Augusta National admits two female members

[BioGolfNebraska]

I think that advantages and exclusivity to classically oppressed groups (such as women, minorities) can be justified, while exclusivity involving the dominant members of our society (white males) cannot.  The reason is that a "women-only" or "african american-only" club does not advance this social group into a situation where they have a better lifestyle than the dominant member of society, they would simply be brought a little closer to equality.  We are talking about arbitrary differences (gender, skin color) that equate to large differences in perceived value in our society.  If these differences really are assigned arbitrary value (which I believe they are), one could imagine any number of situations where any other social group would have less perceived value in a particular society.  For example, Donald Trump, while highly valued in this society, is too stocky and unathletic to have been a dominant force in a hunter gatherer society.  Therefore, any attempts at leveling out the standard of living (even if it is by way of women-only exclusive membership to a clup, or lack of male-only exclusive membership) is justified and should be encouraged.

Why would being privately owned (ie. not owned by the government or the public) revoke any moral obligations toward fellow humans?

[SloverUT]

Originally Posted by BioGolfNebraska

I think that advantages and exclusivity to classically oppressed groups (such as women, minorities) can be justified, while exclusivity involving the dominant members of our society (white males) cannot.  The reason is that a "women-only" or "african american-only" club does not advance this social group into a situation where they have a better lifestyle than the dominant member of society, they would simply be brought a little closer to equality.  We are talking about arbitrary differences (gender, skin color) that equate to large differences in perceived value in our society.  If these differences really are assigned arbitrary value (which I believe they are), one could imagine any number of situations where any other social group would have less perceived value in a particular society.  For example, Donald Trump, while highly valued in this society, is too stocky and unathletic to have been a dominant force in a hunter gatherer society.  Therefore, any attempts at leveling out the standard of living (even if it is by way of women-only exclusive membership to a clup, or lack of male-only exclusive membership) is justified and should be encouraged.

Why would being privately owned (ie. not owned by the government or the public) revoke any moral obligations toward fellow humans?

Because as a private owner I have no moral obligation to include everyone in everything I do.  If I want to start an all male anything I should have the right to do so.  Specifically I should have the right because women have the same right to start an all womens anything.

To me, in this case, equality is having the equal right to do the same thing as another gender.  It would be perfectly allowable for women to open an all women's resort/golf course and I doubt anyone would make a stink about it.  Even if it became the most popular tournament location on the LPGA tour.

And it is easy to forget that women were still allowed to play golf at Augusta, they just couldn't become members.

[LovinItAll]

Originally Posted by BioGolfNebraska

I think that advantages and exclusivity to classically oppressed groups (such as women, minorities) can be justified, while exclusivity involving the dominant members of our society (white males) cannot.  The reason is that a "women-only" or "african american-only" club does not advance this social group into a situation where they have a better lifestyle than the dominant member of society, they would simply be brought a little closer to equality.  We are talking about arbitrary differences (gender, skin color) that equate to large differences in perceived value in our society.  If these differences really are assigned arbitrary value (which I believe they are), one could imagine any number of situations where any other social group would have less perceived value in a particular society.  For example, Donald Trump, while highly valued in this society, is too stocky and unathletic to have been a dominant force in a hunter gatherer society.  Therefore, any attempts at leveling out the standard of living (even if it is by way of women-only exclusive membership to a clup, or lack of male-only exclusive membership) is justified and should be encouraged.

Why would being privately owned (ie. not owned by the government or the public) revoke any moral obligations toward fellow humans?

I want to be clear that I'm not advancing or condoning a prejudicial agenda, but 'private' means just that: Private. The New York Athletic Club denied Jewish and Black members until at least the 1960's. The Jewish population didn't rail against the club, they simply found other places to join or whatever. I don't know if black americans ever pursued the issue.

Having a preferred member base isn't, in my opiniom, 'revoking a moral obligation' with regard to private clubs. A couple of great things about our country are:

- The right to have a private club of virtually any type

- The right to speak out against 'exclusive membership' clubs without reprisal.

