Augusta National admits two female members

[BioGolfNebraska]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

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.

On the lighter side, I'm a married guy and I totally get it.

[Dave2512]

I think some people are making assumptions about AN that aren't true. Judy Rankin was a guest on Morning Drive this AM and went into great detail about what this means and what the impact is. Women weren't banned from the grounds of AN just not allowed to be a member. Women have been there as guests of members in the past according to Judy.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

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said, I will guess with about 90% certainty that you are a white male, and that you do not want your superiority to be withdrawn

Not to be disrespectful, because you've been quite respectful in your responses. But this reeks of years of politically correct social programming. I'm a white male. I have not even a modicum of superiority in modern society. I had to pay my way through college while many my minority peers went for free even though they were much less academically qualified. Not because they were poor, or came from a place where they couldn't succeed - but because they were minorities. I come from a lower middle class family that for a large time in my younger years was dirt poor. I earned my way.

I'm a software engineer. Not a CEO. Not a member of an expensive country club. I've seen countless people lose out on promotions BECAUSE they weren't a woman or BECAUSE they weren't a minority.

It's a very modern notion that somebody didn't get something because of who they are or where they came from. And that the ONLY reason white males are successful is because of their gender and race. It's frankly insulting. As if some guy is standing on the corner handing out million dollar jobs to the next white guy who strolls up.

Superiority you say...I'm not superior by any definition of the word. I'm a white christian male which makes me public enemy #1 in the new politically correct America. And beyond that, I'm part of the only class of people in this country for whom discrimination against is acceptable.

What's that saying? "If you want to know who's in charge, just find out whom you can't speak out against." If that's true, then I'm the last guy to be considered superior.

*Note: This in no way is a rant against promoting women or minorities or programs that help people who need help to succeed in this country. It was just an attempt to illustrate that superiority is all relative.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I come from a lower middle class family that for a large time in my younger years was dirt poor. I earned my way.

I'm a software engineer. Not a CEO. Not a member of an expensive country club. I've seen countless people lose out on promotions BECAUSE they weren't a woman or BECAUSE they weren't a minority.

It's a very modern notion that somebody didn't get something because of who they are or where they came from. And that the ONLY reason white males are successful is because of their gender and race. It's frankly insulting. As if some guy is standing on the corner handing out million dollar jobs to the next white guy who strolls up.

Superiority you say...I'm not superior by any definition of the word. I'm a white christian male which makes me public enemy #1 in the new politically correct America. And beyond that, I'm part of the only class of people in this country for whom discrimination against is acceptable.

You seem like an intelligent person, or at least able to present your case in a cogent manner.  However, this section of your post illustrates a very naive and somewhat disingenuous view of the way the world actually works, and it's pretty sad that somebody like you (who appears to have no real sinister agenda or motivation) appears to believe in these things (in the simplified way they are presented).

[BioGolfNebraska]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Not to be disrespectful, because you've been quite respectful in your responses. But this reeks of years of politically correct social programming. I'm a white male. I have not even a modicum of superiority in modern society. I had to pay my way through college while many my minority peers went for free even though they were much less academically qualified. Not because they were poor, or came from a place where they couldn't succeed - but because they were minorities. I come from a lower middle class family that for a large time in my younger years was dirt poor. I earned my way.

I'm a software engineer. Not a CEO. Not a member of an expensive country club. I've seen countless people lose out on promotions BECAUSE they weren't a woman or BECAUSE they weren't a minority.

It's a very modern notion that somebody didn't get something because of who they are or where they came from. And that the ONLY reason white males are successful is because of their gender and race. It's frankly insulting. As if some guy is standing on the corner handing out million dollar jobs to the next white guy who strolls up.

Superiority you say...I'm not superior by any definition of the word. I'm a white christian male which makes me public enemy #1 in the new politically correct America. And beyond that, I'm part of the only class of people in this country for whom discrimination against is acceptable.

What's that saying? "If you want to know who's in charge, just find out whom you can't speak out against." If that's true, then I'm the last guy to be considered superior.

*Note: This in no way is a rant against promoting women or minorities or programs that help people who need help to succeed in this country. It was just an attempt to illustrate that superiority is all relative.

This illustrates why sense of "right and wrong" comes from your life experience.

