But not right away. There have been few calls to allow women into the lodge. I am surprised by this, especially in light of Freemasonry’s radical bona fides. Many traditionally male clubs, professions, vocations and franchises have been opened up to women. The Catholic Church and the Church of England, neither of which can be considered (at least prior to the 20th century) “radical,” have not escaped the notice of the Left. Both have been barraged by demands that women be allowed to join the priestly orders. Some churches have capitulated.
Perhaps the clandestine “co-Masonry” groups have vented that pressure in a way that can’t happen with the great, established churches. Somehow, throughout the ongoing revolution, the lodge has somehow dodged the shrill cries of Progessives. It might be that our dwindling numbers have removed us from the radar. If we had 250,000 or half a million members, rather than our modest 66,000, maybe things would be different.
It is coming though. I have no doubt that there are a few brothers, particularly members of the GL (meaning the governing members), who secretly loathe themselves for being so un-inclusive. Imagine if California didn’t care about maintaining Amity with other jurisdictions. Until that day, charge the cannons!
Why do I think women in our lodges is a foregone conclusion? This event. Specifically, this lady. Her namesake would be proud. No doubt she is very smart and very pleasant. She’s probably a great neighbor. But why is she presenting at a scholarly, Masonic function? And, more importantly, why does our Grand Lodge allow topics like this on the agenda? Is there nothing more relevant to discuss? I have read that Masonic scholarship is lacking, and that most researchers are enthusiastic amateurs. Why not host them? Are they lacking the appropriate letters behind their names? Again, nothing against Ms. Mahmud. I sort of want to read her book, but I don’t see why her work is worth the attention of our Grand Lodge.
I do mistrust her motives. How can I not, when her specialties include: elites, nationalism, race, citizenship and others? Unless she is hiding reactionary sympathies, it’s reasonable to assume that her outlook on these issues tracks closely, if not exactly, to Harvard’s, and thus to the outlook of the Cathedral (warning: big link). It’s reasonable to assume that she sees the benefit of, or at least no harm from, allowing women in the lodge. Look at the Italians! Celebrate diversity!
How much of this sort of talk can Masonry deflect without succumbing to the dogma of political correctness? Maybe I’m being crazy, but I see more leftism creeping in. Trust me; when the call finally comes to allow women in “regular” lodges, we will hear it first in California. This probably doesn’t surprise you, no matter where you’re from, but if you have lived in California for some time, you’re probably nodding in agreement (or shaking your head in cynical disgust). If you’re a young Mason, you may not know (even if you’re a Californian) that Reagan took California in ’84. Granted, that was before his amnesty. Reagan couldn’t win California today if he was a Hispanic, gay, transgendered, left-handed abortion doctor.
Speaking of gaydom, I see no issue (generally) with admitting openly gay Masons. Assuming, of course, that they comport themselves in a traditionally male fashion. I have known some, and liked them. They are good Masons. Yet even those brothers could be problematic. In the same way that Masons should be skeptical of Ms. Mahmud, we should be watchful that our gay brothers do not bring into the Lodge their all too typical leftism. The average voter does not properly understand the subtleties of left and right, Republican vs. Democrat vs. Libertarian, so we can expect that the average Mason also does not understand these distinctions.
LGBT folks, probably due to the Right’s tendency toward evangelical traditions, find no home on the right. As a result, most have a distinctly leftward bias. This makes sense to me; why make common cause with those who would put you in jail for your same-sex inclinations? As much as I sympathize with them though, I am greatly concerned by their ongoing, unflinching embrace of Progressivism. If the reader has not yet noticed, your humble author uses the terms “left” and “progressive” interchangeably, as is appropriate. I say it is ongoing, because their alliance with the Left is no longer necessary…for the most part. If you want to be elected to office – as a Republican – you might have a hard time even in our brave new world. The party might micro-aggress against you. I shudder at the thought. But, assuming you, like me, are part of the 99.99% of people who are not running for office, there is little reason to automatically cast your allegiance with the Left, just because you are gay. The revolution is won comrade, at least here in California.
So why is it a big deal that most gays are leftists? Isn’t the Left all about inclusiveness, equality, caring for mother earth and hearts and flowers? Mostly; yes. But all of that comes at a price. Many leftists have a distinctly Nihilist worldview. They distrust tradition and civil (not civic) authority, they refuse to acknowledge that some are more able than others and, reveling in their own mediocrity, they seek to tear down the great, so that the whole world will be leveled. They rebel against every established order, public or private, for rebellion’s sake alone. In many respects they are at war with reality and human nature.
Fortunately, the brothers I have met who prefer the company of men have been wonderful, but your mileage, as always, may vary. I hope I am not wrong. Masonry, properly practiced, has a benign tendency to bolster the masculine arts, teach proper judgment and continue a tradition of rugged, yet compassionate, individualism.
But back to Ms. Mahmud. Without seeing some additional credentials (maybe she could post a selfie holding a copy of Carlyle), we can safely assume she favors the inclusion of women in the Lodge. Now that would be an innovation in the body of Masonry.