My objections would begin if a club received government money. Until then, what they do is their business, even if I may find it offensive.

[BioGolfNebraska]

There may not be rules for what a private institution MUST do, but we all agree that there are things even a private institution should do.  A private institution should conduct their business in a generally moral way, and we probably all agree on that.  The discrepency is in what we would define as behavior that is not in concordance with optimal morality.  We would all agree (hopefully) that even private institutions which sacrifice members for improper dinner attire are morally reprehensible.  However, we clearly do not all aggree that private institutions that exclude certain individuals based on arbitrary qualifications are morally reprehensible.  This is because our individual definitions of what is "right" are based on how we were raised and what experiences we have had in life.  This is why situations such as this rarely see 100% consensus.

EDIT:  And I am okay with not reaching 100% consensus.  The discourse is interesting enough, and I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who disagrees with me.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by SloverUT

Because as a private owner I have no moral obligation to include everyone in everything I do.

Uh-uh.

As a private owner you have no LEGAL obligation to include everyone in everything you do.  Morality simply has to do with principles of "right" and "wrong," not governmental laws.

(It doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that private vs. public has no bearing on morals)

[BioGolfNebraska]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Uh-uh.

As a private owner you have no LEGAL obligation to include everyone in everything you do.  Morality simply has to do with principles of "right" and "wrong," not governmental laws.

(It doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means that private vs. public has no bearing on morals)

This was the main point I really wanted to enforce.  laws and "absolute right vs. wrong" are not a 100% overlap.

[Beachcomber]

The USGA has gone on record and said that it would not consider Butler National hosting a US Open, or major until they change their membership restrictions (currently male only).  Why this weighing on the USGA's decision to grant Butler a major seems silly to me.

To me... It would be like the Children's Miracle Network saying that they will no longer accept philanthropic funds from the Sigma Chi fraternity until they begin to admit females into the fraternity.

[LovinItAll]

We would all agree (hopefully) that even private institutions which sacrifice members for improper dinner attire are morally reprehensible.

Would you expand on this? I'm thinking I may be reading your intent wrong.

[BioGolfNebraska]

Originally Posted by LovinItAll

Would you expand on this? I'm thinking I may be reading your intent wrong.

I just wanted to emphasize that everyone agrees that institutions do have SOME boundary for their behavior EVEN IF they are private institutions.  I used an extreme example (human sacrifice) to emphasize that this is something that would not be morally condoned  even at a privately owned institution.  Everyone has their own value system with what they believe a "private institution" can do without being "imoral", but my point was that they are not exempt from morality just because they are not government-funded.

EDIT:  This has nothing to do with legality, because, I'm assuming, that noone on this forum would condone private club human sacrifice even if it was a legal practice.

I am not sure whether exluding women, minorities, or whomever from a club constitutes as imoral behavior.  I just want to make sure people realize that just because someone (or an institution) CAN do something, it does not necessarily mean that they SHOULD.

[iacas]

I have a hard time taking seriously people who can't get the PGA, the PGA Tour, and various other bodies within the game of golf straight.

The PGA Tour has never held an event at Augusta National. The Masters is run by Augusta National, the PGA Tour (not the PGA) simply says "prize money earned there counts for some things, and winning gets you an exemption." That's about it.

[newtogolf]

Overall, I see no reason why a private club should be forced to include women, Augusta included.  I'm all for women having the same rights as men, but there are times when I'd prefer to be in a setting where I don't want to deal with the crap that comes with having women present.

The addition of woman to a club brings about legal issues and exposure to the membership that a mens only club doesn't typically have to worry about.  If a bunch of guys drinking want to talk about Paula Creamers ass they can do so freely in a mens only club, the addition of women add risk and potential for sexual harassment lawsuits etc.  There's also potential for members to date or sleep with opposite sex which could cause problems within the club as well, potential for date rape accusations, cheating spouses, etc.