This reminds me of my in-laws.  Both have a similar viewpoint as you, but I believe that it is only my father in law's viewpoint (similar to yours) which is justified.  My father-in-law grew up in a lower-middle class family, worked his butt off to get a partial scholarship and then worked his way through college to be the first in his family to get a degree.  He is now a vice president of a banking group.  My mother-in-law grew up in a rich family and never had to work a day in her life.  She got a college degree, but never used it.  Both of my in-laws have the viewpoint of "don't take away my money/freedom to help out the poor people and the minorities".  While it seems kind of cold-hearted to me, I completely understand that my father-in-law would have that stance, because he came from a poor family with no advantages and worked hard enough to succeed- so he expects others to do the same.  My mother-in-law, on the other hand, probably would have starved to death if she hadn't been fully furnished by her family (and then her husband).  I don't think she has the right to talk down to people from disadvantaged situations.

You have a similar story to my father-in-law, and I completely understand the frustration that comes with that.  There are drug addicts sucking up welfare money and less qualified applicants getting admission into schools (probably most evident in professional programs).  There are also innocent people put into prison, but I don't think that justifies abandoning our criminal justice system.  I am of the perspective that trying to improve the life of those less fortunate could only help- even if people will take advantage of it.  I don't think it has anything to do with "politically correctness" or not wanting to offend anyone, it is more about wanting to do the most good possible with the least repercussions (and I am not saying that I, or anyone, knows how this could be done).  This seems so incredibly off topic, but what the hell did the starter of this thread expect?  haha

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by bplewis24

Quote:

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I come from a lower middle class family that for a large time in my younger years was dirt poor. I earned my way.

I'm a software engineer. Not a CEO. Not a member of an expensive country club. I've seen countless people lose out on promotions BECAUSE they weren't a woman or BECAUSE they weren't a minority.

It's a very modern notion that somebody didn't get something because of who they are or where they came from. And that the ONLY reason white males are successful is because of their gender and race. It's frankly insulting. As if some guy is standing on the corner handing out million dollar jobs to the next white guy who strolls up.

Superiority you say...I'm not superior by any definition of the word. I'm a white christian male which makes me public enemy #1 in the new politically correct America. And beyond that, I'm part of the only class of people in this country for whom discrimination against is acceptable.

You seem like an intelligent person, or at least able to present your case in a cogent manner.  However, this section of your post illustrates a very naive and somewhat disingenuous view of the way the world actually works, and it's pretty sad that somebody like you (who appears to have no real sinister agenda or motivation) appears to believe in these things (in the simplified way they are presented).

Can you elaborate on what you mean?  In what way does the world "actually work" that contradicts what Bamagrad is saying in the excerpt you quoted?

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Spyder

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.".

No so in the least.  You could add another zero and it still would be wrong.  The one thing ANGC has plenty of is money.

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 think the minute CBS tried to exert any pressure at all on the Masters they would lose them to NBC or ABC.

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.

Actually they generally DON'T reveal who the new members are.  This was far different from the norm for them.

Originally Posted by Spyder

The Master's would not be anywhere near as prestigious without the television coverage. Regardless of the large amount of money that the coverage brings it, prestige comes from people seeing it. The world would not be sitting by waiting for people to Tweet updates after the round, or hoping that they know someone who went so they could get the scoop, or wait for ESPN to post updates. People, after a while, simply wouldn't care any more. Seeing something that we can't have is what creates that prestige and wow factor, such as seeing a Roles Royce Silver Ghost in a museum - but knowing you can never, ever have it. Future generations would not be recalling legendary shots that occurred in our lifetime, such as the Bubba Watson wedge to a victory. There would be no talk or recollection of the legends playing the game down the road and interest would die down dramatically.

The Masters was a major and vastly prestigious long before there was TV, let alone televised golf.  In fact the Masters pioneered most of the techniques used in televised golf today.  So one could just as well argue that without the Masters, televised golf would suck.

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Those tricky weasel words that cause you to read (or in your case re-read),comprehend, and think......they're so weaselly!

I've never once suggested in any way that Augusta wasn't a private club.  I merely said that, although they are private, they are held to a higher standard because of the monetary support they get from companies that receive public/government support and benefits.  I also gave examples of other private institutions and how those same standards don't apply for the exact same reasons.  It's fine to disagree, but I don't think I'm the one who's confused here.

I know it's tricky but try stay with us.

So because the government has intruded itself into every corner of the economy they get to set the standards for everything?

