Talk:Freemasonry and women

message: :"Many masons believe that regardless of their opinions of women in masonry, they can not break their obligation, which is made in the name of God."
I object to the "which is made in the name of God." part of the above statement. Believing in God is not a requirement for Freemasonry, so I am unsure of whether the statement is true or not. I'll change it to "which is made in the name of their God." for now, although it is not ideal, as what counts as a "Supreme Being" can be quite far ranged and not limited to the Abrahamic God. Kytok 06:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made in the name of God 

message: This page is woefully inadequate. We read that: "Traditionally, only men can be made Freemasons in Regular Freemasonry." Yet the reality is that women were admitted to lodges before the innovation of regularity. Currently the earliest known ritual intended for women's participation is that of Loge de Juste in the Netherlands, dating from 1751, two years before the veritable schism in English Freemasonry of 1753. I wonder whether we would not be better rewriting the whole thing? What do people think?Harrypotter 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woefully inadequate 

message: I find nearly-identical content here. This isn't the first time I've seen a page that essentially copied Wikipedia wholesale; however, previously I've seen Wikipedia cited. So which page came first?  Wikipedia's, or "NationMaster"'s?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.31.21 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked that, and it is cited to Wikipedia way at the bottom, so we're good.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which came first? 

message: I am wondering, why not this as a title? F precedes M in the alphabet, and women are a more relevant issue to the topic of freemasonry than freemasonry is to all issues pertaining to women. This would also clearly make the 'w' lowercase, rather than needing to precede the title with the phrase 'The subject of' so as to avoid uppercasing the 'w'. Tyciol (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because our other articles are titled "<something> and Freemasonry". MSJapan (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Tyciol may have a point here... the other "....and Freemasonry" articles are all focused on someone else's attitudes towards Freemasonry (see: Catholicism and Freemasonry for an example), which is not the case with this article.  The focus of this article is more historical... explaining the ways in which women have been associated with Freemasonry through the years.  Perhaps Women in Freemasonry? Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Blueboar. "Women in Freemasonry" is a much better title as it more precisely explains the topic. Ergo-Nord (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... forgot all about this since January.  OK, unless there are objections, I am going to move this article to "Women in Freemasonry" and redirect this title to that.  (I'll wait a few days to see if there are any objections). Blueboar (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would oppose this move. "Women and Freemasonry" could include Eastern Star and White Shrine -- "Women in Freemasonry" couldn't. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that is a good point.  Do you object Tyciol's original idea of moving this to "Freemasonry and women"? Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Freemasonry and women]]? 

message: Exactly how many other examples of women eccepted in to regular freemasons are there except Elizabeth Aldworth? I just read a  (Swedish language) book about secret societies. In the chapter about the freemasons, there was a short notice about another woman than Aldworth, who was also a full member of a regular freemasonic lodge. A Hungarian Countess by the name of Brankoczy was accepted in to the freemasons in the 18th-century, during the reign of Maria Theresia. The reason for this was, reportedly, that Brankoczy had inherited her father's title and position as the head of his family, and was therefore counted as a man and a count rather than a countess. She was inducted by a local lodge, and when the main lodge of Hungary heard of this, she was cast out again. According to the book, she was one of only two women confirmed to have been inducted to the regular freemasons in accordance to the same rituals as men. Unfortunately, this notice was very short, only a few lines, and really didn't say any more than above. Can anyone confirm this? What was her full name and who was she? The book only briefly mentione her as "Countess Brankoczy". When did she live and when was she inducted to the freemasons? It should perhaps be added to the article.--Aciram (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another female freemason - Countess Brankoczy 

message: The section on Women as Operative Masons appears to have been cut and pasted from Women as Operative Masons on the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons website. If anybody thinks this text came first, now would be a good time to say something. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  It definitely did not originate with us... it came from the HFoAF website. Using Internet Archive's Wayback machine... this is their website as of 2007, and the text did not appear here until 2009 (see this series of diffs where it was added)... I would suggest checking the rest of the text in that series of diffs (especially the section on the HFoAF) ... it was added by the same editor, at the same time, and is probably a copy vio as well.  Blueboar (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That said... we can probably use it as a source, and the basis for a re-write, rather than just deleting. Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The other large chunk is from the history page on the same site. Bro Scott's "pamphlet" (it was 52 pages long) was extensively mined on both pages, and as the original has assumed the status of dragon's teeth, the site is probably one of the best sources available. If we're re-writing, adoptive masonry needs covered, since it is not mentioned at all at present. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright issues. 

