Augusta May Have To Admit Its First Woman Member

[mtsalmela80]

If the PGA did that, I think the world would implode.

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

Yes, ANGC as a private club can admit whomever it wants to, and I do not have an argument with that. What I do have an argument with is why the PGA removed its Championship from Shoal Creek GC in 1990 for refusing to admit a Black member, but AGNC gets a pass while it refuses to admit Blacks and women.

Certainly there isn't anything the PGA can do about the Masters, since that tournament is run by the offending club, and not by the PGA. What it can do is, as a previous poster suggested, is refuse to award FedEx Cup points to participants. It could also refuse to recognize the tournament as an official PGA tournament, meaning the winner would not get a two-year Tour exemption, and money earned would not count on the official money list. It could remove being the Masters champion from the list of exemptions for the PGA Championship as could the USGA for the U.S. Open.

Like I said, why did one club get sanctioned but this one doesn't? That is what I would like to hear Tim Finchem and Glen Nager explain to us.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

Yes, ANGC as a private club can admit whomever it wants to, and I do not have an argument with that. What I do have an argument with is why the PGA removed its Championship from Shoal Creek GC in 1990 for refusing to admit a Black member, but AGNC gets a pass while it refuses to admit Blacks and women.

Certainly there isn't anything the PGA can do about the Masters, since that tournament is run by the offending club, and not by the PGA. What it can do is, as a previous poster suggested, is refuse to award FedEx Cup points to participants. It could also refuse to recognize the tournament as an official PGA tournament, meaning the winner would not get a two-year Tour exemption, and money earned would not count on the official money list. It could remove being the Masters champion from the list of exemptions for the PGA Championship as could the USGA for the U.S. Open.

Like I said, why did one club get sanctioned but this one doesn't? That is what I would like to hear Tim Finchem and Glen Nager explain to us.

The PGA != the PGA Tour. The "PGA" can't do a darn thing about the FedExCup or sanctioning.

Augusta National has several black members.

None of those things are going to happen.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

If someone was so motivated they could build an indentical course to ANGC any place else in general proximity to ANGC.  As was posted earlier by Shindig there's very good potential that Dr. Rice is already a member and ANGC didn't make a big deal about it.  It's a non-issue, they are a private club, they choose who joins.  I'd also add that while they may be one of the most famous they aren't the only club to restrict membership.

As Al Czervik once said, "Hey Wang I think this place is restricted so don't tell them you're Jewish, okay?"

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by iacas

Here's my take on women at Augusta: who cares? Seriously way too big a deal is made of this. There are groups out there which, because they're private groups, exclude people based on gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, age, income, etc.

Yeah, that.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

The PGA != the PGA Tour. The "PGA" can't do a darn thing about the FedExCup or sanctioning.

Augusta National has several black members.

None of those things are going to happen.

You're right. I got my PGAs mixed up. The PGA Tour can do something about FedEx Cup points and official wins and the money list. The PGA of America can apply the qualifying exemption sanction for its Championship tournament. Thank you also for correcting me on the Black members at Augusta.

And I know none of that will ever happen, but I would just like to hear golf's relevant governing bodies explain why they are not willing to treat apparent discrimination against women by a private club the same way they have against race, as regards major championships.

[bnz506]

No sanctions by the PGA are required because if a woman made it on the pga tour and did well enough to qualify for the masters... I have no doubt she will be playing in the masters... and if she some how won the masters I have no doubt she will be invited to play every year just like other past champions (I really want to see how Yani does on the tour).

The PGA should not have any influence on a private clubs membership anymore than any government body or crazy feminists.

*I read in a earlier post mentioning Dr Rice and I would not be surprised if she was already a member or if she would become the first female member.

[Shindig]

What it can do is, as a previous poster suggested, is refuse to award FedEx Cup points to participants. It could also refuse to recognize the tournament as an official PGA tournament, meaning the winner would not get a two-year Tour exemption, and money earned would not count on the official money list. It could remove being the Masters champion from the list of exemptions for the PGA Championship as could the USGA for the U.S. Open.

