Augusta National admits first two female members

[The_Admiral]

You liberals are really going to see the error of your ways when one of these ladies up and menstruates all over the fairway as they're known to do.

[pmoehrin]

You liberals are really going to see the error of your ways when one of these ladies up and menstruates all over the fairway as they're known to do.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I think I've made this point on this board before, but I wonder if the people against progress like seem themselves on the same continuum I do. That is, people were once in support of the three-fifths compromise. They were once in favor of slavery, denying black men the right to vote, denying women the right to vote, denying civil rights, and so on. Please note that I'm not calling Cola racist or sexist (anymore than he self-identifies), nor am I lumping him in with anti-progress movements of the past.

I'm just wondering if people against change like this see themselves as part of a larger push towards general equality for all. Or, put another way, what's so great about denying women entry to your club? Or maybe put a third way, isn't allowing gender equality a very small price to pay for continuing to host the PGA's biggest event?

[The_Admiral]

You know what, South gonna South.

Incidentally, google "south gonna south" to see who else thought that and look what comes up at #2.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Well then, looks like the south won the Civil War after all.

[The_Admiral]

Well then, looks like the south won the Civil War after all.

[Cola]

I think I've made this point on this board before, but I wonder if the people against progress like seem themselves on the same continuum I do. That is, people were once in support of the three-fifths compromise. They were once in favor of slavery, denying black men the right to vote, denying women the right to vote, denying civil rights, and so on. Please note that I'm not calling Cola racist or sexist (anymore than he self-identifies), nor am I lumping him in with anti-progress movements of the past.

I'm just wondering if people against change like this see themselves as part of a larger push towards general equality for all. Or, put another way, what's so great about denying women entry to your club? Or maybe put a third way, isn't allowing gender equality a very small price to pay for continuing to host the PGA's biggest event?

I'm not some uber-conservative redneck wanting things to be like they were 70 years ago. My point here is that you are talking about human/women/race rights. No one is saying they can't play golf. No one is saying they can't be a patron of the Masters. But if I own a private establishment, why do I have to make my rules based on what you and everyone else thinks? That is all I am saying here. Let me run it the way I always have and want to. (Side note: I have never met a Southern woman that has cared about the issue, personally. It is usually the rich and/or special interest groups trying to make a name for themselves that "care".)

On another note, and I will address this below in response to Gothamite and rams80...but Augusta National doesn't need the PGA. The Masters is an entire beast of it's own and they run like the mob in that area- they get what they want and have unlimited amounts of money to buy it with. The PGA needs Augusta National and The Masters, not the other way around. Do you think the Super Bowl or other major championships could survive televised on free TV for 2 years without commercials and sponsors? Doubtful. That is chump change to Augusta National.

[Cola]

Then they probably shouldn't have started hosting a major golf tournament.

Exactly. Augusta National asked for the attention. They begged for it.

Please tell me you are both joking or either making all attempts to disagree with me on this.

The Masters has been around since the late 30's before it resembled anything like a major golf championship. In it's early years, it was basically a tournament for colleagues and friends of Bobby Jones.

To think that Augusta National could have KNOWN the course and tournament would be the biggest and best in the world many years later is crazy talk. To suggest they "begged" for the attention is even crazier- when have you ever seen them bring up the race/gender issue without inquiry or attack? Never is when.

Augusta National is not a government entity and shouldn't have to follow the same rules as one. Why is this so hard to understand? They aren't saying they hate black people or hate women. It is simply "we have done it this way and would like to continue doing it this way." How come the Boy Scouts, Masons, or any other organization/club/scholarship that has gender/age/race requirements are okay?

[Gothamite]

You're presuming that they do.

I don't think the Boy Scouts should be allowed to restrict membership on the basis of race or sexual orientation with impunity. They may have the legal right to do so, but not without criticism or scorn. Gender is slightly less important as there is a legitimate alternative for girls, but your analogy breaks down as there is no comparable club offering the prestige and business access of Augusta National.

If Augusta National prohibited women from playing on the grounds, I actually think they'd have a stronger argument. But by allowing women second-class access, they invited this scrutiny.

And yes, they're begging for the attention now by hosting the tournament every year, regardless of the situation when it started.

[rams80]

Then they probably shouldn't have started hosting a major golf tournament.

Exactly. Augusta National asked for the attention. They begged for it.

Please tell me you are both joking or either making all attempts to disagree with me on this.

The Masters has been around since the late 30's before it resembled anything like a major golf championship. In it's early years, it was basically a tournament for colleagues and friends of Bobby Jones.

To think that Augusta National could have KNOWN the course and tournament would be the biggest and best in the world many years later is crazy talk. To suggest they "begged" for the attention is even crazier- when have you ever seen them bring up the race/gender issue without inquiry or attack? Never is when.

I dunno, I suspect when they expanded the tournament field beyond "colleagues and friends of Bobby Jones" and invited media access, they might have had a clue that additional scrutiny might fall on other more sordid practices. It's what we in the real world call common sense. If they wanted to keep to themselves, they should have kept closed doors like all good fraternal quasi-secret societies and adopted another competitive sporting event, preferably one few people give a crap about. Say polo.

[Eye]

And yes, they're begging for the attention now by hosting the tournament every year, regardless of the situation when it started.

