Augusta National admits two female members

[onesome]

  Subaroo said:

Originally Posted by Subaroo

...and a Republican

Can of worms just opened....however is it really a surprise? Personally though I don't care and am real happy to see this finally happen.

[Dave2512]

  Beachcomber said:

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

Will it help me with my golf pivot?

Shucks if I know. But if it did I'd be first in line.

[ClayHbg]

  bamagrad03 said:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Hopefully this sparks a change in all those small-minded, hate-spawning, bigoted women's only health clubs. I'm sure that Martha Burk will be out in front of them protesting with a mega-phone.

Wait...It's only small-minded if it is Augusta. If women want a women only club, then it's a-OK.

If you can name a women's club with comparable money, prestige, and influence that Augusta has and you express a genuine desire to become a member, I guarantee people like Martha Burke would be happy to protest on your behalf.  It's not about taking things away from men, it's about granting equal opportunities to women.

[ClayHbg]

People need to stop turning everything into a cause. Men aren't allowed to feel self-conscious? Why are only women granted that concession? For the record, I see NO problem with all-women health clubs. But I think it is absolutely ludicrous that the thought of men wanting a club just for men is in any way backed by hate or discrimination.

Why is it the end of the world if guys just want a place they can escape to (in the same manner women are rightfully afforded)? Tired of double standards.

This is the perfect example of a straw man argument.  Create a position that no one has taken and argue against that.  No one is trying to outlaw all men's clubs.  There are all-male cigar, poker, health, and social clubs all over the country.  There are also the same sorts of race-exclusive clubs.  The difference (which I believe you understand but can't argue) is that those clubs don't benefit from millions of dollars in endorsements from companies that recieve federal money and they aren't featured on national TV with limited commercials every year.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

If you can name a women's club with comparable money, prestige, and influence that Augusta has and you express a genuine desire to become a member, I guarantee people like Martha Burke would be happy to protest on your behalf.  It's not about taking things away from men, it's about granting equal opportunities to women.

This makes absolutely no sense. If it's SUUUUCH a horrible example of discrimination, then it doesn't matter on what scale it's done. Face it, you think it is OK to discriminate against men in this case, but not against women (because it's not a PC issue to make sure men are included).

By the way, from Curves website: " Curves has nearly 10,000 locations in over 85 countries."

Quote:

This is the perfect example of a straw man argument.  Create a position that no one has taken and argue against that.  No one is trying to outlaw all men's clubs.  There are all-male cigar, poker, health, and social clubs all over the country.  There are also the same sorts of race-exclusive clubs.  The difference (which I believe you understand but can't argue) is that those clubs don't benefit from millions of dollars in endorsements from companies that recieve federal money and they aren't featured on national TV with limited commercials every year.

I didn't create a straw man. I articulated a simple premise that it's OK for women to have a club where only women are allowed, but for some reason it's some bastion of bigotry and discrimination for men to have the same. The size or revenue generation of the club is immaterial as it relates to the concept of discrimination. If Augusta was so wrong to not allow women, than ANY club that disallows men, should be equally wrong, shouldn't it?

You can't say: "Augusta is highly discriminatory by not allowing women, but it is only discriminatory because they make more money than the all women's health club across the street."

Talk about a straw man.

[Spyder]

I don't really hold an opinion on the matter, because I'm not a member and never will be a member - much like 99.9% of the readers/members of TST. I "know of" the prestige and the legendary history, however it is not a part of me and has no effect on me whatsoever.

I really could care less who they let in to their tree house. I enjoy watching The Masters and that's all I really care about.

[bamagrad03]

  Spyder said:

Originally Posted by Spyder

I really could care less who they let in to their tree house. I enjoy watching The Masters and that's all I really care about.

This is sort of where I stand on the matter as well. I couldn't care less who the let in or out of their treehouse. I just find it off putting that they're being pressured by others to cave to a politically correct agenda. While others aren't being held to the same standard.

There's nothing wrong with men wanting a place of their own to go and get away from women from time to time. Just like there's nothing wrong with women wanting their own club as well.

But as to whom they allow in their club under their own volition: I couldn't care less.

[Golfingdad]

  bamagrad03 said:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

This is sort of where I stand on the matter as well. I couldn't care less who the let in or out of their treehouse. I just find it off putting that they're being pressured by others to cave to a politically correct agenda. While others aren't being held to the same standard.

There's nothing wrong with men wanting a place of their own to go and get away from women from time to time. Just like there's nothing wrong with women wanting their own club as well.

But as to whom they allow in their club under their own volition: I couldn't care less.

