We've launched the new forums! Read more here

What do you think of the "No women members allowed" at Augusta

Grogger31 said:
I respect your points WSE and the way in which you express them.
Click to expand...

Thanks Grogger, I appreciate that and feel the same about you. I believe that there's no reason we as a group shouldn't be able to debate this topic rationally and politely, as we have here. I also understand the position of those who have expressed a different view. Indeed, as a general matter I have no love for many of the uber-feminists who routinely get involved in these sorts of things. Nonetheless, in this case, I come out the way I do based on the reasons that seem persuasive to me. Others certainly my find them more or less persuasive than I do.

Edit: Oh, RS, I honestly have no idea whether there is any explicit prohibition, or whether the lack of female members is an unwritten rule. The reaction of Augusta Nat's Chairman to Burke's prior protests that they will not be pressured to change their policies indicates that the fact there are no women members is the result of a rule, written or unwritten, and not merely a historical accident. But I really don't know for sure.
 
ClairefromClare said:
Golfgal,

I have to assume you've read Marcia Chambers' Unplayable Lies. It's 12 years old and heavy handed, but her points remain valid. It's a variation on WSE's #2.

Middle aged white guys still run this country.

Left to ourselves, all of us prefer to hang out with the folks we're most comfortable with--folks who look like us and come from the same place. Often, we need to be forced out of that little comfort zone.

When it's time to do a deal, give some business, whatever, we like doing it with the folks we're comfortable with. And if the only folks we're really comfortable with are the folks who look like us and have the same background, the system just perpetuates itself.

So the trick is to get some new faces at the table. It doesn't matter what a private club's rules say about not talking business. The members of an exclusive private club are going to hang together. Those who aren't allowed to join have seriously fewer opportunities to cut those deals. This goes back to WSE's earlier point about exclusive clubs created by the oppressed not being an issue on the same level. It's not about equality of resutl; it's about equality of opportunity.

And all of your already know all this.
Click to expand...

Claire...do you hear me singing?

"Have I told you lately that I love you...Have I told you lately how much I care..."

LOL!

You are soooo eloquent!
 
worst_shot_ever said:
Thanks Grogger, I appreciate that and feel the same about you. I believe that there's no reason we as a group shouldn't be able to debate this topic rationally and politely, as we have here. I also understand the position of those who have expressed a different view. Indeed, as a general matter I have no love for many of the uber-feminists who routinely get involved in these sorts of things. Nonetheless, in this case, I come out the way I do based on the reasons that seem persuasive to me. Others certainly my find them more or less persuasive than I do.

Edit: Oh, RS, I honestly have no idea whether there is any explicit prohibition, or whether the lack of female members is an unwritten rule. The reaction of Augusta Nat's Chairman to Burke's prior protests that they will not be pressured to change their policies indicates that the fact there are no women members is the result of a rule, written or unwritten, and not merely a historical accident. But I really don't know for sure.
Click to expand...

WSE! You are almost as eloquent as Claire ;)

Now, I'll sing to you..."Have I told you lately that I love you.." ;)
 
Thanks to everyone for their passionate commentary on this hot topic.

My article was published today. All of you helped write it for me. Thanks so much!

Cheers
Gayle
 
Gayle,
I have always loved your writing, but this one I did not care for as much as most. In this article you want equality and then say you would not want to be in a club with old men. How is that equality when you relate the age of 72 to be not pleasant to be around. Every female writer I have met that writes about this says something to the effect of they would not want to join because of the same reason you outlined. SO WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE THIS DEBATE?

While I agree with the issue that there "is an issue", and we are sort of on the same side in this debate. I find it almost laughable that each and every year the only people that really seem to care is the feminist media (i do not think you are a part of that). Do we remember just how many attended Martha's rally? Pink magazine is doing this for the press plain and simple. In fact just about every person I have spoken with on the subject including quite a few female professional golfers had never heard of Pink magazine until this.

The fact is that the rules should be changed, but this is the worst way to go about things. Trying to force someone to change a policy that is within their rights is the wrong way. Nobody wants to be backed into a corner.
 
I want to add something that seems to be missed a lot when PC comes into play. Golf is a luxury item, not a right. Ms. Burke has made Millions of dollars off of her crusade of Augusta. If it was "all about the game" as Martha contends why not buy a course and create the experience she wants?

IMHO this was never about anything other than her doing the same thing that others are trying to do. Line their own pockets based on something that is virtually a moot point. This club is tiny by membership level and by invitation only. So if they decide lets say to invite a female member this year that gives them 1, then what? Do you think Augusta adds members each month? That club adds members every few years, if that.

