A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
There is a local gardening club that is dominated by women. They do allow men but they do not attend, except for one guy. No one knows what happens at those meetings but may be this would be a suitable club for Lonewolf?
Last edited by Daisy on Thu Apr 05, 2012 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Private clubs with membership rules that exclude certain minorities and/or women may have a right to exist and to continue their practices. They have no right, however, to expect to be immune from public criticism. Their members should not be surprised when they are called racist and sexist, not only as a group but individually. I would not join a club that had such practices, nor would I knowingly vote for anyone who did, nor would I knowingly buy the products or services of a company whose CEO did.
If more people felt and acted that way, and expressed their beliefs, these clubs would have to change--they'd be too embarrassed not to and their members would not be willing to endure the social and, in some cases, business effects of being identified with such clubs.
I am kind of not surprised but it is still weird how scared the players of the whole Augusta leadership. Even a guy like Mickleson, what are they going to do, take his green jacket away, ban him from the clublhouse?
Several players in this year’s field of 96 were approached under the shade of the oak tree in front of the clubhouse and asked their opinion of Augusta National’s not yet extending (to the best of anyone’s knowledge) membership to the new I.B.M. chief executive, Virginia M. Rometty, as it did her four male predecessors.
Nobody would talk on the record, with players’ answers ranging from “I can’t comment on that” to “I’ll talk to you off the record after the story has run.”
Daisy wrote:There is a local gardening club that is dominated by women. They do allow men but they do not attend, except for one guy. No one knows what happens at those meetings but may be this would be a suitable club for Lonewolf?
Nope, wrong group. I sold my house 18 years ago and moved to a condo where someone else does the gardening.
I probably wouldn't either but I've worked at one. Spent a lot of my youth at a restricted club. I believe the process was you had to be nominated and come up with a large initial fee for membership.
Things have likely changed somewhat, families die off and move. They probably need a much larger applicant pool. But I'm pretty sure you still have to go before a board of some kind. It isn't cash on the barrelhead.
Fred Couples did himself proud. He is at 5 under and tied for the lead. Geezers rule. Tiger started out hot, 2 under after 3 holes and then bogied 1/3rd of the remaining 15. So he is 8 back going into the weekend.
As a note, I did not see Marlow protesting sex unfairness in the streets of Augusta.
Daisy wrote:There is a local gardening club that is dominated by women. They do allow men but they do not attend, except for one guy. No one knows what happens at those meetings but may be this would be a suitable club for Lonewolf?
Nope, wrong group. I sold my house 18 years ago and moved to a condo where someone else does the gardening.
Vince wrote:Do all you outraged people think women in general are equal in ability to men in golf?
In ability? Yes. In overall body strength? No. Isinbayeva is way better in ability than the current men jumping, but since she's a woman, she can't jump as high. Next question?
Vince wrote:Do all you outraged people think women in general are equal in ability to men in golf?
In ability? Yes. In overall body strength? No. Isinbayeva is way better in ability than the current men jumping, but since she's a woman, she can't jump as high. Next question?
Your answer makes no sense since you completely contradict yourself.
My next question is, there are only a handful of golf courses that don't allow women, just like there are a handful of other institutions that don't allow men, why the big fuss? There are way more golf courses, some better than Augusta that anyone can golf at. Are we so ingrained to make everything the same that we lose any sense of reality to political correctness? Plus not all men are allowed membership to Augusta, do you protest that too?
Last edited by Vince on Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Is Muirfield still men only? I think they host the Open next year.
Edit: Apparently they are anti american too
[Muirfield] threatened to ban five-time Open winner Tom Watson and fellow American Ben Crenshaw from Muirfield Golf Course after they played two holes without permission following a tournament.
[Also], legendary golfer Jack Nicklaus was refused access to the course for not providing the club with enough advance warning and another American golfer, Payne Stewart, suffered a similar fate.
Daisy wrote:Is Muirfield still men only? I think they host the Open next year.
Edit: Apparently they are anti american too
[Muirfield] threatened to ban five-time Open winner Tom Watson and fellow American Ben Crenshaw from Muirfield Golf Course after they played two holes without permission following a tournament.
[Also], legendary golfer Jack Nicklaus was refused access to the course for not providing the club with enough advance warning and another American golfer, Payne Stewart, suffered a similar fate.
Vince wrote:Do all you outraged people think women in general are equal in ability to men in golf?
In ability? Yes. In overall body strength? No. Isinbayeva is way better in ability than the current men jumping, but since she's a woman, she can't jump as high. Next question?
Your answer makes no sense since you completely contradict yourself.
I think you are using too limited a notion of the terms used here (but to each his own...). Would you say that every male that has valued 5.10 is a better athlete than Isi? If you do, I think you are in a small minority. Thus, Marlow's 'ability' term is more nuanced than a one-to-one mapping to performance no matter what the other factors are.