No, the PGA is giving them attention by letting them host a tournament every year.

Augusta can "beg", but nobody has to listen.

[Gothamite]

Okay, so they're begging for the attention and being rewarded with it.

Still, they ought to realize that the combination means added scrutiny on their discriminatory practices, and everything that follows.

[Saintsfan]

Then they probably shouldn't have started hosting a major golf tournament.

Exactly. Augusta National asked for the attention. They begged for it.

Please tell me you are both joking or either making all attempts to disagree with me on this.

The Masters has been around since the late 30's before it resembled anything like a major golf championship. In it's early years, it was basically a tournament for colleagues and friends of Bobby Jones.

To think that Augusta National could have KNOWN the course and tournament would be the biggest and best in the world many years later is crazy talk. To suggest they "begged" for the attention is even crazier- when have you ever seen them bring up the race/gender issue without inquiry or attack? Never is when.

Augusta National is not a government entity and shouldn't have to follow the same rules as one. Why is this so hard to understand? They aren't saying they hate black people or hate women. It is simply "we have done it this way and would like to continue doing it this way." How come the Boy Scouts, Masons, or any other organization/club/scholarship that has gender/age/race requirements are okay?

A shot played in the second year of the Masters was the original 'shot heard round the world.' The Masters was pretty much a big thing from year 1.

In many countries girls are indeed allowed into the Scouts.

And the difference here from some forms of positive discrimination is that the Augusta National is choosing to do this. Its not been forced to, its made a decision for itself that there really is no need to exclude women. As such, as I see it two human reactions are available. Applause or a shrug of the shoulders. Anything else is a troll trying to get attention.

[Epiphanic]

Gender is slightly less important as there is a legitimate alternative for girls, but your analogy breaks down as there is no comparable club offering the prestige and business access of Augusta National.

Unless I'm missing something, I find it interesting that you are arguing prestige matters. If Augusta National was some crappy course hosting some crappy tournament, then prohibiting women or any other group would be more acceptable? I think I agree with Cola's argument. Augusta is a private club and should be free to admit whomever they choose.

This isn't to say that Augusta National should be free from scrutiny, just simply that they are a private club and therefore are free to admit or deny membership to applicants as arbitrary as they choose.

On a related note, how do you feel about private clubs in general?

[Gothamite]

I don't have a problem with private clubs in general. Nor do I have a problem with criticizing those private clubs when they have stupid or immoral policies.

Prestige is important in this conversation because the "[women/black people/insert other group here] can go join another club" breaks down when there are membership benefits that cannot be secured elsewhere. If there is a benefit in business, say, in access to and connections with prominent businessmen that can only be found at a place like Augusta National, then Augusta National is doubly immoral in withholding those benefits from aspirants solely because of the genitalia (or color of the genitalia) of those aspirents. And we should be doubly loud in ridiculing the club for it.

[OnWis97]

I don't have a problem with private clubs in general. Nor do I have a problem with criticizing those private clubs when they have stupid or immoral policies.

Prestige is important in this conversation because the "[women/black people/insert other group here] can go join another club" breaks down when there are membership benefits that cannot be secured elsewhere. If there is a benefit in business, say, in access to and connections with prominent businessmen that can only be found at a place like Augusta National, then Augusta National is doubly immoral in withholding those benefits from aspirants solely because of the genitalia (or color of the genitalia) of those aspirents. And we should be doubly loud in ridiculing the club for it.

I personally could care less about the prestige part. There are other places to golf. And let's face it, golf has always been about elitism. However, while I actually would argue it should be legal for them to exclude people based on race (and I am sure there are still plenty of clubs that do that; not only in the south either), they would be taking TONS of criticism and getting much less defense than they do now. Speaking up for what's right (even in criticism of a private club that has its right) is as American as apple pie. If everyone just accepted everything for what it was and kept their mouths shut just not to be seen as "rocking the boat" would the world really be a different place? Next time a restaurant has a policy against having minority employees in a "visible" part of the store (and this happens), I'll make sure to not change my attitude towards that place, "accept it for what it is" because god forbid I come off was "weak minded" or "PC."

We had to accept the US Open being held at a restricted club. We were told to accept it and move on. Now they have made their choice to admit a couple of women. It's time now for a different group of people to accept it and move on.

[Epiphanic]

I don't have a problem with private clubs in general. Nor do I have a problem with criticizing those private clubs when they have stupid or immoral policies.

Prestige is important in this conversation because the "[women/black people/insert other group here] can go join another club" breaks down when there are membership benefits that cannot be secured elsewhere. If there is a benefit in business, say, in access to and connections with prominent businessmen that can only be found at a place like Augusta National, then Augusta National is doubly immoral in withholding those benefits from aspirants solely because of the genitalia (or color of the genitalia) of those aspirents. And we should be doubly loud in ridiculing the club for it.

I see your point and am willing to grant it, but now your argument rests on the idea that membership to Augusta National opens doors that are otherwise completely closed to non-members (regardless of color, gender, or other demographic distinction). I'm willing to bet that Augusta National is not the sole institution for people to hobnob with "prominent businessmen".

I'd like to iterate that I think it's great that the club decided to admit Ms. Rice and Ms. Moore. It is also great to protest Augusta's (or any other private club's) membership policies if you find them unpalatable.