Except that they made it very clear that thay wouldn't be pressured ... and they weren't.  Has anything regarding Augusta been in the news since after the Masters ended BEFORE they (on their own) made this announcement?  The Martha Burk issue of 10 years ago is dead.  The stories from last spring regarding the IBM CEO are long dead as well.  They did WHAT they wanted to do, and they did it WHEN they wanted to do it.  Plain and simple.

And I heard this morning that this time of year (while the club is closed for the summer, and just prior to it opening in the fall) is when they always admit their new members.  The only thing that is different here from a normal year is that they felt obligated to make the admission of the two female members public.  And, even that, I would suspect was not because of "pressure" but rather their own reasons (maybe goodwill, or growing the sport, who knows).

[ClayHbg]

  bamagrad03 said:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

If you can name a women's club with comparable money, prestige, and influence that Augusta has and you express a genuine desire to become a member, I guarantee people like Martha Burke would be happy to protest on your behalf.  It's not about taking things away from men, it's about granting equal opportunities to women.

This makes absolutely no sense. If it's SUUUUCH a horrible example of discrimination, then it doesn't matter on what scale it's done. Face it, you think it is OK to discriminate against men in this case, but not against women (because it's not a PC issue to make sure men are included).

By the way, from Curves website: "Curves has nearly 10,000 locations in over 85 countries."

I didn't create a straw man...I articulated a simple premise that it's OK for women to have a club where only women are allowed, but for some reason it's some bastion of bigotry and discrimination for men to have the same. The size or revenue generation of the club is immaterial as it relates to the concept of discrimination. If Augusta was so wrong to not allow women, than ANY club that disallows men, should be equally wrong, shouldn't it?

You want to be a Curves member?  That's cool.  I suggest you form a group and start protesting.  There are plenty of equality groups that would be happy to take up your cause.  But I'm guessing you merely want to argue, which is also fine.

Yes....that is a straw man argument because (in regards to Martha Burk/Augusta) no one was arguing the premise that all exclusive clubs should be banned because they are discriminatory.  If your club is TRULY private then you actually have a right to discriminate and Martha Burk herself stated that those clubs should be viewed differently than places such as Augusta.  The same applies to your private residence.  If you don't want white people in your house you have a right to disallow them from entering your home.   Like I said previously, if men, women, Whites, Blacks, Asians or Latinos want to have their own exclusive/private clubs it's fine by me.  That's their prerogative and no one is trying to prevent that.  If you want to sit in a room with a bunch of other men that's totally cool with me as well.  But when your club receives government money, tax benefits, or it is endorsed by companies that are funded by everyone's tax dollars then you have a different situation on your hands.

If that applies to Curves or any other establishment then I agree with you 100 percent.

[vo-man]

It's about time.

On another note related to this story:

I heard on NPR yesterday that the initiation fee there is only $30 grand.  That sure seems cheap considering the facility it is.

Comparable country clubs in our area have a $100k to $150K initiation fee.

[Spyder]

  vo-man said:

Originally Posted by vo-man

It's about time.

On another note related to this story:

I heard on NPR yesterday that the initiation fee there is only $30 grand.  That sure seems cheap considering the facility it is.

Comparable country clubs in our area have a $100k to $150K initiation fee.

The thing is though, is that in the case of Augusta.. it's not all about money. The "prestige cannot be bought". Most other country clubs around the country will accept you if your bank roll is large enough. According to Augusta and history, they don't care about your income. They claim you cannot buy an invitation.

However, being the realist that I am, I highly doubt that if someone were to say: "Here's $1,000,000... consider it a donation to the club. May I have a jacket and membership?", that the answer would be a firm "No.".

[ClayHbg]

  Golfingdad said:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

This is sort of where I stand on the matter as well. I couldn't care less who the let in or out of their treehouse. I just find it off putting that they're being pressured by others to cave to a politically correct agenda. While others aren't being held to the same standard.

There's nothing wrong with men wanting a place of their own to go and get away from women from time to time. Just like there's nothing wrong with women wanting their own club as well.

But as to whom they allow in their club under their own volition: I couldn't care less.

Except that they made it very clear that thay wouldn't be pressured ... and they weren't.  Has anything regarding Augusta been in the news since after the Masters ended BEFORE they (on their own) made this announcement?  The Martha Burk issue of 10 years ago is dead.  The stories from last spring regarding the IBM CEO are long dead as well.  They did WHAT they wanted to do, and they did it WHEN they wanted to do it.  Plain and simple.

And I heard this morning that this time of year (while the club is closed for the summer, and just prior to it opening in the fall) is when they always admit their new members.  The only thing that is different here from a normal year is that they felt obligated to make the admission of the two female members public.  And, even that, I would suspect was not because of "pressure" but rather their own reasons (maybe goodwill, or growing the sport, who knows).