The PGA Tour could remove recognition of the Masters, along with the FedEx Cup points, the exemption (it's a five year exemption, by the way), and so on. The other majors could refuse to recognize the winner for purposes of admittance to their events. And these organizations would look really stupid for doing so. What would be the point? The players would all continue attending. If CBS didn't air it, any other station would leap at the chance to do so. If a sponsor backed out, a number of others would fight for the chance to take the place. I can't imagine the ratings would drop, nor that it would matter (Any drop in ratings isn't going to be from the ads' target demographics anyway). Top players would still aim to peak for the event. The players who qualified for the par-3 contest, even if they didn't qualify for the main event, would probably still show up. [quote name="The Recreational Golfer" url="/t/56772/augusta-may-have-to-admit-its-first-woman-member/54#post_696199"]

And I know none of that will ever happen, but I would just like to hear golf's relevant governing bodies explain why they are not willing to treat apparent discrimination against women by a private club the same way they have against race, as regards major championships.

[/quote] There's a strong difference - both in and out of golf - between systematic exclusion and lack of inclusion. Shoal Creek explicitly forbade members based on race. Augusta lacks such a requirement, and there's a big difference between "we aren't inviting you to be a member" and "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman."

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

And I know none of that will ever happen, but I would just like to hear golf's relevant governing bodies explain why they are not willing to treat apparent discrimination against women by a private club the same way they have against race, as regards major championships.

Because they are hypocrites.

Brandon

[mtsalmela80]

fine...

Originally Posted by zipazoid

As Al Czervik once said, "Hey Wang I think this place is restricted so don't tell them you're Jewish, okay?"

[brocks]

... there's a big difference between "we aren't inviting you to be a member" and "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman."

A difference in honesty, but not in effect.

[brocks]

There are groups out there which, because they're private groups, exclude people based on gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, age, income, etc.

1. The fact that we can't fix everything doesn't imply that we should be concerned about nothing. 2. The Masters is arguably the biggest event in golf, so it makes all kinds of sense that golf fans should pay more attention to ANGC than to some private group that we've never heard of. 3. Does it not seem the least bit ironic that Hootie and his pals, who want to keep ANGC white and male (and nobody over 15 thinks their relatively recent inclusion of black members was not the result of pressure), are demanding tolerance from the public?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Shindig

There's a strong difference - both in and out of golf - between systematic exclusion and lack of inclusion. Shoal Creek explicitly forbade members based on race. Augusta lacks such a requirement, and there's a big difference between "we aren't inviting you to be a member" and "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman."

I agree with you (and brocks' response too - I still have to learn how to quote nested quotes on here :)) in the general sense, but not as it pertains to this thread.  This thread is only supposed to be about Ginny Rometty and the catch 22 that Augusta is in.  Assuming they don't invite her (and assuming obviously that they already haven't invited her or any other woman) then "we aren't inviting you as a member" = "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman" since every other man in her position previously has been invited.

Either way, for the outside world it should be a non issue.  They have every right as a private club to remain men-only if they so choose, and I imagine that outside of a small handful of agitators, nobody really cares what they do.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shindig

There's a strong difference - both in and out of golf - between systematic exclusion and lack of inclusion. Shoal Creek explicitly forbade members based on race. Augusta lacks such a requirement, and there's a big difference between "we aren't inviting you to be a member" and "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman."

I agree with you (and brocks' response too - I still have to learn how to quote nested quotes on here :)) in the general sense, but not as it pertains to this thread.  This thread is only supposed to be about Ginny Rometty and the catch 22 that Augusta is in.  Assuming they don't invite her (and assuming obviously that they already haven't invited her or any other woman) then "we aren't inviting you as a member" = "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman" since every other man in her position previously has been invited.

Either way, for the outside world it should be a non issue.  They have every right as a private club to remain men-only if they so choose, and I imagine that outside of a small handful of agitators, nobody really cares what they do.

