Kate Upton upset, but misinformed, about country club policy

[chasm]

This can't be the argument because I doubt there is a single person in this thread that would disagree with that.  (Well, there might be a couple ... but the vast majority would agree with you, I'm sure) Most of us arguing for the club are just saying we think it's OK that they be allowed to do that ... not that we think they should.  I think it's dumb.

Then we agree. But I think you're mistaken about others in the thread agreeing, also. There have been numerous posts saying it's fine to discriminate against woman just because male golfers are in the majority.

[Dave2512]

I find it difficult to believe that you don't get this. What "most women" want to do isn't relevant. "Most women" don't want to be astrophysicists. Does that mean that those who do should be refused entry? Most men don't want to cook. Should men be prevented from becoming chefs?

Why not simply treat people as individuals, and discriminate between rhem on the basis of what is between their ears rather than what is between their legs? Why should a woman who is keen on golf encounter these sorts of obstacles just becasue the majoroty of women don't share her enthusiasm for the game?

Oh I get it and I understand that these policies are voted into being by the members, including women. That's the point.

[dbuck]

There was a parody in Golf Digest a number of years ago about a club where the women had turned the tables on the men. It was tongue in cheek, but enlightening nonetheless. Discriminate: 1. To distinguish between things 2. to act predjudicially As Erik illustrated, there are times when it is appropriate. You wouldn't want an 18 year old boy to use the same bathroom/locker room as your 13 year old daughter nor an 18 year old woman the same as your 14 year old son. I have no problem with a group of men who of their own means create a men's only golf club, nor a group of women doing the same thing, if it is a truly private club and the only people allowed are the members and guests of the members. You may not get to hold a US Open or PGA, but that is their perogative. If a truly private club not open to the public and using no public funds has rules about when genders can play even though there are members of both genders, I again have no problem with that; the rules would be created by the members and by being a member you approve in fact. When a facility of any kind is open to the general public, I do think it is morally imcumbent upon the management to be as non discriminatory as possible with the exceptions Erik mentioned, still giving due consideration to the parties involved. But again, this thread is about Kate Hudson's airheadedness, body notwithstanding. PS I am not saying I agree with the ethics of the situations I proposed above with private clubs, but just saying they should be able to do it in a truly privately owned situation.

[burtonda]

As an American who embraces "freedom", be it liberal or conservative I would think we would embrace an organization that offers nothing or takes nothing from the general public may have the right to determine their own rules and who and how they associate with others who have "chosen" to join the said organization. Why do we feel we have any right to tell a "private" group how they should make their decisions? Is their decisions sexist, racist, elitist? Well sure it is...so what? I'll go play and hang out with who I want because I don't want to part of "that" club...and when I create my own little private chess club I don't want to be told who I have to invite.

I have no problem with a private club setting rules on who can and can not use the facility and when they can do it. But, if a "club" generates revenue or benefit from the general public then the laws that protect those who can use the facility should apply.

No one is "telling this private group how to make their decisions".  They are free to discriminate against anyone they wish.  But as "Americans who embrace freedom", we also reserve the right to voice our disgust with their discriminatory practices while simultaneously acknowledging their right to exist.  Don't mistake legality with morality (see Westboro Baptist Church for an extreme example).

If you're positing that Americans have no place or right to voice their disgust of a private organization's practices and rules then you're misunderstanding freedom.

[johnclayton1982]

Quote:

Where's the discrimination?

If you're under 50, you can't play on the Champions Tour. Is that also discrimination? You also can't play the LPGA Tour if you're Tiger Woods and claim to have broken Jack's record of 18 majors. Also discrimination?

The club sets aside tee times for groups to have their leagues, no? I see nothing wrong with that. Men can't play during women's league times, and women can't play during men's league times. Isn't that the deal? Maybe it's not — I've not paid much attention to this discussion because I don't really care about it — but I thought that was.

A public course nearby does the same… members can reserve tee times to 9am, then anyone can. Is that also discrimination?