While I support private clubs right to exclude members on any criteria I see a major difference between race / religion and gender.  I can't think of a single reason why I would want to exclude a person based on religion / race, but I can come up with 10 easily on why I would want to exclude women.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Overall, I see no reason why a private club should be forced to include women, Augusta included.  I'm all for women having the same rights as men, but there are times when I'd prefer to be in a setting where I don't want to deal with the crap that comes with having women present.

The addition of woman to a club brings about legal issues and exposure to the membership that a mens only club doesn't typically have to worry about.  If a bunch of guys drinking want to talk about Paula Creamers ass they can do so freely in a mens only club, the addition of women add risk and potential for sexual harassment lawsuits etc.  There's also potential for members to date or sleep with opposite sex which could cause problems within the club as well, potential for date rape accusations, cheating spouses, etc.

While I support private clubs right to exclude members on any criteria I see a major difference between race / religion and gender.  I can't think of a single reason why I would want to exclude a person based on religion / race, but I can come up with 10 easily on why I would want to exclude women.

I tend to agree with this comment.  Although, I understand why some people get hung up on religion/race issue - as they believe in their God or Gods - and their roots or lineage.

I call myself a 'mutt' because I have so many different blood lines... And have become more of a believer of just being congenial, fair and honest to those I come in contact with.  It makes life much more enjoyable if you throw out all the 'I was raised this way - and believe this.' attitudes or pretenses.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by iacas

I have a hard time taking seriously people who can't get the PGA, the PGA Tour, and various other bodies within the game of golf straight.

The PGA Tour has never held an event at Augusta National. The Masters is run by Augusta National, the PGA Tour (not the PGA) simply says "prize money earned there counts for some things, and winning gets you an exemption." That's about it.

Unless you really dissect and analyze it - I can see why people are confused.  I'm sure if you polled 98% of golf fans, they would get it wrong.  That doesn't mean that 98% of them don't know what they are talking about.  Just confused.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by BioGolfNebraska

I think that advantages and exclusivity to classically oppressed groups (such as women, minorities) can be justified, while exclusivity involving the dominant members of our society (white males) cannot.  The reason is that a "women-only" or "african american-only" club does not advance this social group into a situation where they have a better lifestyle than the dominant member of society, they would simply be brought a little closer to equality.

So you're saying it is OK to discriminate against people, as long as they're white males. Got it.

Sorry but that's a load of politically correct BS.

Again, everything in the world doesn't have to be inclusive. And that's ok. This is like someone suing because they didn't get invited to the treehouse sleepover. If a bunch of guys want to have what's effectively a 'guy's night' without women in the club, why is that some horrific end of the world? It isn't. But because we have to placate everyone's delicate sensibilities, we have to go out of our way to make sure nobody gets their feelings hurt and everyone gets a turn.

It's stupid. It's silly. If someone didn't want me in their club, I'd find another club. I wouldn't go cry and moan about them not letting me in theirs.

Honestly, I care much less about the integration of women members than I do the blatant hypocrisy that has become commonplace. People stand on their soap boxes and take up their crosses under the guise of fighting against some form of discrimination - but have ZERO problems with discrimination against some unprotected class.

If you are losing sleep over the travesty that is an all male country club, then the same amount of sleep should be lost over an all female health club. End of story.

[parsnates]

There may not be rules for what a private institution MUST do, but we all agree that there are things even a private institution should do.  A private institution should conduct their business in a generally moral way, and we probably all agree on that.  The discrepency is in what we would define as behavior that is not in concordance with optimal morality.  We would all agree (hopefully) that even private institutions which sacrifice members for improper dinner attire are morally reprehensible.  However, we clearly do not all aggree that private institutions that exclude certain individuals based on arbitrary qualifications are morally reprehensible.  This is because our individual definitions of what is "right" are based on how we were raised and what experiences we have had in life.  This is why situations such as this rarely see 100% consensus. EDIT:  And I am okay with not reaching 100% consensus.  The discourse is interesting enough, and I don't think there is anything wrong with someone who disagrees with me.

