Augusta National Golf Club pulls down its "no girls allowed" sign

[ChitownHusker]

I'd say it's anachronistic, backwards, and tacky, but I do believe that private clubs and associations should be able to pick and choose who they let in.

DON'T DENY IT!!! U KNOW IT JOESTRUMMER. U KNOW IT!!!

[Squatchsker]

Sure and its a Discriminatory move by augusta. Dont deny it. U know it

Listen to me, we got it. Your position is thoruoghly stated. And since you had tapped out of this thread only to return to argue more, now you are a hypocrite for any and all August 21st's forever and ever amen.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

Listen to me, we got it. Your position is thoruoghly stated. And since you had tapped out of this thread only to return to argue more, now you are a hypocrite for any and all August 21st's forever and ever amen.

Aww, c'mon Squatch! He "tapped out" for almost a whole half hour before returning!

[ColoREDo]

Aww, c'mon Squatch! He "tapped out" for almost a whole half hour before returning!

I've "tapped out" many times but never for a half hour straight.

[huskernut]

I understand the private club/free association argument. I wasn't hoping for a lawsuit to force them. I thought they should choose to freely associate with women because the notion of male exclusivity is anachronistic.

Why do outsiders get to care? Because of the prominence they have for hosting the Masters. Society isn't going to let them go so far away from what a large number of people feel is equality. It is certainly reasonable and appropriate for society to shame who they want to for something like this. We do it all the time on all sorts of issues. Nothing wrong with public ridicule and moral suasion to get the point across.

So before there was a boycott of advertisers, CBS, their advertisers, the PGA, and Augusta's board probably played a round and sat in the club house and said, "You know, we've got to get ahead of this thing."

Good for them.

[bilsker]

Certainly; just as soon as they give up the premier PGA event.

It's not a PGA event. It's THEIR event. There is a difference.

[MilesBFree]

I've "tapped out" many times but never for a half hour straight.

That would be the opposite of 10 strokes.

[huskrthill]

I understand the private club/free association argument. I wasn't hoping for a lawsuit to force them. I thought they should choose to freely associate with women because the notion of male exclusivity is anachronistic.

Why do outsiders get to care? Because of the prominence they have for hosting the Masters. Society isn't going to let them go so far away from what a large number of people feel is equality. It is certainly reasonable and appropriate for society to shame who they want to for something like this. We do it all the time on all sorts of issues. Nothing wrong with public ridicule and moral suasion to get the point across.

So before there was a boycott of advertisers, CBS, their advertisers, the PGA, and Augusta's board probably played a round and sat in the club house and said, "You know, we've got to get ahead of this thing."

Good for them.

'Nut, I understand what you're saying here, but is it really that unreasonable to have an all-male club? There are certainly all-female clubs, so what's the difference?

[huskernut]

'Nut, I understand what you're saying here, but is it really that unreasonable to have an all-male club? There are certainly all-female clubs, so what's the difference?

I don't question the principle you're supporting. It's just that I believe, and think society at large generally believes, there are other principles which conflict and in fact overrules in this case. The first is, in our (somewhat aspirational) egalitarian society, women's equality is very important. Second, that we don't want to allow major public events and institutions to not be representative of strongly held values like the first. Third, that we don't want to disadvantage women in their careers.

This third principle is interesting in the case of private golf and country clubs, because golfing is extremely conducive, almost uniquely so, to business deal making and relationship building. Private clubs don't just exclude women; they attempt also to exclude those who aren't someone you might want to do business with, or want to know, if you are ambitious. Even a small local club can be important to join if you want to succeed in a local market place. That doesn't mean everyone should get to join. I don't think society has created that principle - except for some radical leftists with a material and egalitarian philosophy perhaps, but not a significant plurality. But for a more significant number of people, excluding a group of people access to an important success enhancing institution like a country club solely based on sex, has become untenable.

