Augusta May Have To Admit Its First Woman Member

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

So thumbs down to the dude with the sign. But having a laugh over it (cuz it's pretty effin funny) should not label anyone. Except as having a sense of humor.

So if the hispanics were protesting outside of an Arizona courthouse, you'd laugh at a sign that said "Mow my lawn?"

Of if African Americans were protesting the murder of a teen in Florida, you'd laugh if Fuzzy Zoeller set up a "fried chicken and watermelon" stand?

It's not funny, IMO.

[newtogolf]

"IMO" is the key, we're all allowed to have our own opinion and sense of humor.  I'm not saying that I find any of your scenarios particularly funny but I think you'be being a little sensitive.

Originally Posted by k-troop

So if the hispanics were protesting outside of an Arizona courthouse, you'd laugh at a sign that said "Mow my lawn?"

Of if African Americans were protesting the murder of a teen in Florida, you'd laugh if Fuzzy Zoeller set up a "fried chicken and watermelon" stand?

It's not funny, IMO.

[VMAN]

Some of these arguments are just argumentative for the sake.  And it's easy to be on one side or the other.  Along the same lines of thoughts one could say that the girl scouts or boy scouts are ridiculously antiquated as well.

To me this is a case where a number of people can be on either side and both be right to some degree.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

It's not funny, IMO.

My wife thought it was funny.

[newtogolf]

Mine did too, I asked her to take a look just to make sure I wasn't out of line.

Originally Posted by iacas

My wife thought it was funny.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by k-troop

So if the hispanics were protesting outside of an Arizona courthouse, you'd laugh at a sign that said "Mow my lawn?"

Of if African Americans were protesting the murder of a teen in Florida, you'd laugh if Fuzzy Zoeller set up a "fried chicken and watermelon" stand?

It's not funny, IMO.

Your two examples reflect, in the first case, the rights of hispanics, and in the second, murder.

We are talking about a private golf club & who they allow to be members of it . In other words, in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn trivial. Thus the humor of the sign.

You trying to quid pro quo it to basic human rights struggles of minorities is what's not funny.

So to recap:

Joking about women protesting being denied membership to ANGC with an 'Iron My Shirt Bitch' sign: Funny.

Joking about fried chicken at at a protest of a murdered black teen: Not funny.

Context. Makes all the difference in the world.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by Shindig

If the Super Bowl were owned and operated by a non-NFL entity, wouldn't you think it silly if the NFL didn't even acknowledge it? Not counting a major towards season standings would destroy the credibility of the playoff system.

[citation needed] -- if you're going to accuse them of something awful, have some proof. I'd like to see it. I've followed this event for years, since before I cared about golf, and I've never seen anything more than an un-backed-up assertion to support your claim. They have the perception of it, largely thanks to a media campaign by a troublemaker. But in America, we don't convict people based on accusations and perceptions; it's a gross injustice.

That's easy: I explain the importance of reality vs perception.

OK, so the PGA Tour sanctioning this event is OK because their tournament is considered a major?  So if it were a "lesser" tournament, then sanctioning it would be a problem?

We aren't in a court of law and no one is being tried or convicted by anyone.  Public opinion and sentiment are not bound by the same burden of proof.  Perception, in the absence of concrete information, always molds public opinion.  If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

You wouldn't be explaining reality vs perception to her.  You'd be explaining perception (yours) vs perception (mine).  If you had a document from ANGC explaining membership criteria, lists, or statements from the members then you'd have the reality.  Without any information it's all perception.

[limoric]

Originally Posted by k-troop

So if the hispanics were protesting outside of an Arizona courthouse, you'd laugh at a sign that said "Mow my lawn?"

Of if African Americans were protesting the murder of a teen in Florida, you'd laugh if Fuzzy Zoeller set up a "fried chicken and watermelon" stand?

It's not funny, IMO.

If it were one white dude standing among 100 hispanics, I would LMFAO; that doesn't make his point of view correct though. Sometimes what's politically incorrect can be funny. A problem lies when that dude insights others to do the same...

A good friend of mine is from East Africa (brown guy) and very successful Lawyer. If we happen to be talking on a sunny day, he say's, "I hope you are using this day to work on your tan, I can't be seen in my nighborhood with someone as pale as you". If he really means what he says, it's wrong, but he doesn't so it's f'n hillarious, just like when I asking him if his ass is OK after clearing customs when he arrives back home from a trip abroad. We are clearly not making fun of eachother, but using oursleves as proxies to criticise society...

The dude holding the sign may simply be criticizing the protesters and what better way than to be provocative...it's sure got a lot of people on this thread talking...

[k-troop]

Okay, okay guys.  I give up.  Maybe it's the environment I work in.  We don't tolerate any form of racism or sexism.  Period.  Jokes aren't funny and aren't tolerated.  If a leader allows one person to laugh at a joke, even if it might be considered "funny in context", you have just changed the organization's official policy towards racism or sexism.