No golf course is going to be half female based because lets face it, more men play golf then women. I always find it odd that people pick and choose which laws to go after and when.
 
JB said:
Gayle,
I have always loved your writing, but this one I did not care for as much as most. In this article you want equality and then say you would not want to be in a club with old men. How is that equality when you relate the age of 72 to be not pleasant to be around. Every female writer I have met that writes about this says something to the effect of they would not want to join because of the same reason you outlined. SO WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE THIS DEBATE?

While I agree with the issue that there "is an issue", and we are sort of on the same side in this debate. I find it almost laughable that each and every year the only people that really seem to care is the feminist media (i do not think you are a part of that). Do we remember just how many attended Martha's rally? Pink magazine is doing this for the press plain and simple. In fact just about every person I have spoken with on the subject including quite a few female professional golfers had never heard of Pink magazine until this.

The fact is that the rules should be changed, but this is the worst way to go about things. Trying to force someone to change a policy that is within their rights is the wrong way. Nobody wants to be backed into a corner.
Click to expand...


No worries JB. This is a column I write and it's my "forum" like THP is yours and your members where everyone has a right to his/her opinion. I wasn't writing as a "reporter"; I was wrting an opinion piece and I stand by what I wrote. Sorry you didn't like it. I write because I love to write, not to make everyone else happy.

But thanks for reading it anyway ;)

Cheers
Gayle
 
Thanks for responding Gayle. I love your work and the voice you carry with golf for women. You are an asset to the golf writers community.
 
JB said:
Thanks for responding Gayle. I love your work and the voice you carry with golf for women. You are an asset to the golf writers community.
Click to expand...

Hey, JB. I consider you a friend. We don't always have to agree, but it's nice we can disagree and still be friends. That's what makes you and this forum different from many others IMHO.
 
Thanks Gayle. Keep up the great work.
 
If everyone agreed on everything it would sure be a boring place to be. I didn't come here for a love-fest.
 
Smallville said:
If everyone agreed on everything it would sure be a boring place to be. I didn't come here for a love-fest.
Click to expand...

So, hypothetically, where would one go if one was, theoretically, looking to get fested with love?
 
Harry's basement of course.
 
Harry Longshanks said:
So, hypothetically, where would one go if one was, theoretically, looking to get fested with love?
Click to expand...

Woodstock maybe? Or San Francisco. Just remember to wear some flowers in your hair!
 
Smallville said:
Woodstock maybe? Or San Francisco. Just remember to wear some flowers in your hair!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's not really the kind of love one, theoretically, is looking for.
 
Golfgal said:
Hi Everyone

I want to write an article about the Masters for Inside Golf and I want to include in it some thoughts on the "no women members allowed" rule.

I don't want it to be my opinion in the article, but a collection of opinions by avid golfers like all of you.

So...care to share your thoughts on this?

thanks
Gayle
Click to expand...

Im a little confused about this. In your first post, you said:

"Hi Everyone
I want to write an article about the Masters for Inside Golf and I want to include in it some thoughts on the "no women members allowed" rule.
I don't want it to be my opinion in the article, but a collection of opinions by avid golfers like all of you."

But then you said:

"I was wrting an opinion piece and I stand by what I wrote"

It seems the article you wrote is all about your opinion. Yes, it did include a small mention of the percentages that agreed/disagreed with Augusta, but for the most part, it seemed it was about your opinion. and not what most avid golfers think. i mean, thats fine and all, but you originally said it was not going to be about your opinion (or did i miss something along the way?)
 
Funny, I think this just goes to show that you can't please eveyone, and sometimes please no one. Why? Because I thought the article failed to explain that the "equivalency" argument which is regularly offered to justify Augusta's de facto exclusionary rule doesn't work when the things being compared (Augusta vs. Curves, or even Augusta vs. the LPGA no-men rule) are not in any sense equivalent. I've said my piece on that before, and this is not an invitation to reopen the debate: rather, it is just to point out that to some readers, or at least to me, the blog seemed rather tepid and measured on the question of whether the policy is justified by anything other than tradition.
 
:at-wits-end: WSE, my only complaint with you is that I'm used to being the smartest person in the room. Not anymore. :at-wits-end: You are crushing my ego here, man.
 
that changed when you joined this forum claire....hehe. Just kidding, we all know that you are at the top of the totem poll.
 
JB said:
that changed when he joined this forum claire....hehe. Just kidding, we all know that you are at the top of the totem poll.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya. :sad: It happens rarely, but I know when I'm outgunned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top