Bad example. Not even Augusta National is allowed to kill its members for infractions of its rules. The private club thing only goes so far. Being a private club, just like a private citizen or business, as long as you don't break the law, you can do whatever you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. For example, if you don't like Chick-fil-a's religion or politics, don't buy their chicken. If their founder's beliefs wreck the business, so be it. As for Augusta, they have proven themselves willing to accept the consequences of their actions. As you recall, they eschewed all advertising one year rather than put their sponsors on the spot. As for this being some blow for equality, let's not get carried away.. It was just an exclusive group of uber rich and powerful letting in another subset of the same. I don't begrudge Condi or Darla their membership or Augusta National their exclusive club. I just don't think they are representative or exemplars of our society as a whole.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Unless you really dissect and analyze it - I can see why people are confused.  I'm sure if you polled 98% of golf fans, they would get it wrong.  That doesn't mean that 98% of them don't know what they are talking about.  Just confused.

I'm certain you're right or very close to it.

But if you want to discuss something and have an opinion you wish to share, I personally expect a base level of knowledge. :)

[BioGolfNebraska]

Originally Posted by parsnates

Bad example. Not even Augusta National is allowed to kill its members for infractions of its rules. The private club thing only goes so far.

Being a private club, just like a private citizen or business, as long as you don't break the law, you can do whatever you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. For example, if you don't like Chick-fil-a's religion or politics, don't buy their chicken. If their founder's beliefs wreck the business, so be it. As for Augusta, they have proven themselves willing to accept the consequences of their actions. As you recall, they eschewed all advertising one year rather than put their sponsors on the spot.

As for this being some blow for equality, let's not get carried away.. It was just an exclusive group of uber rich and powerful letting in another subset of the same. I don't begrudge Condi or Darla their membership or Augusta National their exclusive club. I just don't think they are representative or exemplars of our society as a whole.

Again, you are missing the difference between can and should .  I am not saying what Augusta (or any other private club) should do, all I am saying is that what they should do (on the sheer basis of what is "right" and "good") may not be everything that they can do. If Augusta could kill its members for infraction of the rules, you and I (and most others) would agree that they should not .  They absolutely can chose who to be a member of their club, but people are going to have different opinions about whether they should .  Arbitrarily excluding people based on race or gender is not intuitively wrong to everyone, I understand that.  Certain things (such as senseless murder) are intuitively wrong to nearly everyone (aside from psychopaths).

As far as bamagrad's comments are concerned:  I wouldn't say it is okay to discriminate against white males, necessarily, but I would say it is less okay to discriminate against those who are not lucky enough to be born a white male in the United States.  I think you can justify giving an advantage to a class that has a lower standard of living (due to arbitrary discrimination), because that advantage will still not make them level to the majority in power.  That being said, I will guess with about 90% certainty that you are a white male, and that you do not want your superiority to be withdrawn.  I don't blame you for that viewpoint.  I also do not necessarily take the stance that private golf clubs should include everyone (lord knows Augusta would not allow me as a member, and I am okay with that), but I do take the stance that we should be cognizant of the fact that some groups of people lead a much more difficult life than we do (as far as getting jobs, salaries, and getting into private clubs where they could network with important people).  I think that it never hurts to do whatever possible to benefit those groups of people, because my group (and myself) seem to be doing just fine.

I mean no offense, and I certainly do not want to be inflammatory.  If you think my analogies do not emphasize my point, if you do not understand my point, or if you do not agree with my point, I hope you do not hold it against me.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by BioGolfNebraska

...

That being said, I will guess with about 90% certainty that you are a white male, and that you do not want your superiority to be withdrawn.

Augusta's right for it's membership to be men-only, just as any private club's right to be exclusive, has absolutely nothing to do with superiority.  It has to do with the desire for men to drink scotch, smoke cigars, burp, fart, and tell bawdy jokes without having to be on their best behavior because the fairer sex is around. That fact that some people enjoy a boys-only poker game or golf outing from time to time doesn't mean they feel superior to women.