I wouldn't say objectors to local, exclusive clubs are a majority or large plurality yet, or see it as a big enough issue in their towns that they can devote a lot of time and effort to it. But with a club hosting the Masters - which makes its doings a national issue - there are enough objectors to convince the market-oriented people who really make the decisions, that they should bow to political will.

I think my analysis here is mostly correct. And that it best explains what happened here. Aside from that, we can certainly disagree about the rightness of the principles I listed. I support them, but they aren't inviolate, like "Thou shalt not kill". And certainly reasonable people may differ in how they resolve conflicts among these principles.

[Squatchsker]

I used to be much more ardent about women's equality until I read an article (no link sorry) about a male breast cancer survivor that when he went to get his shirt at a Run For The Cure event was denied a pink survivor shirt. To the point that a woman even said to him (paraphrasing) "your breast cancer wasnt as valid as ours". That cemented my lack of compassion for the true equality that some strive for and was a moment of awakening that there will always be a separate but equal sense in regards to the sexes.

[McKinneyTXHusker]

I used to be much more ardent about women's equality until I read an article (no link sorry) about a male breast cancer survivor that when he went to get his shirt at a Run For The Cure event was denied a pink survivor shirt. To the point that a woman even said to him (paraphrasing) "your breast cancer wasnt as valid as ours". That cemented my lack of compassion for the true equality that some strive for and was a moment of awakening that there will always be a separate but equal sense in regards to the sexes.

Agree, Squatch - and unfortunately, I think that not only applies to the sexes, but to the races as well. Everyone who is behind wants complete equality. But put them in a situation where they're the preferred class, and suddenly that wish for equality largely vanishes. Example - when race is used as a criteria for public service promotion or college admission, you surely don't see minorities complaining that they're not being treated equally - even though they're not. Not arguing whether or not its right to give them preferential treatment based on past treatment, just pointing out the reality of the situation.

[Lakewood Husker]

I don't question the principle you're supporting. It's just that I believe, and think society at large generally believes, there are other principles which conflict and in fact overrules in this case. The first is, in our (somewhat aspirational) egalitarian society, women's equality is very important. Second, that we don't want to allow major public events and institutions to not be representative of strongly held values like the first. Third, that we don't want to disadvantage women in their careers.

This third principle is interesting in the case of private golf and country clubs, because golfing is extremely conducive, almost uniquely so, to business deal making and relationship building. Private clubs don't just exclude women; they attempt also to exclude those who aren't someone you might want to do business with, or want to know, if you are ambitious. Even a small local club can be important to join if you want to succeed in a local market place. That doesn't mean everyone should get to join. I don't think society has created that principle - except for some radical leftists with a material and egalitarian philosophy perhaps, but not a significant plurality. But for a more significant number of people, excluding a group of people access to an important success enhancing institution like a country club solely based on sex, has become untenable.

I wouldn't say objectors to local, exclusive clubs are a majority or large plurality yet, or see it as a big enough issue in their towns that they can devote a lot of time and effort to it. But with a club hosting the Masters - which makes its doings a national issue - there are enough objectors to convince the market-oriented people who really make the decisions, that they should bow to political will.

I think my analysis here is mostly correct. And that it best explains what happened here. Aside from that, we can certainly disagree about the rightness of the principles I listed. I support them, but they aren't inviolate, like "Thou shalt not kill". And certainly reasonable people may differ in how they resolve conflicts among these principles.

All that analysis misses the point.

G entleman
O nly
L adies
F orbidden

[Squatchsker]

All that analysis misses the point.

G entleman
O nly
L adies
F orbidden

First word rules out most here.

[huskrthill]

First word rules out most here.

That's why I bowl.

[huskernut]

All that analysis misses the point.

G entleman
O nly
L adies
F orbidden

Fair enough. But that would bum out Carl Spackler, my hero and role model.

[Squatchsker]

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/8345...hilip-k-howard

My current Throne Reading.