If I was a female shareholder or employee of CBS or one of their sponsors I'd have a problem with it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by brocks

1. The fact that we can't fix everything doesn't imply that we should be concerned about nothing.

I never said we shouldn't be. But I could name about a billion things more important than a private club's membership policy. Especially when you can't even definitively say they don't have a female member.

Originally Posted by brocks

2. The Masters is arguably the biggest event in golf, so it makes all kinds of sense that golf fans should pay more attention to ANGC than to some private group that we've never heard of.

Why? Why can't I just say "So long as nobody's rights are infringed, what a private club does doesn't concern me in the slightest" and go about my day?

Originally Posted by brocks

3. Does it not seem the least bit ironic that Hootie and his pals, who want to keep ANGC white and male (and nobody over 15 thinks their relatively recent inclusion of black members was not the result of pressure), are demanding tolerance from the public?

They've got several black members. Why do you keep bringing up Hootie? You realize he's just one member, and he's not even really in charge of anything anymore, right? And Augusta has had black members for TWENTY YEARS, so "relatively recent" seems a bit awkward. How many black millionaire golfers were there prior to 1992 that otherwise met their criteria (which we don't know, but let's assume that you've gotta be about 45 or older, have had a good reputation in business or film or sport, etc.).

So no, doesn't seem ironic to me at all. And is it even happening? Where is this evidence of Hootie "and his pals demanding tolerance from the public"?

Down with the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts! They should not be exclusionary! Heck, they're doubly exclusionary: they exclude based on age AND gender! Cripes.

[Shindig]

(and nobody over 15 thinks their relatively recent inclusion of black members was not the result of pressure),

I'm almost twice that age and I think that, regardless of pressure, if they didn't want black members, they'd have them excluded. Erik has already pointed out that the pool to choose from was quite limited prior to twenty years ago. But hey, thanks for resorting to personal insults. [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/56772/augusta-may-have-to-admit-its-first-woman-member/54#post_696290"] Assuming they don't invite her (and assuming obviously that they already haven't invited her or any other woman) then "we aren't inviting you as a member" = "you aren't welcome as a member because you're a woman" since every other man in her position previously has been invited.[/quote] Really, Palmisano (previous CEO of IBM) was in her same position? Other than they were both CEO of IBM, what similarities are there? Did he make a public statement about his lack of interest in golf? When she became the CEO of IBM, a point was made several times that she has the position because she's earned it, not because of some attempt to "finally" have a female CEO. The appointment was the result of merit. In her shoes, I'd be rather insulted to be invited to join as a token minority. But it's not Rometty's mission to join, either: it's Burk's. One of them strives for equal treatment and gender equality; the other strives for publicity and doesn't mind setting back equal treatment and gender equality in order to get it.

[brocks]

I'm almost twice that age and I think that, regardless of pressure, if they didn't want black members, they'd have them excluded.

Then I stand corrected. Amazed, but corrected. Certainly did not intend to insult you.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Shindig

Really, Palmisano (previous CEO of IBM) was in her same position? Other than they were both CEO of IBM, what similarities are there? Did he make a public statement about his lack of interest in golf?

I confess that I don't know anything about that guy.  I only know what was written in the stories I read about this.  I went back and read again and it actually does say that "many" of the previous CEO's have been invited, not "every."  So if what you're implying is true (he wasn't invited) then that tells me they don't really have a dillemma at all, because the whole point of the story was which tradition they were going to honor.  If they haven't been inviting all of the previous CEOs, then its not really a tradition.

Oh, and her qualifications as CEO have nothing to do with anything here, nor does Martha Burk.

[Domenic]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Back for how many days? One, two? And you're already being offensive.

And thinking of your "Kurt Cobain" quote (actually Neil Young), it might be worth noting other lines in the song:

And once you're gone,

you can never come back

This may end up applying to you.

So, both you as well as Cobain didn't understand the lyrics.

sorry, man, I just was just playing, didn't want to offfend. And by the way you're earlier response the fat white men was spot on. I'd know.