Originally Posted by Dave2512

I think some people are making assumptions about AN that aren't true. Judy Rankin was a guest on Morning Drive this AM and went into great detail about what this means and what the impact is. Women weren't banned from the grounds of AN just not allowed to be a member. Women have been there as guests of members in the past according to Judy.

Interesting story about Jack Nicklaus and his honeymoon.  He wanted to play Pine Valley (who wouldn't) but they did not even allow women on the grounds.  They were horrified when Jack told them his wife was in the car outside in their parking lot.  A sympathetic member took care of Barbara while Jack was playing.  The member drove Barbara around some roads outside of the course so she could occasionally get glimpses through the trees of Jack playing.  True story according to Jack in his 1996 autobiography.

[parsnates]

[QUOTE name="parsnates" url="/t/61567/augusta-national-admits-two-female-members/72#post_761520"] 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.[/QUOTE] 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.

No offense taken and none meant. I was being a bit flippant with the kiil the members part. I also don't disagree with what you're saying about helping people out. My main point is that the Augusta example doesn't really apply here. Rice and Moore have more in common with the Augusta membership than they do with the common man or woman ( of any race). I don't think what Augusta does or does not do advances or retards our society. I think you could say that their becoming members does say that we have made some progress as a society inasmuch as a more diverse group of people can reach that station in life. That would put Augusta National on the trailing end and their action not really all that important in terms of actually effecting societal change.

[Chas]

bamagrad: an eloquent and powerful post.  You should not be surprised that many will not understand you.  Propoganda, delivered consistently and chronically, can be very effective on the uncritical/unwary mind - a lesson learned by the powerful long ago.

Like golf perhaps, consider the whole business a challenge that can make you a stronger and a better person.  Being in recepit of the sort of privileges that you describe can be demoralizing and debilitating to its recipients - one of the ironies of life.  But more likely than not privileged status results in undeserved gain, that is true.  I see it often and shrug my shoulders.

I strongly suspect that Condi knows rather well what we are talking about.  If I ever meet her on the golf course at Stanford (unlikely but not entirely impossible - it certainly won't happen at Augusta ....), I shall ask her for her opinion.

[newtogolf]

I think we all have different viewpoints based on our race, gender, location and experiences.  I can't pretend to know all of your life experiences and you don't know bama's so to say the world doesn't work that way is a bit myopic.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

You seem like an intelligent person, or at least able to present your case in a cogent manner.  However, this section of your post illustrates a very naive and somewhat disingenuous view of the way the world actually works, and it's pretty sad that somebody like you (who appears to have no real sinister agenda or motivation) appears to believe in these things (in the simplified way they are presented).

[newtogolf]

Great point Dave, I guess Augusta has already had to deal with a female presence though if it's like the mens only golf club I'm familiar with here in NY, women are infrequent guests and limited to where they can go.

Originally Posted by Dave2512

I think some people are making assumptions about AN that aren't true. Judy Rankin was a guest on Morning Drive this AM and went into great detail about what this means and what the impact is. Women weren't banned from the grounds of AN just not allowed to be a member. Women have been there as guests of members in the past according to Judy.

[Spyder]

The thing that a lot of you older gentlemen keep forgetting is that the times and sports have changed. Long ago, as many of you keep referencing how prestigious The Masters were prior to television coverage, media was not that high in demand. Today, that is definitely not the case. Technology runs this world, where as it did not nearly 50 years ago in the era that you keep referencing (ie: You did not have access to 1/100th of the programs on your TV today. You did not have access to even a sliver of the information that is freely obtained on the internet, or through cable networks today. You were still paid in cash and Direct Deposit was merely a far sought dream that was still decades away from being available, etc.)

The youth of today and the future will rely on technology, just as most of them do now, in nearly every aspect of their lives. This will include sports coverage. Media and broadcasting (general coverage of an event) is extremely important and is in high demand. This is why you have apps for mobile devices and tablets that allow you to watch these events.

Take all of this away and I guarantee you that interest drops dramatically. You're living in a technology era where kids spend the majority of their time on Hulu, LiveLeak.com and streaming MTV online. You're not getting paychecks in cash, watching black and white tv with access to only 5 channels anymore. If you don't think that human nature is changing with technology and time, you're stuck in the past.

[newtogolf]

Of all the Majors, the Masters is the most high tech of them all, with their own app and more streams of live online video than any other major.   I don't know who foots the bills for all the bandwidth, cameras, and app development (I'd guess IBM is a contributor) but it seems like they have the funds and capacity to go without major network coverage.