At the local restaurant, the kid's meal is only available to those 10 and under. Also discrimination? :P

The issue is whether or not it is an acceptable practice morally to have Saturday AM tee times reserved for men only.

Its obviously legal - that isn't in dispute - as private clubs can obviously do whatever they want, provided they do not open themselves up to the public.  This is a somewhat shady area of the law, but so far it has been allowed.

I can't think of one single decent justification for not allowing women only on the course on Saturday morning other than "we're the members, thats what we do".  In your examples, all those examples have reasonable purposes for the discrimination.  And, actually, legally, discrimination is actually permissible in some cases if there is a rational justification for the discrimination and the means are as narrowly tailored as possible (this is a gross oversimplification of the 14th amendment jurisprudence on strict/less/height scrutiny, but is generally correct).  In each of your examples, there is a "point" - you want kids to eat the kids meal b/c profit margins are less, you want members to have better tee times to encourage members, etc...

When I say "whats the reason" I don't mean "why should it be allowed".  I mean, literally, what is gained by not allowing women on the course on weekday mornings?  (Besides, of course, alienating half the population of the world).

Quote:

No one is "telling this private group how to make their decisions".  They are free to discriminate against anyone they wish.  But as "Americans who embrace freedom", we also reserve the right to voice our disgust with their discriminatory practices while simultaneously acknowledging their right to exist.  Don't mistake legality with morality (see Westboro Baptist Church for an extreme example).

If you're positing that Americans have no place or right to voice their disgust of a private organization's practices and rules then you're misunderstanding freedom.

Very well put.

[Golfingdad]

There was a parody in Golf Digest a number of years ago about a club where the women had turned the tables on the men. It was tongue in cheek, but enlightening nonetheless.

Discriminate: 1. To distinguish between things 2. to act predjudicially

As Erik illustrated, there are times when it is appropriate. You wouldn't want an 18 year old boy to use the same bathroom/locker room as your 13 year old daughter nor an 18 year old woman the same as your 14 year old son.

I have no problem with a group of men who of their own means create a men's only golf club, nor a group of women doing the same thing, if it is a truly private club and the only people allowed are the members and guests of the members. You may not get to hold a US Open or PGA, but that is their perogative. If a truly private club not open to the public and using no public funds has rules about when genders can play even though there are members of both genders, I again have no problem with that; the rules would be created by the members and by being a member you approve in fact. When a facility of any kind is open to the general public, I do think it is morally imcumbent upon the management to be as non discriminatory as possible with the exceptions Erik mentioned, still giving due consideration to the parties involved.

But again, this thread is about Kate Hudson's airheadedness, body notwithstanding.

PS I am not saying I agree with the ethics of the situations I proposed above with private clubs, but just saying they should be able to do it in a truly privately owned situation.

When Goldie Hawn sends you a text saying that you are mistaken about her daughter being an airhead, or having ever sent any tweets about golf, and then I write a story about your typo, is it fair for people to be calling you a dip***t?

I agreed with everything you said until that sentence, and even though it's a throw-away, it's still a little stereotypical.  Kate UPTON was mistaken about something then corrected.  But because she's a model or blonde, she's an "airhead?"  Silly.

[dsc123]

Where's the discrimination?

Denying a person based on their sex.  If it was race, you would agree that there's discrimination, right?  The question isn't really whether its discrimination, its whether its permissible discrimination.

If you're under 50, you can't play on the Champions Tour. Is that also discrimination? You also can't play the LPGA Tour if you're Tiger Woods and claim to have broken Jack's record of 18 majors. Also discrimination?

That's not really the same.  First, age applies equally to everyone at some point.  Second, age discrimination typically involves discriminating against older people.  For example, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discriminating against people over the age of 40.

