• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mvmac

Butler National Members Vote To Keep Women Out

56 posts in this topic

Teddy Greenstein on the membership at Butler National voting overwhelmingly to keep it a male only club.  The vote eliminates the Chicago layout from any consideration to host events such as the U.S. Open, BMW Championship and Ryder Cup.

This might be a surprising decision given the club's is in need of some cash after their 2004 Tom Fazio redo and membership decline.

Quote:
Sources said the decision puts the club in a precarious financial state. A membership decline, in part due to business executives resigning because of the all-male stigma, means the club will have to increase annual dues and perhaps lower initiation fees for national members.
"We're in a death spiral," said one member of the club's future.
A U.S. Open could generate more than $4 million for the club, industry analysts say, and Monday corporate outing would bring in a consistent flow of cash.

But those voting against adding women apparently like the all-male feel of the 20,000-foot clubhouse, which was not designed to accommodate women.

And politics are at play. Club President Ed Gustafson is a disciple of Don Kelly, a former club president and key figure in the club's growth who was adamant about an all-male membership.

The course dropped from 37th to 54th in Golf Digest's most recent list of the top 100 American courses.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

If they are a private group and aren't receiving any kind of federal, state or local aid... then they can do what they want. It may not be to soundest of financial methods to stay afloat, but... that's their choice. No different than a private company like "Curves" or Lucille Roberts from allowing males to join their gyms.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Butler is just one of many men's only clubs in the Windy City.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Idiots.

Not because they want to be male-only - I'm on board with the whole private club can admit who they want kind of thing - but because it sounds like they are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  If you'd rather have a male only club than a club with females, fine, whatever, your prerogative.  But when your choice is a club that includes the fairer sex or no club at all, and you choose no club at all ... then you are an idiot.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

I would never be a member of a club that excluded anyone on the basis of sex, race,or religon, but if a private club wants to discriminate, that's up to them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sausage fest. LOL. I say let the ladies in!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

If jackwads want to congregate and associate together, the First Amendment allows it but the rest of us should do nothing to make the existence of their association any easier.  I support the ban on tournaments from that sort of club.  I have no idea what sort of entity a private country club is for tax purposes, but one that practices discrimination against others based on membership in a class that is protected under federal law should receive exactly no tax breaks regardless of whether they genuinely generate no more profits than an orphanage or free clinic and should be subject to all taxes at the highest rates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's pretty sad.  most women don't even like golf, but when they do i definitely encourage it.  bad form.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the members explain it to their wives and daughters?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by tuffluck

that's pretty sad.  most women don't even like golf, but when they do i definitely encourage it.  bad form.

Originally Posted by cooke119

I wonder how the members explain it to their wives and daughters?

I don't understand comments like this. So what? It's a men's club. They're not breaking any laws. They're not even being jerks IMO. They explain it by saying to their wives and daughters "if you want to join a women's club, I understand."

It may be their mistake in the end. Or perhaps they'll rebound. We'll see. But it's their club, and they can run it how they see fit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by cooke119

I wonder how the members explain it to their wives and daughters?


Do you tag along when your wife (assuming you have one) attends the neighborhood Pampered Chef party? If not, how does she explain that to you?

Not really being serious above, but it amazes me how many people feel the need to regulate what other people do with their time and their money.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Wisguy

If jackwads want to congregate and associate together, the First Amendment allows it but the rest of us should do nothing to make the existence of their association any easier.  I support the ban on tournaments from that sort of club.  I have no idea what sort of entity a private country club is for tax purposes, but one that practices discrimination against others based on membership in a class that is protected under federal law should receive exactly no tax breaks regardless of whether they genuinely generate no more profits than an orphanage or free clinic and should be subject to all taxes at the highest rates.


I suppose your ideas about taxing other people is quite popular nowadays. By God, if other people don't do what I like, them let's tax them at the highest rates!!!! Just amazing....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I walked two rounds of the Western Open at Butler National back in 1974. Even back then, it was a nearly impossible course for the average golfer.

It has lots of forced carries across water, a factor which women's golf advocates say make courses too difficult for the average female. If they did admit women, would enough show up to cover the cost of building another set of tee boxes?

I've seen famous courses where the average woman has a sporting chance from the front tees. Butler National is not one of them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are women only golf clubs too, some in Chicago.  I agree with Erik, there are plenty of courses to play, if the members prefer to keep it men only what's the big deal?

As for how to explain it to my wife, it's simple, "Honey, the golf club I joined is men only, they don't allow wives or girlfriends at the golf club."  Not that tough is it?

