Thoughts on Rickie Fowler and The Masters' tradition?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by burtonda

I don't see how this is much different than the color line in baseball before Jackie Robinson. There was no official policy calling for racial segregation, but all the teams followed this unwritten rule.

I'm just saying: they're not a "men's club" officially, and women play and caddie there quite freely.

If and when they admit a female member, she'll probably be kind of a tomboy type, because I think the reason the "unofficial" rule has been followed thus far has a lot more to do with socialization than any sort of male chauvinism or misogyny.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm just saying: they're not a "men's club" officially, and women play and caddie there quite freely.

If and when they admit a female member, she'll probably be kind of a tomboy type, because I think the reason the "unofficial" rule has been followed thus far has a lot more to do with socialization than any sort of male chauvinism or misogyny.

So they're not saying, "we'd love to have you join, but we since this is technically a men's club - it's in our charter - you'll have to join a different club". They're pretty much saying, "even though you're technically permitted to join, we don't want you here, so go away. . . until next year's Masters, then bring your Visa"

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by iacas

I think the reason the "unofficial" rule has been followed thus far has a lot more to do with socialization than any sort of male chauvinism or misogyny.

I hear what you are saying to be honest, what guy, no matter the age, class or place they are from dones't like a little bit of female "socialization?"

Augusta not officially labelling their club as a men's only club is a "cop out."

I've been to many "exclusive" private clubs and many of the male members enjoy the aspect of female "socialization."  I don't buy that females would hinder that part of it.

Honestly, I think it would be less offensive if they just said they were a men's club vs. saying you can't be a memeber but we'll take your money anyway as a guest playing or as a guest at our yearly masters event.

[newtogolf]

The club is structured so that membership is by invitation only, you can't apply to be a member, you have to be invited to join.  This is the key, since no one can apply or be turned down they in theory aren't discriminating.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The club is structured so that membership is by invitation only, you can't apply to be a member, you have to be invited to join.  This is the key, since no one can apply or be turned down they in theory aren't discriminating.

Actually that's one definition of descrimination. Not inviting certain members of society. I didn't say they were prejudiced in their descrimination, but I'm just sayin'.

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Actually that's one definition of descrimination. Not inviting certain members of society. I didn't say they were prejudiced in their descrimination, but I'm just sayin'.

I wasn't defending them in that post, simply pointing out how they've gotten away with it for so long.  I don't really have an opinion on the AN members or how they run their club.  I don't expect to get an invite any time soon, nor could I afford the membership fees if I did, so it doesn't matter to me.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

I hear what you are saying to be honest, what guy, no matter the age, class or place they are from dones't like a little bit of female "socialization?"

Augusta not officially labelling their club as a men's only club is a "cop out."

I disagree it's a cop-out. It's their club and they're running it how they'd like. If they see fit to invite a woman, they will.

You don't seem to have understood what I meant by "socialization." Men tend to behave one way, and women tend to behave differently. Even at clubs which have both, the two groups tend to separate themselves. You rarely see men playing with women who aren't related to them unless they're in a mixed doubles tournament or something like that. Men play in men's leagues, women in women's, and they tend to play together outside of leagues as well. The conversations they have in the grill room differ, often dramatically, and so on.

I know a lot of guys who golf - at even a public golf course - for some "guy time."

[Shindig]

For those that think that Augusta is discriminating, check out Earl Woods' comment in Feb 2004 Golf Digest ( http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/myshot_gd0402 )

Quote:

Clubs like Augusta National don't discriminate. They just don't want you. There's a difference. It's a bitch not being wanted by something or someone, which is why divorces are so difficult. But I've learned to handle rejection very well. If you love yourself enough, you won't give a damn if they want you or not

[sean_miller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shindig

For those that think that Augusta is discriminating, check out Earl Woods' comment in Feb 2004 Golf Digest ( http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/myshot_gd0402 )

v.intr.

1. 1. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
   2. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/discriminate#ixzz1JL4LmgMC

[zeg]

Careful guys, using a word's definition out of context can be construed as abuse of rhetoric.

In this case, though, even the contextually-correct meaning of "discrimination" is probably in agreement with Shindig's Earl Woods quote.  The question is, does ANGC "Discriminate with a big D" against certain classes based on race or gender?  For a group that is very "discriminating with a little d," it's hard to know.  If I put together a golf club based on my friends, it's quite possible it'd be 100% caucasian male.  It's not that I'm opposed to inviting people of different colors or genders, it's just that I don't know very many who are interested in golf.

It's a bit less likely for a group the size of ANGC's membership, but in the end, it is a private organization that does not provide public accommodations.  As such, it's within their rights to associate with whom they choose, even if their choices or selection methods are distasteful to some.  It's not at all the same as a business discriminating against the public, it's more like someone choosing whom to invite into his home for dinner.

BTW, I'm not saying that ANGC is or is not racist or sexist, that's not the point.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zeg

Careful guys, using a word's definition out of context can be construed as abuse of rhetoric.

In this case, though, even the contextually-correct meaning of "discrimination" is probably in agreement with Shindig's Earl Woods quote.  The question is, does ANGC "Discriminate with a big D" against certain classes based on race or gender?  For a group that is very "discriminating with a little d," it's hard to know.  If I put together a golf club based on my friends, it's quite possible it'd be 100% caucasian male.  It's not that I'm opposed to inviting people of different colors or genders, it's just that I don't know very many who are interested in golf.