Come on man.  You don't think the fact that IBM now has a female CEO had anything to do with this decision?  Really?  If you honestly think that Augusta hasn't been under constant and continued pressure from CBS and  the boards of their former and current advertisers like Coca-Cola, AT&T;, and IBM (all of which have female board members) then you obviously don't understand how Fortune 500s work.

[Chas]

  Shorty said:

Originally Posted by Shorty

There's a big difference between discrimination and providing a place for women to work out without being leered at or feeling self-conscious when there are a million places men can work out.

That would be discrimination - the motive for a discriminatory policy is irrelevant.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Golfingdad]

  ClayHbg said:

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Come on man.  You don't think the fact that IBM now has a female CEO had anything to do with this decision?  Really?  If you honestly think that Augusta hasn't been under constant and continued pressure from CBS and  the boards of their former and current advertisers like Coca-Cola, AT&T;, and IBM (all of which have female board members) then you obviously don't understand how Fortune 500s work.

I admittedly know very little about how Fortune 500 companies work, so you could be right.  But from what I understand about how Augusta and the Masters works, no amount of pressure from CBS or their advertisers is going to matter to them - they are the ones with the upper hand.  Augusta are the ones who keep CBS and the advertisers on their toes (with 1 year contracts), not the other way around.

Besides, if it was about IBM and their female CEO, wouldn't she have been one of the new members as well?

(This is getting confusing ... I feel like the two identical threads should be combined into one, no?)

[newtogolf]

I'm sure it was just to shut up hags like Martha Burk who wouldn't relent until Augusta admitted a female to their club.  Condi was a good choice, hopefully they did it because they wanted to and not because of the external pressures.

Quote:

  Golfingdad said:

I admittedly know very little about how Fortune 500 companies work, so you could be right.  But from what I understand about how Augusta and the Masters works, no amount of pressure from CBS or their advertisers is going to matter to them - they are the ones with the upper hand.  Augusta are the ones who keep CBS and the advertisers on their toes (with 1 year contracts), not the other way around.

Besides, if it was about IBM and their female CEO, wouldn't she have been one of the new members as well?

(This is getting confusing ... I feel like the two identical threads should be combined into one, no?)

[ClayHbg]

  Golfingdad said:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

...if it was about IBM and their female CEO, wouldn't she have been one of the new members as well?

Not if she (Ginni Rometty) declined Augusta's invitation to become a member...Augusta has not and never will reveal how many actual invitations go out every year.  They only reveal those that accept.  Part of the Augusta lure is the notion that no one in their right mind would ever decline an invitation so it's unlikely they'll ever reveal how many declined invites the get every year.

[Beachcomber]

  vo-man said:

Originally Posted by vo-man

On another note related to this story:

I heard on NPR yesterday that the initiation fee there is only $30 grand.  That sure seems cheap considering the facility it is.

Comparable country clubs in our area have a $100k to $150K initiation fee.

They don't need to have high initiation fees when they make millions on the exclusive TV partnership with CBS, as well as the sponsorship money received for the 4 minutes of advertising per hour (IBM, etc.).  Plus, they have some of the worlds elite members (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc.)... I'm sure the club receives plenty of money via donors (members wanting to give back) and endowment funds that by far exceed any need to raise dues/fee's?

[Golfingdad]

  Golfingdad said:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

They did WHAT they wanted to do, and they did it WHEN they wanted to do it.  Plain and simple.

I am, admittedly, speculating here.

  ClayHbg said:

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Come on man.  You don't think the fact that IBM now has a female CEO had anything to do with this decision?  Really?  If you honestly think that Augusta hasn't been under constant and continued pressure from CBS and  the boards of their former and current advertisers like Coca-Cola, AT&T;, and IBM (all of which have female board members) then you obviously don't understand how Fortune 500s work.

But you are guessing as well.

  Golfingdad said:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Besides, if it was about IBM and their female CEO, wouldn't she have been one of the new members as well?

Me speculating again.

  ClayHbg said:

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Not if she (Ginni Rometty) declined Augusta's invitation to become a member...Augusta has not and never will reveal how many actual invitations go out every year.  They only reveal those that accept.  Part of the Augusta lure is the notion that no one in their right mind would ever decline an invitation so it's unlikely they'll ever reveal how many declined invites the get every year.

And, you as well.

Neither of us is a member at Augusta (I am speculating again, but I feel this is a safe assumption??) so we really have no clue which of us is "right" here, nor will we ever.  Both situations are equally plausible.  The end.