We're not really talking about law here because everyone agrees that its a private club and they can do what they want.  But to some degree, the law is informative because it reflects societal values, so I'm going to use it in that way.  In law, the level of protection comes down to the type of classification, and the history of discrimination against that category.  So classifying people by race (and national origin, and religion) is almost never allowed because there's really no legitimate basis for it.   Sex gets less protection, and age still less.  There may be circumstances where classifying in each of those ways is ok, but the level of justification required is different.  And this makes sense.  Some types of discrimination should be almost always forbidden, others allowed in some circumstances, and others allowed generally (such as charging more for airfare purchased the day before a flight because a person buying a flight at the last second is probably a business traveller or has no other choice).  So age discrimination isn't quite the same as sex disrimination, and it usually works the other way (i.e., not letting Fred Couples play in the Masters because he is too old).

This is also why its not as simple as saying "this would be wrong if it were about race."  I use that above only to show that it is discrimination, not that it should necessarily be treated the same for that reason.

The club sets aside tee times for groups to have their leagues, no? I see nothing wrong with that. Men can't play during women's league times, and women can't play during men's league times. Isn't that the deal? Maybe it's not — I've not paid much attention to this discussion because I don't really care about it — but I thought that was.

That's not really the same either.  If they set a bunch of tee times aside for men's league play, men outside that league can't walk on and play either.

I suppose I could join the league, but I'm guessing it would be hard to keep a woman out of the league.  It comes down to what is the purpose being served by the exclusion?  Keeping me out of a ladies league is intended to maintain competitive balance--I can hit the ball a lot further than the ladies.  Keeping women out of a mens league is more difficult to justify.  That's probably why Anika and Michelle Wie got to play in a couple events but I don't think any man has played in a women's event.  Same with the Champions Tour.

At the local restaurant, the kid's meal is only available to those 10 and under. Also discrimination? :P

If there are chicken fingers on the menu, then yes.

Why can't these be the reasons?  If it's a private club, I don't see how they shouldn't be allowed to make any rules they want.  I mean, I think there are clubs out there that still don't even allow women to be members at all.  The PGA Tour is going to avoid places like that, and I'm not going to be joining a club like that ever, but beyond that, why should I care?  It's their stupid club, it's their stupid rules, let them have at it.

Otherwise, I think I should start bitching because those evil hags over at the Red Hat Society won't let me join them!!!!!!!

That's why they're allowed to do it, its not why they choose to do it.  I think the point is this:  what is the reason the clubs want to exclude women?  If its slow play, then there are more effective and less discriminatory ways of doing it.  If its because men are men and enjoy being men with men, then grow up, but until then, just make a foursome with 3 other guys.

[iacas]

The issue is whether or not it is an acceptable practice morally to have Saturday AM tee times reserved for men only.

The (private) club is okay with it. End of story. To say otherwise is to force your sense of morals on another group. Which may be more "bad morals" than a club doing what it wants. I charge less for junior lessons than adults. Am I exhibiting bad morals? P.S. I disagree with you @dsc123 . "Discrimination" has a legal connotation. Otherwise we discriminate all the time. I like to shop here instead of there - I'm discriminating against the crappy store. Etc. "Discrimination" deals, IMO, with public type issues where morally and legally treatment should be equal. Plus, you totally lose when you say things like "that means against older people." (Paraphrased) ;-)

[JoePete]

No one is "telling this private group how to make their decisions".  They are free to discriminate against anyone they wish.  But as "Americans who embrace freedom", we also reserve the right to voice our disgust with their discriminatory practices while simultaneously acknowledging their right to exist.

Just because a golf club imposes restrictions on tee times, it does not constitute discrimination - at least in the pejorative sense of the word - and to make a sweeping accusation of it being such (as Kate Hudson and others do) is to commit the very act you are decrying - passing judgment without endeavoring to have a full understanding. While various clubs might have restrictions, I think you will find such things often reflect also the different categories of membership. In short those who pay the most typically can play the most. Now if the complaint is that such-and-such club does not offer full membership to women or kids, that is a different debate.

[Golfingdad]

We're not really talking about law here because everyone agrees that its a private club and they can do what they want.

