Royal St. George Votes to Allow Female Membership

[dkolo]

No it is not the same thing.

One is an exclusion to an event or something a person qualified to be in.

The other is a private CLUB.

I do not have to let anyone I want in to my house. You have to let anyone who meets certain requirements attend public school.

Sure. But if you made a point of not allowing someone into your home, who would otherwise be welcome, solely based on their race, gender, etc., people would fairly criticize your exercising of that right. I think @DrvFrShow is just saying that gender-based exclusions at private golf clubs are as ludicrous as race-based exclusions. They're fundamentally the same issue, but for a number of reasons, society has come to condemn gender-based discrimination much more slowly than race-based ones.

[Phil McGleno]

Sure. But if you made a point of not allowing someone into your home, who would otherwise be welcome, solely based on their race, gender, etc., people would fairly criticize your exercising of that right. I think @DrvFrShow is just saying that gender-based exclusions at private golf clubs are as ludicrous as race-based exclusions. They're fundamentally the same issue, but for a number of reasons, society has come to condemn gender-based discrimination much more slowly than race-based ones.

They are a little different. Excluding people leads to judgments by others. We exclude people all the time. All over the place. Sometimes it is because they can not pay. That is fine. IT is deemed an okay reason to exclude someone from a country club. Other times because they do not meet some other requirement. Sometimes that is fine (they are not the right age perhaps) and sometimes it is deemed not fine (they are black, or Indian). Clubs have the right to allow or disallow anyone they choose. I agree that we get to pass judgment on whether they are being cool about it or not. I prefer to not pass judgment, though. It is not my club. I have no say in their affairs. She said excluding someone from a golf TOURNAMENT was the same as excluding them from a private club. That is not true.

[Golfingdad]

Just want to point out that this thread was started with an article about INCLUSION, not exclusion.  Nobody forced them to include women, they (nearly) unanimously decided to do that for themselves.  There is no CONtroversy here. (Or as they'd say at the club in question, there is no conTROVersy here)

This should be a happy, positive discussion!

[dkolo]

They are a little different. Excluding people leads to judgments by others.

We exclude people all the time. All over the place. Sometimes it is because they can not pay. That is fine. IT is deemed an okay reason to exclude someone from a country club. Other times because they do not meet some other requirement. Sometimes that is fine (they are not the right age perhaps) and sometimes it is deemed not fine (they are black, or Indian).

Clubs have the right to allow or disallow anyone they choose. I agree that we get to pass judgment on whether they are being cool about it or not. I prefer to not pass judgment, though. It is not my club. I have no say in their affairs.

She said excluding someone from a golf TOURNAMENT was the same as excluding them from a private club. That is not true.

I kind of don't know that it really makes a difference whether it's a tournament or a membership that someone is excluded from on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic like race. Gender might be relevant. I'm not handing down commandments here, I just offer that the right to discriminate isn't immune from judgment from society and, in some cases, should be condemned.

I think the issue I have with policies like these, at clubs, is that they're inherently closed-minded. That they assume, ab initio, that they won't get along with someone of the race, gender, whatever, which is why they just make an exclusionary policy. Just have a policy of "we'll evaluate candidates on a case-by-case basis." If they do that honestly and still never admit a woman or black person or whatever because they don't find any of them to be a fit, so be it. But it's just the underlying assumption behind the policy that people from group X won't be a fit that I object to.

Just want to point out that this thread was started with an article about INCLUSION, not exclusion.  Nobody forced them to include women, they (nearly) unanimously decided to do that for themselves.  There is no CONtroversy here. (Or as they'd say at the club in question, there is no conTROVersy here)

This should be a happy, positive discussion!

Totally! It should be celebrated that they re-evaluated their practices and made these changes of their own accord. I think there may be a misunderstanding some have that this was forced upon the club.

[DrvFrShow]

@Golfingdad It was about inclusion until someone mentioned "waiting list."

[tristanhilton85]

@Golfingdad It was about inclusion until someone mentioned "waiting list."

The fact that there is a waiting list makes it exclusionary? That doesn't make sense.

[billchao]

@Golfingdad It was about inclusion until someone mentioned "waiting list."

Uh yea, there's a waiting list for the women to gain membership, the same way men get in. Did you read the article?

[DrvFrShow]

Yes I did. I just think it should be a little more proactive.

[Lihu]

Yes I did. I just think it should be a little more proactive.

I was kind of thinking about that too, but it seems a little unfair to all the men who applied years ago to get into the club for the club to bump the new women applicants forward. The breakthrough is really that women are allowed to be put on the waiting list the same as men.

