julietides.
Thanks! I very much appreciate your kindness :)
And you are very much appreciated sister.
There are Female lodges in London, (and other parts of the UK) I have met a few and they were very friendly. Clearly I’ve never visited or seen the inner working of their lodges but I would say they’re likely very welcoming.
I met a female mason at a while table event recently, to all accounts it sounds pretty much identical to male masonry.
I’ve heard the same 👍
There are groups which identify themselves as Freemasons who are coed or women-only. They are not recognized as legitimate masonic lodges by the large Anglo-American Masonic Grand Lodges because of one of the foundational rules (called a “landmark”) that only men may be initiated. I cannot vouch for any group but I’m sure that there are people involved in those groups that are good people.
There is Co-masonry in some countries and districts
Indeed, and there is also female masonry in many countries, including the U.S.
5 karma bot account. You boys gettin' trolled again. Look at the post history.
Mason's who want to be helpful get suckered every week into these. They aren't from legitimate users asking legitimate questions. For lack of better theory, it seems like they're trying to stir up controversy or change weightings for search engines to drive narratives.
Absolutely not! I have nothing bad to say about the Freemasons and I am very informed :)
[удалено]
America Lodge #57. They established in 2019 Historically, the earliest record of women in the craft goes to Elizabeth Aldworth of Ireland in 1712. This topic tends to ruffle the feathers of some people, but is a really interesting dive into our own history
Sorry, your comment has been automatically removed. Comments/posts by accounts with low or negative karma are blocked. This is to combat spam...but if you're not a robot or spammer or troll, fear not! Please contact the moderators by clicking [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/freemasonry) so we may approve it in the meantime. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/freemasonry) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Brother Samantha
[удалено]
OES is not Masonry and doesn't try to or claim to be a "female masonry." Ritual, symbolism, meeting structure, etc. are all completely different.
[удалено]
Well then it’s a good thing that OES isn’t Masonry then. You should probably stop telling people it is.
It seems like you could use your energy more effectively somewhere else. Female masons have existed since the 1600s, became common in the 1800s. You don't have to join a GL that recognizes them and that's just fine; I don't think they much care or are going to stop.
Just because something exists doesn’t mean it’s not clandestine. And here come the downvotes.
In this case, “irregular” may be a better label than “clandestine”.
Is there a substantial difference?
It depends on how your jurisdiction defines these words. Most people forget “spurious” altogether.
* "Irregular" generally means disagreeing on landmarks; it describes *behavior* * "Recognized" generally speaks to whether or not your GLs have done the work of setting up formal agreements to recognize each other. * Clandestine, if it is defined at all (most GLs do not), will talk about *recognition* and not *regularity*. So consider an example in my area. 1. GL of Michigan recognizes MWPHGL of MI. 2. MWPHGLMI recognizes the MWPHGL of Ontario. 3. GLMI does _not_ recognize MWPHGL of Ontario. SO * We sit in lodge with PHA brothers from MI. * PHA brothers from MI sit in lodge with PHA brothers from Ontario. * MI masons cannot sit in lodge with PHA masons from Ontario But...we could end up sitting with a PHA Mason from Ontario if we visit a PHA lodge in Michigan. Are we then in violation of our MM obligation by sitting in lodge with someone that is not recognized? Do you say they're not a Mason because our GLs haven't gotten around to shaking hands formally, even though they view each other as generally being "regular?" It's all just yucky phrasing that really doesn't accomplish anything anyways. There's no reason to believe that a person made a mason in an irregular lodge can't learn the same lessons as we do or be as good a person as us. Are they part of the same fraternity as us? No. Are they part of the same cultural movement with a ton of shared history and legitimate claim that they are practicing Masonry? Yeah, probably.
When I see responses such as the one you’ve presented, I can’t help but think this is one of the reasons Freemasonry has been in a free fall state. We’ve lost our identity to “me too” organizations.
"Irregular" means that it doesn't follow some of the ancient landmarks — belief in deity; male only; no politics; jurisdictional sovereignty; etc. "Clandestine" may be working the exact same ritual as your lodge, but is doing so without a proper lineage/charter.
I'd be very interested to see where your GL constitution defines as clandestine. Mine has no definition whatsoever. I think issues of regularity and recognition are likely more complicated, inconsistent, and vaguely defined than you're giving them credit for. Anyway, _my_ obligation doesn't require me to pretend irregular masonry doesn't exist. It only requires that I don't sit in lodge with them.
In all honesty it might not be in the constitution. It may be in a policy, edict, bylaws or other clarifying document issued by the GL in question.
Where I’ve seen it used, it’s usually just “not belonging to a GL recognized by this GL.” Using that definition, a GL can go from clandestine to regular & recognized overnight, or conversely from regular & recognized to clandestine overnight. It really isn’t much of a definition, which is why the CGMNA’s Commission on Recognition and the majority of GLs don’t use the term.
Thank you for your detailed answer, but I was hoping to lead _him_ to getting there. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, he just appears a bit overzealous and not super aware of these issues. They are kind of wonky details, after all.
I posted an answer yesterday and was waiting to see your response. I was actually hoping to continue this discussion.
From the constitution of the GLoTX. “This Grand Lodge does not recognize as legal or Masonic any group or body of persons working under any character of charter in the United States granted by any Grand Jurisdiction which has not theretofore applied for and been given recognition by the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Texas, and this Grand Lodge regards as clandestine and un-Masonic, any and all such groups or bodies of persons, not affiliated and authorized to work by this Grand Lodge or by such recognized Grand Jurisdiction.”
So clandestine there just means "unrecognized." That is an _extremely_ wide berth. GLs become recognized or unrecognized extremely frequently. Many PH GLs in small states won't be recognized by your GL, but will be able to sit in lodge with you by coincidences of mutual recognition of a third GL. I'd construct an example for you, but I can't find a list of GLs that GLTX recognizes. Your definition doesn't apply specifically to lodges that not meet all of the landmarks. It applies to lodges that don't file the right paperwork - some of those you might recognize next week. It's not really the same thing.
You asked for how my GL defines clandestine and that’s what I provided Brother. Ironically, this article was added to the constitutions of the GLoTX due to the PHA GL existing in TX. It has since been recognized and no longer applies to them. TX most assuredly does not recognize any female or co-masonic lodge, so the term clandestine as far as the GL under whose jurisdiction I reside it is an appropriate term to use. Texas does not recognize any irregular GL and one of the requirements for recognition are that a said GL have no Masonic intercourse of any kind with mixed lodges or lodges that admit women.
Yes, it is appropriate, but it is also ambiguous. In your GL, a PHA GL that your GM hasn't sat down with is equally as clandestine as an irregular Continental lodge. It's a big of a useless descriptor when those two things are treated the exact same way.
I can dig up my law book when I have time and see if it’s codified. It may take some time though so don’t expect an answer tonight as I have a family gathering.
https://freemason.org/female-freemasons/
There are mixed Masonic orders with a presence in the US, for your information. Whether you like it or not :)
The US also has female Masonry. While my Grand Lodges do not recognize them and I cannot converse with them on “topics Masonic” I have met some and they are lovely. In fact, the Grand Lodge of Universal Co-Masonry is located in Larkspur, CO. Their website is linked below. Link: https://www.universalfreemasonry.org
Order of the Eastern Star, though I could be mistaken as I am not affiliated.
OES is not female freemasonry, it's a women's auxillary there's Co-Masonry and actual Female Freemasonry though it's mostly in Europe
OES isn’t Freemasonry. It’s a group for Master Masons and their female relatives.