Muirfield Out of Open Rota, Denies Women Membership

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

This statement is certainly true in the USA.  Probably true in Great Britain too.  As long as you're paying your own way you can have a private club with whatever membership rules you choose.  It is also true that the R&A, or USGA for that matter, can also have rules about what courses it will sponsor tournaments at and what ones it won't.   The trouble with being a free country is it works both ways.

I agree, clubs that do not have open membership policies open themselves up to scrutiny and possible exclusion from certain considerations such as sponsoring a golf tournament.  I see no problem with that so long as the R&A and USGA are fair in the execution of their policy, meaning that women only clubs or minority only clubs would not be selected to hold tournaments they sponsor.  

[Dinoma]

I'm amazed at the amount of news that this is getting. I don't necessarily agree with the members and would have voted differently had I been a member however this is the news:

Group of men on private land decide to start a private club.

they then decide who can and cannot join the club. 

end of news

If you are that strongly against it don't go, or don't let them host your tournament (such as the R&A has done). Other than that leave people alone to do what they want in private on private land (as long as they are not breaking the law of the land).

[jsgolfer]

Based on several of the comments, it got me thinking, how many TST'ers wouldn't play the men's (or ladies) only clubs if they were offered the opportunity?  

I would play them if I had the chance, of course I will probably never get the chance.  

[Jeremie Boop]

2 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Based on several of the comments, it got me thinking, how many TST'ers wouldn't play the men's (or ladies) only clubs if they were offered the opportunity?  

I would play them if I had the chance, of course I will probably never get the chance.  

I would also play them. I would be surprised if more than a few people said they wouldn't. I'd be even more surprised if they actually didn't if given the chance.

[krupa]

3 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

Based on several of the comments, it got me thinking, how many TST'ers wouldn't play the men's (or ladies) only clubs if they were offered the opportunity?  

I would play them if I had the chance, of course I will probably never get the chance.  

I don't agree with Muirfield's decision but I would play the course if I had the chance.  Considering the fact that the vote was close to the 2/3 majority needed to change the rule, I would even consider joining to help tip that in (what I consider to be) the right direction.  So I'll just be by my phone waiting for the call... 

[DaveP043]

I'm not sure that I'd hesitate to play at any men-only club, although I probably would hesitate to play at a "white-only" club.  I'm not sure that distinction is entirely fair on my part, but that's how it struck me.  

I was at least a little amused at some of the "reasons" that the inclusion of women members was opposed, including concerns over slow play, and concerns that women would feel uncomfortable at lunch.  The reasoning seems pretty thin to me, but I still respect their right to make their own decisions.

[DrvFrShow]

In the UK, women formed the LGU because we were excluded from the R&A for centuries. Now that things changed and the R&A finally allowed women to join a little over a year ago, the two organizations have agreed to a merger. I'm sure this presented the R&A with "difficult" political decisions like requiring gender equality in the clubs where they hold their national tournaments ... The Open. Muirfield not having gender equality in their membership now gets passed over.

And while the Muirfield membership has the right to vote the way they want, I don't have to support their decision.

I'll never play a round of golf there anyway. First off, I don't have the money.

 

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I'm not sure that I'd hesitate to play at any men-only club, although I probably would hesitate to play at a "white-only" club.  I'm not sure that distinction is entirely fair on my part, but that's how it struck me.  

I was at least a little amused at some of the "reasons" that the inclusion of women members was opposed, including concerns over slow play, and concerns that women would feel uncomfortable at lunch.  The reasoning seems pretty thin to me, but I still respect their right to make their own decisions.

I'd play a men-only club and probably any other private club as a guest if given the opportunity.  

I was on some committees at my old home course and have a different appreciation for what's involved in running a country club.  Some clubs started as men only then expanded but there is considerable expense in maintaining two locker rooms even if only 10% of the golfing membership are female.   

Men only clubs only need one locker room and the accommodations don't need to be as frilly .  My old home club had a smaller locker room for ladies because they represented a smaller segment of the golfing membership and it was pretty plain.  They ladies complained their locker room was smaller, they didn't like the showers, the counter space, and power outlets for their heat guns I mean hair dryers wasn't sufficient.   It caused a riff in the club because the upgrade cost was a considerable amount of money and was spread across all of the members, even the single members.   

 

[Chilli Dipper]

34 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I'd play a men-only club and probably any other private club as a guest if given the opportunity.  

I was on some committees at my old home course and have a different appreciation for what's involved in running a country club.  Some clubs started as men only then expanded but there is considerable expense in maintaining two locker rooms even if only 10% of the golfing membership are female.   

Men only clubs only need one locker room and the accommodations don't need to be as frilly .  My old home club had a smaller locker room for ladies because they represented a smaller segment of the golfing membership and it was pretty plain.  They ladies complained their locker room was smaller, they didn't like the showers, the counter space, and power outlets for their heat guns I mean hair dryers wasn't sufficient.   It caused a riff in the club because the upgrade cost was a considerable amount of money and was spread across all of the members, even the single members.   

 

This isn't a middle-class club, though: this is the most exclusive club in Britain. Out of the reasons why Muirfield would resist women members, financial constraints probably isn't one of them.