It's a bit less likely for a group the size of ANGC's membership, but in the end, it is a private organization that does not provide public accommodations.  As such, it's within their rights to associate with whom they choose, even if their choices or selection methods are distasteful to some.  It's not at all the same as a business discriminating against the public, it's more like someone choosing whom to invite into his home for dinner.

BTW, I'm not saying that ANGC is or is not racist or sexist, that's not the point.

Who's taking definitions out of context now?

My post was to add some clarity to Earl Woods' somewhat irrelevant quote. He says they don't discriminate then goes on to explain how they do it. It's an example of how there's more than one way to use the word. I found his quote ironic. We all discriminate every day. In the purchases we make, the people with whom we choose to associate, etc. I didn't say it was necessarily discrimination with prejudice against a minority or identifiable group.

Is that what you thought I said?

[Noonan1]

Augusta National has some of the most influential, wealthy, powerful Americans as members. They are above the law - as proven time and time again with the whole race/sex segregation issue. If they say all hats must be worn forwards, then all hats must be worn forward.

[burtonda]

Quote:

For those that think that Augusta is discriminating, check out Earl Woods' comment in Feb 2004 Golf Digest ( http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/myshot_gd0402 )

Who really cares what Earl Woods thought about Augusta National's membership ranks?  He had a severe conflict of interest being the father of the world's best golfer who just happened to be making multiple millions of dollars donning their sacred green jacket.  When a club doesn't allow you in simply because of race or sex then they most certainly have discriminatory membership policies.  While it is legal discrimination because they are a private club, it doesn't make it right.  By hosting the premier event in professional golf and profiting greatly from massive TV contracts, which are ultimately paid for by members of the public, their backwards membership policies should rightly be open to criticism.  There are 2 easy ways to make the criticism stop.

Apologies if my post's format is a bit messed up - my browser is not cooperating today.

[Shindig]

Originally Posted by Noonan1

Augusta National has some of the most influential, wealthy, powerful Americans as members. They are above the law - as proven time and time again with the whole race/sex segregation issue. If they say all hats must be worn forwards, then all hats must be worn forward.

What law are they above?  There are plenty of examples in history of groups that had more influential, wealthy, and powerful members and have had to obey the law.  Why would Augusta National be any different?

Originally Posted by burtonda

When a club doesn't allow you in simply because of race or sex then they most certainly have discriminatory membership policies.  While it is legal discrimination because they are a private club, it doesn't make it right.  By hosting the premier event in professional golf and profiting greatly from massive TV contracts, which are ultimately paid for by members of the public, their backwards membership policies should rightly be open to criticism.  There are 2 easy ways to make the criticism stop.

[citation needed] -- Please give an example of Augusta National refusing to admit someone due to race or sex.   I don't believe this is what is happening.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Who's taking definitions out of context now?

My post was to add some clarity to Earl Woods' somewhat irrelevant quote. He says they don't discriminate then goes on to explain how they do it. It's an example of how there's more than one way to use the word. I found his quote ironic. We all discriminate every day. In the purchases we make, the people with whom we choose to associate, etc. I didn't say it was necessarily discrimination with prejudice against a minority or identifiable group.

Is that what you thought I said?

I can't tell what you're saying.  I'm confused because what you say in your last couple sentences (after "I found his quote ironic") is pretty much exactly what he is saying, yet you seem to be disagreeing with it.  In your terms, he simply says that ANGC does not discriminate with prejudice, they simply discriminate (i.e., are choosy about whom they associate with).

Originally Posted by Shindig

What law are they above?  There are plenty of examples in history of groups that had more influential, wealthy, and powerful members and have had to obey the law.  Why would Augusta National be any different?

[citation needed] -- Please give an example of Augusta National refusing to admit someone due to race or sex.   I don't believe this is what is happening.

As I understand it, under US Federal law, a private club like ANGC would have no obligation not to discriminate in its membership.  In that respect, they are above the law, but so is any completely private club.  With respect to the Masters tournament, which does accommodate the public, they would not be exempt (so, e.g., they could not refuse to admit patrons based on protected characteristics, and probably couldn't refuse to hire security/catering/etc based on them either).  For their day-to-day operations, however, they are free to associate or not associate based on whatever criteria they choose.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zeg

I can't tell what you're saying.  I'm confused because what you say in your last couple sentences (after "I found his quote ironic") is pretty much exactly what he is saying, yet you seem to be disagreeing with it.  In your terms, he simply says that ANGC does not discriminate with prejudice, they simply discriminate (i.e., are choosy about whom they associate with).

You can't tell what I'm saying yet you seem to understand exactly what I'm saying.

I quit.

[max power]

Really?  Are there any female members?

Originally Posted by Shindig

[citation needed] -- Please give an example of Augusta National refusing to admit someone due to race or sex.   I don't believe this is what is happening.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by Shindig

[citation needed] -- Please give an example of Augusta National refusing to admit someone due to race or sex.   I don't believe this is what is happening.

First, I never said they refused to admit anyone.  No one applies for membership because it's by invite-only.  Second, how far does your head have to be in the sand to think that this good ol' boys club is not discriminatory?  They didn't invite their first African American until 1990 and that was only after another course hosting a PGA tournament had to change it's membership policies for the same reason.  They say that their club is private 51 weeks of the year and public only for the Masters - that is, they claim they are completely separate entities and Augusta National answers to no one. This should come as no surprise as many of their members work or worked for the too-big-to-fail companies that got a bunch of bailout money.  Since you're so into citations, here's an article with some of the facts, I'm sure you can google more: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2002-09-27-augusta_x.htm