Vince wrote:Do all you outraged people think women in general are equal in ability to men in golf?
First, let me declare that I am all for the right of association. You don't want women, fine. I will gladly undertake to entertain your wife while you are golfing with your miser buddies. Now to the Vince's question.
Since when has an ability been a requirement for a club membership? Tennis clubs admit women, chess clubs do. That said, I could name a few women that would wipe floors with the Augusta's club membership.
Vince wrote:Do all you outraged people think women in general are equal in ability to men in golf?
In ability? Yes. In overall body strength? No. Isinbayeva is way better in ability than the current men jumping, but since she's a woman, she can't jump as high. Next question?
Your answer makes no sense since you completely contradict yourself.
I think you are using too limited a notion of the terms used here (but to each his own...). Would you say that every male that has valued 5.10 is a better athlete than Isi? If you do, I think you are in a small minority. Thus, Marlow's 'ability' term is more nuanced than a one-to-one mapping to performance no matter what the other factors are.
Let me say it so even a twit can understand...do you think in general women play at the same ability level(hint: lower scores) as men do? Why do you avoid just answering that question, it's really easy.
Vince wrote:Do all you outraged people think women in general are equal in ability to men in golf?
First, let me declare that I am all for the right of association. You don't want women, fine. I will gladly undertake to entertain your wife while you are golfing with your miser buddies. Now to the Vince's question.
Since when has an ability been a requirement for a club membership? Tennis clubs admit women, chess clubs do. That said, I could name a few women that would wipe floors with the Augusta's club membership.
Tis true, but I could name some Augusta members that could wipe the floor with ANY woman you brought forward. But that's not the real point anyway, was just speaking in general terms. Also I stated 99% of the golf clubs in the U.S. are open to women, what's the big deal here.
No big deal as far as I am concerned. Let me just throw in that it is generally the one that segregates who loses out, not the one being excluded.
That may be true, it's a choice to make.
What kinda annoys me is all the over-zealous outrage that occurs, and it seems to be media driven. It's only golf. You're not necessarily a sexist if you play there, but by today's standard anyone is free to call you one if you do.....no matter if your wife and daughters love you, and you donate tons of time and money to women's charities, you haven't passed "their" standard for society.
Last edited by Vince on Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No big deal as far as I am concerned. Let me just throw in that it is generally the one that segregates who loses out, not the one being excluded.
That may be true, it's a choice to make.
What kinda annoys me is all the over-zealous outrage that occurs, and it seems to be media driven. It's only golf. Your not necessarily a sexist if you play there, but by today's standard anyone is free to call you one if you do.....no matter if your wife and daughters love you, and you donate tons of time and money to women's charities, you haven't passed "their" standard for society.
No big deal as far as I am concerned. Let me just throw in that it is generally the one that segregates who loses out, not the one being excluded.
That may be true, it's a choice to make.
What kinda annoys me is all the over-zealous outrage that occurs, and it seems to be media driven. It's only golf. You're not necessarily a sexist if you play there, but by today's standard anyone is free to call you one if you do.....no matter if your wife and daughters love you, and you donate tons of time and money to women's charities, you haven't passed "their" standard for society.
Yes, one can be called names without cause .
Yeah I know, my defense is that who really cares about Golf, but religion is a bit different....anyway hope all is water under the bridge.
If we are voting: Augusta or any other private club has the absolute right to admit or exclude anyone for any reason the club charter dictates.. I cannot imagine Augusta's membership requirements are of any consequence to anyone on this forum..well, maybe bambam but I don't see him complaining.. A person's sex, religion, wealth, skill level or outside accomplishment is immaterial..no one has an inherent right to demand membership in any private club. Just my opinion.
lonewolf wrote:If we are voting: Augusta or any other private club has the absolute right to admit or exclude anyone for any reason the club charter dictates.. I cannot imagine Augusta's membership requirements are of any consequence to anyone on this forum..well, maybe bambam but I don't see him complaining.. A person's sex, religion, wealth, skill level or outside accomplishment is immaterial..no one has an inherent right to demand membership in any private club. Just my opinion.
True. But if I was a stockholder of IBM or an employee I would question why they are sponsoring an outfit that discriminates.
Same thing here in town, with Butler National. They don't allow female members, which doesn't bother me, or anyone else I know, my next door neighbor is even a member, but if they want the US Open they are going to have to change their tune.
lonewolf wrote:A person's sex, religion, wealth, skill level or outside accomplishment is immaterial..no one has an inherent right to demand membership in any private club. Just my opinion.
So if an important organization, that YOU saw a great benefit in joining, saw fit to exclude Native Americans, for no other reasons that it did not want NAs, you'd be OK with that? And if they discriminate against your children or grandchildren, oh, let's say, it's a certain 'private' youth soccer organization, that would be just fine with you too?
.