The politically correct police are getting a little carried away here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by WUTiger

I walked two rounds of the Western Open at Butler National back in 1974. Even back then, it was a nearly impossible course for the average golfer.

It has lots of forced carries across water, a factor which women's golf advocates say make courses too difficult for the average female. If they did admit women, would enough show up to cover the cost of building another set of tee boxes?

I've seen famous courses where the average woman has a sporting chance from the front tees. Butler National is not one of them.

First, lets clear this up... Butler National is in no way shape or form struggling for money.  Nor would they need to ever worry about funds to cover course renovations required, should they ever decide to modify the course to make it easier for female members by putting in new tee boxes.

1.) It was already established that by Butler National changing their club policies to accept females would pretty much place the club at the top of the list to host a future US Open - or Fed Ex Cup stop like the BMW Championship.  And by doing so, would generate approximately $4 to 5 million in funds for the course.

2.) You can't forget the fact that members of Butler are some of the financially elite business moguls in Chicagoland area...The club has a prestigious membership... They could more than afford the changes.

The other thing is I don't understand why people care or get worked up over Butler National and their male only policy.

They built the club in 1972 purely as a golf course facility only.  The clubhouse was built for males only - there are no facilities for women.  They did this intentionally so that they could use the annual membership funds to sync back into the golf course grounds, rather than spend it on facilities like pools, etc. etc... That females or children (family memberships) often include and are interested in using.  Therefore, they wanted to be a golf only facility - and felt a male only membership would not push to pull funds away from the course (as would a possible female membership) - and push for funding larger facilities for tea parties, weddings, etc. etc.  Taking away from the pure golf focus.

Plain and simple... It's a private golf club, and they can do whatever they wish.  And given that many of their members are actually members of multiple country clubs - they don't have to answer to their wives.  Their wives know Butler is a golf club.  End of story.  And lets be honest... These 'dudes' are not answering to their wives.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

First, lets clear this up... Butler National is in no way shape or form struggling for money.

That's not what it sounds like based on the quote Mike posted in the original post ...

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

2.) You can't forget the fact that members of Butler are some of the financially elite business moguls in Chicagoland area...The club has a prestigious membership... They could more than afford the changes.

... And it's apparently because some of these "financially elite business moguls" are resigning "because of the all-male stigma."  Keep in mind, I know nothing of Butler National outside of what Mike's story says ... but it sounds to me like they are struggling for money (or will be soon due to declining membership) and allowing women to become members would go a long way towards alleviating those issues.

If it was me, I'd be voting for the women ... then again if it was me, I wouldn't be choosing an all male club to begin with.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That's not what it sounds like based on the quote Mike posted in the original post ...

... And it's apparently because some of these "financially elite business moguls" are resigning "because of the all-male stigma."  Keep in mind, I know nothing of Butler National outside of what Mike's story says ... but it sounds to me like they are struggling for money (or will be soon due to declining membership) and allowing women to become members would go a long way towards alleviating those issues.

If it was me, I'd be voting for the women ... then again if it was me, I wouldn't be choosing an all male club to begin with.

The article is speculation - based off of a few members that decided to talk.  The Club President didn't respond to the medias request for comment.

They needed 75% of the members to vote in favor - and received less than 40% approval from the membership.  So that means over 60% of the current members are still for an all men's club.  There was an article on the same subject ~ 5 years ago and at that point in time, Butler's membership only received 20 or 25% approval.  And this isn't a new topic for Butler.  It has been a topic of debate for decades... But yet the club continues on and is still regarded as one of the best courses in the area (for those that are lucky enough to play it).

There are several younger members, who are more interested in hosting a Major or Ryder Cup than anything else... Simply hosting such an event brings even more accolades and public interest to the membership and course.  And given that desire, many of the members are slowly moving away from the male only membership stance.  The challenge is as stated before, there are still original members who want to stick to the traditions of focusing on golf - purist - and not worry about sprucing up the grounds to support things like swimming pools, spas, tennis courts, etc. that female membership may require or request - or even worse - demand.

But as I said before, I can assure you members are not going to let the club fail.  The type of folks that are members at Butler have children with trusts worth more than $5M.  They can more than afford the increased dues.  And even if there are those that leave under public scrutiny... Butler National in the Chicago area is known as a prestigious club for men.  Simply being a member brings a certain prestige even to this day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards and Achievements

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't understand comments like this. So what? It's a men's club. They're not breaking any laws. They're not even being jerks IMO. They explain it by saying to their wives and daughters "if you want to join a women's club, I understand."