[newtogolf]

35 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

This isn't a middle-class club, though: this is the most exclusive club in Britain. Out of the reasons why Muirfield would resist women members, financial constraints probably isn't one of them.

I agree, not financial constraints but logistics and financial feasibility.  I've never been in their building but if it only has one locker room, what current space would be lost to add a ladies locker room  or do they expand the building and at what cost balanced against the potential number of women that would join?  

Just because a club has wealthy members doesn't mean they want to make bad investments.  

[jamo]

6 hours ago, jsgolfer said:

Based on several of the comments, it got me thinking, how many TST'ers wouldn't play the men's (or ladies) only clubs if they were offered the opportunity?  

I would play them if I had the chance, of course I will probably never get the chance.  

I don't have any sort of fetish for exclusive clubs and frankly could not care less about the locker rooms, so no, I wouldn't play a men's only golf club. (I'm gonna look very stupid if it turns out I've already played one and didn't know it. )

I've always been a public course guy. Both of my favorite courses (my favorite local course and my favorite fancier, nationally-known course) are munis.

I've played plenty of private courses, including a few very nice ones, and the exclusivity is a turn-off, if anything. (Though I am, of course, thankful I got to play the courses and very appreciative of the members.)

[DrvFrShow]

Bad investment? Really? While it would require new construction, locker rooms aren't that expensive to build. So they build a locker room to accommodate XX number of new potential women members. They now have room for XX new members, thus more revenue. The new construction gets capitalized over so many years. The whole thing doesn't make any sense other than the fact that a few old codgers didn't want women in the club and they couldn't come up with a reason that made any sense, so they issued one that was vague as hell. They just wanted to discriminate.

[Buckeyebowman]

6 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

In the UK, women formed the LGU because we were excluded from the R&A for centuries. Now that things changed and the R&A finally allowed women to join a little over a year ago, the two organizations have agreed to a merger. I'm sure this presented the R&A with "difficult" political decisions like requiring gender equality in the clubs where they hold their national tournaments ... The Open. Muirfield not having gender equality in their membership now gets passed over.

And while the Muirfield membership has the right to vote the way they want, I don't have to support their decision.

I'll never play a round of golf there anyway. First off, I don't have the money.

 

 

5 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

This isn't a middle-class club, though: this is the most exclusive club in Britain. Out of the reasons why Muirfield would resist women members, financial constraints probably isn't one of them.

Indeed! And consider the root of the word "exclusive". It means they exclude certain people from joining. Many men among them, I'm sure.

I once read a book called "In Search of Burningbush", in which the author took a physically challenged Vegas poker dealer, who was also a golf fanatic and "Golf in the Kingdom" disciple, on a golf trip around Scotland. They did not play Muirfield because he couldn't get the arrangements made in time. Seeing as how the arrangements might need a letter of recommendation from the president of the USGA or the PGA Tour, they can be daunting.

The author apologized to his friend, saying he would have loved the course, it might be the best in the entire UK. But, having played there a couple of times, he found the atmosphere "stuffy". Full of big money, or "huge" money, doctors, lawyers, and businessmen.

[chilepepper]

Seems rather silly to me to exclude by gender but.....it's their club. Why just a few years ago I heard they got rid of the sheep and purchased some triplex mowers

[14ledo81]

57 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Bad investment? Really? While it would require new construction, locker rooms aren't that expensive to build. So they build a locker room to accommodate XX number of new potential women members. They now have room for XX new members, thus more revenue. The new construction gets capitalized over so many years. The whole thing doesn't make any sense other than the fact that a few old codgers didn't want women in the club and they couldn't come up with a reason that made any sense, so they issued one that was vague as hell. They just wanted to discriminate.

Do you really think they don't like women? 

I'm going to assume they all had mother's....

[newtogolf]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

Bad investment? Really? While it would require new construction, locker rooms aren't that expensive to build. So they build a locker room to accommodate XX number of new potential women members. They now have room for XX new members, thus more revenue. The new construction gets capitalized over so many years. The whole thing doesn't make any sense other than the fact that a few old codgers didn't want women in the club and they couldn't come up with a reason that made any sense, so they issued one that was vague as hell. They just wanted to discriminate.

So then I guess the women only golf clubs and Curves don't want men around and just want to discriminate too.  

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

Bad investment? Really? While it would require new construction, locker rooms aren't that expensive to build. So they build a locker room to accommodate XX number of new potential women members. They now have room for XX new members, thus more revenue. The new construction gets capitalized over so many years. The whole thing doesn't make any sense other than the fact that a few old codgers didn't want women in the club and they couldn't come up with a reason that made any sense, so they issued one that was vague as hell. They just wanted to discriminate.

Ah, you masked your contempt in your earlier post but couldn't here.  This does not affect you or anyone else on this forum.  There might be 5 or 10 women in the entire world that have the means and desire and pedigree to join this club.  Let's hold off on the PC histrionics until we hear from one of them.  Allow the men their sanctuary, I'm sure their wives are grateful for it.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Gunther

[MacDutch]

I would play a mens only golfcourse for sure. Not sure if I did. Did I @David in FL ?

Hell, I even would play a ladies only golfcourse if they let me 

Edited May 21, 2016 by MacDutch