Well, then I'm not sure what I'm doing here, because this is all I've been saying and the opposite of this is what I thought I was arguing against.

I've said several times that I wouldn't join a club like this.  Meaning that I, personally, don't agree with the idea, but I just don't really care if others do whatever they want.

[chasm]

I charge less for junior lessons than adults. Am I exhibiting bad morals?

utterly, utterly beside the point. You clearly don't follow the argument. [quote]P.S. I disagree with you @dsc123 . "Discrimination" has a legal connotation. Otherwise we discriminate all the time. I like to shop here instead of there - I'm discriminating against the crappy store. Etc. "Discrimination" deals, IMO, with public type issues where morally and legally treatment should be equal.[/quote] If you believe that moral and legal treatment should be equal, then you are undermining your argument that private clubs should be allowed to make any rules they like. Because clearly, if they make immoral rules, that should be illegal - by your argument. I don't happen to agree - there are no absolute standards of morality - but you need to try to be consistent.

[dbuck]

Well, I have been called a dip***t and worse and most of the time it was probably accurate whether it was fair or not. As you said, I did intend that comment as a "throw away" I did wonder why those pictures didn't look like Kate Hudson :) Anyway, Ms's HUDSON, UPTON, and HAWN are talented and beautiful, and certainly welcome in my golf foursome any time. I am not sure I would be very entertaining to them, but I would certainly enjoy it. I would be happy to have you join us.

[dsc123]

I think that if you use "discrimination" to include only illegal discrimination, there is no debate here.  I think we all agree that nothing illegal is happening.  But not all discrimination is illegal--and I don't even mean that in the since of shopping or airlines.  There are basically 3 groups of categories and each group receives a different level of protection (different legal analysis applies to race discrimination versus sex discrimination)  This sort of explains that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification.  That's why I describe it as absolutely discriminatory, but permissible. And poor taste

But I might have misunderstood your point.

Plus, you totally lose when you say things like "that means against older people." (Paraphrased)

ha, this reminds me of something I do often with my boss.  He'll ask me how old someone is and I'll say "oh he's pretty old, probably...." then realize that i'm about to throw out a number that's less than his age and finish "well actually he's not that old...probably only ......"

[iacas]

@chasm , completely disagree. On my phone, so I can't respond in full. But my pricing example demonstrates discrimination against people just for being older. And as I've said, it has a legal connotation , not that it is entirely legal in its definition. A private club making some tee times unavailable to women could easily be neither discriminatory, immoral, nor illegal in my opinion.

[dsc123]

Well, then I'm not sure what I'm doing here, because this is all I've been saying and the opposite of this is what I thought I was arguing against.

I've said several times that I wouldn't join a club like this.  Meaning that I, personally, don't agree with the idea, but I just don't really care if others do whatever they want.

I'm certainly not the discussion police, but that's my understanding.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

I read the entire thread.  I really fail to see how "no women 8-12 am" is different from "no African-Americans 8-12 am".  It was the "will of the members" for no blacks to be allowed at the Baton Rouge country club back in the day.  That makes it OK?  I totally agree with those saying the rule is elitist and antiquated and, quite frankly, chauvinist.

Men look at themselves as "proper golfers" and have an enourmous amount of disrespect for women.  I mean, just look at this thread if you want proof.  This is a thread on one of the most popular golfing forums on the internet and there is no problem with mocking Kate Upton's opinion b/c she happens to be good looking and posting up objectifying photos (I'm surprised this thread is still open after that) of her.  Lets say Justin Timberlake said something wrong about golf - we'd post up pictures of his junk?  Imagine being a woman wanting to know more about golf and coming here and reading this thread.  "Inappropriate' doesn't begin to describe it.

We need more people in the game, not less.  This is an exclusionary rule and there isn't any other way to put it.  At least be honest and say "most women stink and we don't want them slowing stuff up" than this whole 'Tuesday is the same as Saturday' crap.  And if Tuesday is the same as Saturday, why not switch off?  Men on Saturday twice a month, Women on Saturday twice a month.