It may be their mistake in the end. Or perhaps they'll rebound. We'll see. But it's their club, and they can run it how they see fit.

my perspective may be totally different, but my lady is my playing partner.  i flat out wouldn't join a club that wouldn't let her play, especially if i had to pay to keep her out.  not a lot of women like golf, so i really doubt that without this rule butler is going to be overrun with estrogen.  it just seems like a bunch of old senile men if you ask me.  they probably don't let homosexuals play there either.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Golf Evolution
  • Posts

    • GAME GOLF - Digital Tracking System
      Well, I went ahead and bit. Amazon Warehouse Deals has a few for $86 each. I had a $25 Amazon GC from Christmas, so after tax, it's going to be $66. It says the packaging is damaged, but no mention of problems with the device. Here's hoping it comes in good shape, and that it warms up pretty quickly so I can use it!
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (February 2016)
      The tournament I was supposed to play in was cancelled , so I played in a shotgun start today. The group I was in played at a quicker pace than the group in front and the group behind us, so I had plenty of opportunities for practicing greenside chipping and bunker shots as well as putting.
    • Jack or Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?
      While I expect it's largely accurate, I was more interested in a link to the actual quote than your paraphrase. The context of the question and interview plus the exact wording gives a clearer understanding of the statement. I accept deeper field of talent, I don't accept that it's automatically 'a ton' or an order of magnitude greater. What's the average score relative to the field (or % making the cut) in the PGA for the Pros vs. the PGA qualifiers from then to now? That could provide some insight to relative gap between majors field depth then and now. I am certain it's gotten harder for the PGA qualifiers to make it tot he weekend. I am less certain by how much the margin has shifted. The reason I stress the Majors and Opens is that size of field and openness to qualifiers is very important in making the top competitors face many elite players with potential to have a hot run of form. You're comparing apples to oranges there. That was ~ 1.5 million players in the U.S., not the world population of golfers. About 26 million golfers today in the U.S. Worldwide in 1920 who knows? But including Europe, Australia, and other 'commonwealth' countries it was likely double that - maybe triple. Also I can find no credible estimate that supports 100 million current golfers worldwide. Most generous is about 61 million. While there are a lot of clubs world-wide, participation of 'casual' unaffiliated golfers per club is not going to be the same as in the U.S. and that's the only way I get a number close to 100 million based on actual data. U.S. golf population talent base roughly tripled between Jack and Tiger and I expect worldwide it was a similar rate of increase. I think since the 1920's the U.S. has had about half the wold golf population, though that's started to decline of late as Asian participation increases. Jack was head and shoulders above highly competitive fields for nearly a generation similar to Tiger. I don't think human abilities change by orders of magnitude in short spans of time so I expect that Jack was an outlier of similar human ability as Tiger. How close and who has the edge is IMO debatable. Were Tiger's achievements (esp. the 'beat the field' streak) tougher than Jack's because of field depth, yes. How much more I'm not as sure as you. Did a relative 'competitive break' from full field events offered by the WGC's help Tiger there? Don't know but it's possible. Combine Tiger's regular wins and Majors and I have no problem giving him the greatest player of all time nod. I just don't think it's as cut and dried or by as large a margin as you seem to. They didn't play against each other so your confidence isn't any more a fact than my uncertainty. We're both estimating. Size of the field actually competing matters too, not just who wasn't invited to the party. I like the idea of a top player field and enjoy watching the events, but if only the top 50 players are playing they all have a better shot statistically than if the field was open to 156 or more players who are still very 'elite' in skill. As you've said in many posts, golf skill performance is highly variable. I agree and that's why I think size of field is relevant to the comparison, because I think the scoring variability of the top 90 golfers in the world overlaps considerably with the next 90 down and even a bit beyond that. That's why I wondered whether WGC wins are a bit less valuable than a major or a full field PGA tour event that's also open to Monday qualifying. Granted the world ranking system is better than it used to be, but it still weights international events more strongly than they deserve. Some of the reasons I think you may be undervaluing Nicklaus' achievement in comparing across eras.
    • "5 Minutes Daily" Practice Challenge (January 2016)
      I managed to complete the January challenge (without missing a day, I believe). It was a great months' work for my game - having to blog every day sure helps to focus each session.
    • Steel vs Graphite generic question
      S300 is one of the lowest launching steel shafts.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

    No users celebrating today
  • Blog Entries