Originally Posted by Spyder

The thing that a lot of you older gentlemen keep forgetting is that the times and sports have changed. Long ago, as many of you keep referencing how prestigious The Masters were prior to television coverage, media was not that high in demand. Today, that is definitely not the case. Technology runs this world, where as it did not nearly 50 years ago in the era that you keep referencing.

The youth of today and the future will rely on technology, just as most of them do now, in nearly every aspect of their lives. This will include sports coverage. Media and broadcasting (general coverage of an event) is extremely important and is in high demand. This is why you have apps for mobile devices and tablets that allow you to watch these events.

Take all of this away and I guarantee you that interest drops dramatically. You're living in a technology era where kids spend the majority of their time on Hulu, LiveLeak.com and streaming MTV online. You're not getting paychecks in cash, watching black and white tv with access to only 5 channels anymore. If you don't think that human nature is changing with technology and time, you're stuck in the past.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Of all the Majors, the Masters is the most high tech of them all, with their own app and more streams of live online video than any other major.   I don't know who foots the bills for all the bandwidth, cameras, and app development (I'd guess IBM is a contributor) but it seems like they have the funds and capacity to go without major network coverage.

This is what I mean though, it would still be broadcast in some form - regardless of television. The argument that the oldschool crowd is trying to make, is that The Masters would still be on this huge, glorified stage without being broadcast whatsoever.

My point is that this is not 1950, '60, or '70 anymore - obviously. Today's world demands technology and requires it. To say that interest in The Masters would still be equal without the event being broadcast on some medium is not factual. That is the only point that I am making.

[newtogolf]

I believe the Masters is the most rich in tradition because it's the only Major that is played on the same course year after year.  I think true golf fans would still flock to Augusta to be a part of it, and getting passes would be just as tough as it is today.  I do agree that without being broadcast they would see a reduction in new fans but for the next 5-10 years I don't think they'd miss a beat in terms of attendance.

Originally Posted by Spyder

This is what I mean though, it would still be broadcast in some form - regardless of television. The argument that the oldschool crowd is trying to make, is that The Masters would still be on this huge, glorified stage without being broadcast whatsoever.

My point is that this is not 1950, '60, or '70 anymore - obviously. Today's world demands technology and requires it. To say that interest in The Masters would still be equal without the event being broadcast on some medium is not factual. That is the only point that I am making.

[Parker0065]

Interesting thread, although when this first came out the other day, GC and PGA Tour radio just wouldn't stop talking about it. It was "Reagan's been shot" all over again.

I will say I wasn't suprised that they brought in two strong Republican type professional business women.

[Chas]

Originally Posted by BioGolfNebraska

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.

Since your arguments constantly reference what is "moral", as if it were self-evident that your own personal views in the matter were exclusively those that are moral and just, I cannot agree with your last statement regarding your own view of those who disagree with you.  It is not logically consistent with your previous posts.

IMO it is not necessarily "immoral" for members of a private club to be selective about who can join their club, on a variety of grounds including gender.  On the contrary, it happens all the time in this country and it is part of a healthy and truly "diverse" society in which people can pursue their own individual interests in private matters.  That is a concept that many on the other side of the issue never seem to get, and it is a chronic and consistent failure in the thinking on the left, in my personal opinion.

Your arguments just reek of the typical defense of "affirmative action" policies in this country.  Nonsense, in both the public and the private sectors.

[BioGolfNebraska]

Originally Posted by Chas

Since your arguments constantly reference what is "moral", as if it were self-evident that your own personal views in the matter were exclusively those that are moral and just, I cannot agree with your last statement regarding your own view of those who disagree with you.  It is not logically consistent with your previous posts.

IMO it is not necessarily "immoral" for members of a private club to be selective about who can join their club, on a variety of grounds including gender.  On the contrary, it happens all the time in this country and it is part of a healthy and truly "diverse" society in which people can pursue their own individual interests in private matters.  That is a concept that many on the other side of the issue never seem to get, and it is a chronic and consistent failure in the thinking on the left, in my personal opinion.

Your arguments just reek of the typical defense of "affirmative action" policies in this country.  Nonsense, in both the public and the private sectors.

My main point was not to define what was a moral action in regards to a private club.  It was simply to say that private clubs are not exempt from moral responsibilities.