Separate but equal is never, ever equal.

For the record, I'm a liberal, so if you call me that its not going to hurt too bad. :P  In my experience, usually when people don't know what to say / are clearly wrong, they say things like "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUN AMOK".  Note that isn't an actual counter-point to the points being made here.

"Men on Saturday twice a month, women on Saturday twice a month." That would be fair if your NOT taking the facts into consideration. If the (golfing) membership is five to one male that arraignment would give each male member one fifth of the available tee times than would be given to the women. A more fair policy would be to give the men five hours on Saturday and the women one hour on Saturday. Not only would that also elicit the same cries of discrimination from you and your ilk but it would also probably piss off the women of this particular club. Good job.

What's wrong with first come, first served, every Saturday?  Make your reservation and play your round without any filtering or sorting process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

This is called "shooting the messenger".  Note most of those who saw no problem with a discriminatory policy have attacked Kate Upton's success, looks, star quality, etc... or resorted to personal insults.  I think that is a pretty good indication of who is correct in this argument.

What I was getting at is there are things in the world much more insulting than what tee times are available to whom at a very exclusive golf club. Her tweet had a touch more hyperbole than it needed to have. That she posts such a statement without checking its accuracy is beside my original point, but since you brought it up, when she's wrong and overstates her case, whom do you want us to shoot?

To the greater point of discrimination, her accusation was not about golf clubs in general, but about one specific club, and it was wrong. Commenting on that is not a personal attack. It is expecting a high-profile and somewhat influential celebrity to be more thoughtful when making public comments. You know, to take personal responsibility.

Certainly there are more disturbing forms of discrimination.  What I have an issue with is the that US is supposed to be growing out of that mindset.  This is just a symptom which shows that my belief is still a much desired fantasy.  If we can discriminate over something as petty as who gets preference for a golf tee time, then how much worse is it when the stakes are higher?

[rb72]

This is called "shooting the messenger".  Note most of those who saw no problem with a discriminatory policy have attacked Kate Upton's success, looks, star quality, etc... or resorted to personal insults.  I think that is a pretty good indication of who is correct in this argument.

Or, instead of twisting yourself into these insane logical knots, you could just let people play whenever they want regardless of gender.

I'm still waiting for the "logical, practical reason".  Girls are slow?  Please tell me what this reason is beyond "the members want it this way", because that isn't a reason.

Look, I get it.  You don't want to play with women for whatever reason.  But come out and say it.  Don't tell me being able to play on Tuesday is "the same" as being able to play on Saturday.  And don't tell me "its the will of the members, man" because thats nonsense.  It may be the will of the members, but it wouldn't be OK to discriminate on race and it isn't OK on gender.

Actually the ones that were wrong are the ones who saw a discriminatory policy because the subject club in fact had no such policy just like in the Kate Upton case because their knee caused them to assume facts not in evidence.

And okay and your apparently a golf club manager because you know there will be no problem letting everyone play whenever they want to.....even if they ALL want to play on Saturday between 7 and noon. You could decide to limit those hours to low handicappers only but there aren't enough high handicappers at this club to have an effect (beyond most of the women that is) or restrict the seniors but alas most of them play during the week anyway (except Tuesdays because that's ladies day) but look! that 10 to 15% that your trying to steer to a different time (like anytime after noon on Saturday and ALL DAY SUNDAY) exactly matches the number of women that play at that time. HMMMMM what do you do ..."MANAGER"? And who says its not okay to discriminate on the basis of gender. That's your opinion. There are many US Laws that recognize differences between men and women and the law protects the right of a private club to do the same. I personally find it offensive that you keep comparing this with racial issues. It smacks of exploitation just to win your argument. As I said; "separate but equal" with regard to race = deplorable with no place in society, with regard to gender = necessary in a civilized society.

[chasm]

You're really not very bright, are you? Never mind, some people do remarkably well despite being similarly disadvantaged.