[billchao]

I was kind of thinking about that too, but it seems a little unfair to all the men who applied years ago to get into the club for the club to bump the new women applicants forward. The breakthrough is really that women are allowed to be put on the waiting list the same as men.

This. Think of it this way @DrvFrShow : Imagine if your favorite restaurant excluded a certain group of people. It's a small restaurant with limited seating and you have to make reservations a year in advance to get in. As your day draws near, the restaurant decides that they're going to allow this group of people access. Would it be fair to bump you off your reservation to accommodate these people, just because they couldn't get in before? As I understand it, there are a limited number of memberships available and people have to wait for others to give theirs up. It's not fair to those who are going through the process of membership to get bumped down just so the club can get some women in. It's not their fault that the club didn't allow women previously and they shouldn't be punished for it.

[DrvFrShow]

In this case: build another locker room.

[Bechambo]

This.

Think of it this way @DrvFrShow: Imagine if your favorite restaurant excluded a certain group of people. It's a small restaurant with limited seating and you have to make reservations a year in advance to get in. As your day draws near, the restaurant decides that they're going to allow this group of people access. Would it be fair to bump you off your reservation to accommodate these people, just because they couldn't get in before?

As I understand it, there are a limited number of memberships available and people have to wait for others to give theirs up. It's not fair to those who are going through the process of membership to get bumped down just so the club can get some women in. It's not their fault that the club didn't allow women previously and they shouldn't be punished for it.

It's not punishment. The club and men in it, including those on the waiting list have benefited from discriminatory practices that our society finds wrong. Consider those that have been previously excluded. Reparations must be paid. Those that have been on the receiving end of injustice must be made whole. What do you think is a better way of doing that?

[newtogolf]

It's not punishment. The club and men in it, including those on the waiting list have benefited from discriminatory practices that our society finds wrong. Consider those that have been previously excluded. Reparations must be paid. Those that have been on the receiving end of injustice must be made whole. What do you think is a better way of doing that?

There are numerous clubs still in existence that exclude men or women.  There wasn't an injustice, nor a need to apply any penalty unless you feel the women at Curves should be penalized for excluding men.   Private clubs are allowed to select who becomes a member and who doesn't.

[iacas]

It's not punishment. The club and men in it, including those on the waiting list have benefited from discriminatory practices that our society finds wrong. Consider those that have been previously excluded. Reparations must be paid. Those that have been on the receiving end of injustice must be made whole. What do you think is a better way of doing that?

Injustice? Reparations?

C'mon. No.

[Bechambo]

There are numerous clubs still in existence that exclude men or women.  There wasn't an injustice, nor a need to apply any penalty unless you feel the women at Curves should be penalized for excluding men.   Private clubs are allowed to select who becomes a member and who doesn't.

Point taken. Freedom of association is important. I agree. However, I can see why a very private establishment with a very public reputation would follow the logic I had put forth. Curves, doesn't have the public pressures to make those kinds of changes. It's hardly a reputation a private enterprise wants to hold on to, that they be perceived as being only available to wealthy privileged men. There are plenty of double standards that are currently held as normative. This is one of them.

[tristanhilton85]

The bottom line in all of this is that these are private organizations. They have the right to determine who they want to be members and who they don't. If they want to be a mens only club that's fine. If not, that's fine too. I don't see any reason why they should be mens only, and I think it's great that they decided to let women in, but had they not made that decision, it wouldn't have bothered me at all. The idea that they should all of a sudden move women to the front of the waiting list implies that they somehow did something wrong by not letting them join in the first place; that is not the case.

[Bechambo]

The bottom line in all of this is that these are private organizations. They have the right to determine who they want to be members and who they don't. If they want to be a mens only club that's fine. If not, that's fine too. I don't see any reason why they should be mens only, and I think it's great that they decided to let women in, but had they not made that decision, it wouldn't have bothered me at all. The idea that they should all of a sudden move women to the front of the waiting list implies that they somehow did something wrong by not letting them join in the first place; that is not the case.

I think there is an underlying reason they do feel that they were wrong before. When the rule was made (speculation), it was made with a mindset that women were inferior. It wasn't made with a harmless premise, ie. "it's just a boys club." I think this is what they realized. Perhaps its a means of washing the sins away.

[iacas]

I think there is an underlying reason they do feel that they were wrong before. When the rule was made (speculation), it was made with a mindset that women were inferior. It wasn't made with a harmless premise, ie. "it's just a boys club." I think this is what they realized. Perhaps its a means of washing the sins away.

I don't think it's that way at all.

I think they just think to themselves "It's time we let women join." Not "women are inferior." There are no sins. They had a club.