message: I have just reverted the following addition;- In 2012, the Order has adopted the less ambiguous English title of International Order of Freemasonry for Men and Women - Le Droit Humain. - which was referenced by a link to the home page of the Droit Humain English language section. Nothing on the site supported the statement, nor did anything on the UK DH site. I accept that this is a useful addition, but a reference which states clearly that there was a name change and when it occurred is required of an encyclopedia entry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Something else to look into... is this change applicable to a specific jurisdiction (UK? US?), or was a similar name change adopted throughout all DH jurisdictions?  Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Our anonymous editor also linked an Australian site, I'm guessing it's the English speaking part of DH. The other reverted edit spoke about bridging the gap between UGLE & Continental rites, which is too strongly worded when UGLE isn't speaking to either GOdF or DH, but might bear investigation in Co-Masonry or Annie Besant. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Droit Humain name change 

message: :Category:Members of Masonic Lodges of Adoption, which is related to the scope of this article, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Members of Masonic Lodges of Adoption 

message: This page is woefully inadequate. We read that: "Traditionally, only men can be made Freemasons in Regular Freemasonry." Yet the reality is that women were admitted to lodges before the innovation of regularity. Currently the earliest known ritual intended for women's participation is that of Loge de Juste in the Netherlands, dating from 1751, two years before the veritable schism in English Freemasonry of 1753. I wonder whether we would not be better rewriting the whole thing? What do people think?Harrypotter 23:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eight years later, the article has improved but the introduction still does a disservice by framing the Premier Grand Lodge of England as orthodox and every other Masonic organization as heretical. There's no basis for that dichotomy. Certainly the scope of the article should include Masonic organizations that don't allow female members, but the one strain of Freemasonry is being given undue weight.  This came to my attention, because this logic is being used to exclude biographies of women from being included in Masonic categories because they aren't "real". RevelationDirect (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro states "A few women were involved in Freemasonry before the 18th century; however the first printed constitutions of the Premier Grand Lodge of England appeared to bar them from the Craft forever." I don't see that this is undue weight, since it was the ONLY Grand Lodge at the time (1723). The result of this regrettable prejudice was all masonic lodges, of all classes and persuasions, became big boys clubs until 1893. Remember, the rite of the Premier Grand Lodge was erased in 1813 (as heretical), and it only persists in the Continental lodges it spun off, which are gradually starting to admit women. That's a mouthful for the intro, but suggestions are welcome. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Yeah it is clunky and makes no sense so I re-wrote it. Jjazz76 (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woefully inadequate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Freemasonry and women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130318050503/http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-masonry/frequently-asked-questions/ to http://www.ugle.org.uk/what-is-masonry/frequently-asked-questions/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030132124/http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/2/le-grand-orient-de-france-autorise-l-initiation-des-femmes_916972.html to http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/2/le-grand-orient-de-france-autorise-l-initiation-des-femmes_916972.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130312045109/http://www.droit-humain.org/en/index.php?seccion=1 to http://www.droit-humain.org/en/index.php?seccion=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Any Lady wishing to become a member of The Ladies’ Oriental Shrine of North America, Inc., must be related by birth, marriage or adoption to a member in good standing, or a deceased member who was in good standing at the time of death, of the Shriners International or a Master Mason; or have the endorsement of two (2) members in good standing of the Ladies’ Oriental Shrine of North America, Inc., and must be at least eighteen (18) years of age. 70.40.26.194 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to section on section on membership in the Ladies Oriental Shrine of North America. Relation to a Mason is no longer required if endorsed by two members in good standing.  https://ladiesorientalshrine.org/join/