That's where I'm coming from.  I guess I am sensitive.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

We are talking about a private golf club & who they allow to be members of it. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty damn trivial. Thus the humor of the sign.

We are talking about a major sports enterprise in the USA sanctioning an event at a private golf club & who they allow to be members of it .

Accurate information: makes all the difference in the world.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by burtonda

OK, so the PGA Tour sanctioning this event is OK because their tournament is considered a major?  So if it were a "lesser" tournament, then sanctioning it would be a problem?

How you got that out of what's been said is beyond me.

Originally Posted by burtonda

We are talking about a major sports enterprise in the USA sanctioning an event at a private golf club & who they allow to be members of it.

Accurate information: makes all the difference in the world.

What's your point?

---

I don't care that they've sanctioned the event. My wife doesn't care that they sanctioned the event. If my daughter asks, I'll tell her it's a private club and they get to do as they wish so long as they're not infringing on anyone's rights.

Last time I checked it's not a person's right to be admitted to any private club to which they wish to be admitted.

Guess what? If a woman ever qualified to play in The Masters, they'd get to play.

[newtogolf]

I think you should boycott the event.  Refrain from; watching it, reading any coverage or supporting the sponsors.  You could even write a letter to the PGA and the sponsors.  What's great is you can do all of that in protest while my wife, daughter and I watch the Masters this weekend.

Originally Posted by burtonda

How can you claim that they have absolutely nothing to do with this event when it is on their 2012 schedule and counts towards FedExCup standings?  This makes no sense.

Their sanctioning of the event sends the message that it's OK to discriminate against women as long as the money's right and it follows sacred "tradition".  Would it be different if the club discriminated against certain races?  Or certain religious beliefs?  Or certain sexual orientations?  If so, why is it OK when it's women?

I couldn't care less what these uber-rich frat boy Augusta members do at their grownup playhouse and who they choose for playdates.  I don't care if they host a tournament there every day of the year.  It becomes a problem when a major sporting body sanctions their event as part of their official schedule.  If you have a daughter/granddaughter, try explaining why this is OK to them.

[limoric]

Originally Posted by iacas

Guess what? If a woman ever qualified to play in The Masters, they'd get to play.

But what if she won???

[iacas]

Originally Posted by limoric

But what if she won???

She'd be invited back every year.

Only two former winners are actually members, I believe: Arnie and Jack.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by burtonda

We are talking about a major sports enterprise in the USA sanctioning an event at a private golf club & who they allow to be members of it.

Accurate information: makes all the difference in the world.

Augusta hardly allows anyone to be members. By that logic they discriminate against me just as much as any woman.

As far as the PGA is concerned, the members aren't taking place in the tournament and there's no rule against women competing to my knowledge, provided they qualify in the set criteria and do so on the men's level of competition. As long as women are allowed to watch the tournament in galleries, allowed to caddy, and such, they aren't being discriminated against in terms of the PGA's involvement. And the PGA picks up and moves out of town after Sunday, so whether they have female members or not they wouldn't ever be allowed on the course during masters week.

You may feel they should be more involved, but the PGA does arguably fulfill its obligations. Augusta is Augusta, and the Masters is the Masters; there's no discrimination at the Masters.

And I don't know about you, but I saw a number of young ladies holing putts on the par 3 course just now. That's a hell of a lot closer to the course than I'll ever get, and whether you consider it meaningful or not it's still a fact.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by iacas

How you got that out of what's been said is beyond me.

It came directly from shindig's argument that it wouldn't make sense for the PGA Tour to remove the tournament from the playoff standings simply because it is a major.  And some other odd analogy about the Super Bowl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

I don't care that they've sanctioned the event. My wife doesn't care that they sanctioned the event. If my daughter asks, I'll tell her it's a private club and they get to do as they wish so long as they're not infringing on anyone's rights.

Well if it's OK with you 2 it should be OK for everyone.

Originally Posted by iacas

Last time I checked it's not a person's right to be admitted to any private club to which they wish to be admitted.

I completely agree with this.  But that club's membership criteria are certainly fair game for public scorn.

[burtonda]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

Augusta hardly allows anyone to be members. By that logic they discriminate against me just as much as any woman.

You aren't invited because of your substandard portfolio, social standing, power, and connections.  Even if a woman has these things she still doesn't get in.  That's the difference.

[limoric]

Originally Posted by iacas

She'd be invited back every year.

Only two former winners are actually members, I believe: Arnie and Jack.

Wow! I didn't know that. Wiki says the player becomes an honorary member. I've been doing some googling and it looks like a masters champion can play the course when they want, but they are not full members otherwise...