Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
krupa

Muirfield Out of Open Rota, Denies Women Membership

Note: This thread is 1389 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

206 posts / 11571 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Phil McGleno said:

I have seen that.-Puma and Julia are talking as if they should have accepted women and they are deplorable men to not have done so and are doing some great social injustice. Others too have.

OK, but saying they should have accepted women (an opinion on the choice the club made) and saying they should be legally forced to accept women are still quite different, aren't they? Sorry if that seems pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction that seems to get lost in these debates.

FWIW, I don't think they should be forced to accept women either but I think it's kind of silly not to.  Maybe it's partly a generational thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's getting lost is the fact that a sizable majority of Muirfield members did vote to allow women: just not quite enough to break the two-thirds threshold. If the vote was 64-36 against integration, I could understand some outrage. A 64-36 vote for integration means they are very close, especially since some of those "nay" votes will turn into "yeas" now that the R&A has called the club's bluff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I objected to was the comparison with Roman Catholics and Muslims joining a Jewish organization. This is a tactic used in debating when you want someone to agree to your point using an example that is not related to the issue at hand. It's a non-sequitur. Then it becomes a "gotcha."

Different religions have different rules at their core beliefs and they're usually incompatible with each other. One difference between religion and golf is that golf is not a men's only game. Women play golf by the same rules as men. This is not true in religion. These are two reasons why Erik's comparison was unrelated.

I did not call the entire membership deplorable men. I called those who opposed a bunch of old codgers who need to come into the 21st century.

Just now, Chilli Dipper said:

What's getting lost is the fact that a sizable majority of Muirfield members did vote to allow women: just not quite enough to break the two-thirds threshold. If the vote was 64-36 against integration, I could understand some outrage. A 64-36 vote for integration means they are very close, especially since some of those "nay" votes will turn into "yeas" now that the R&A has called the club's bluff.

I think I've been very careful to mention the percentage. If all 600 of their members voted we're talking about a total of 12 votes. The minority decided to forego the Open because it is a "rare event" in favor of retaining their men's only policy. Whatever Muirfield. It will change eventually.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Julia, you're too caught up and are drawing an arbitrary line at "religion." What if it was the San Francisco Men's Jewish Golf Club? Or the Nevada Women's Swimming Club? How about that women's golf club in Canada; should they be required to admit men?

When I lived near Boca Raton there was an all-women's tennis club. Men were not even allowed to play their courts.

So if you don't like religion, substitute it for any other private club you want.

As I said, I'd have voted to allow women. But I fully support their right to do with their private club what they wish, particularly if they knew the circumstances of making their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

What I objected to was the comparison with Roman Catholics and Muslims joining a Jewish organization. This is a tactic used in debating when you want someone to agree to your point using an example that is not related to the issue at hand. It's a non-sequitur. Then it becomes a "gotcha."

Different religions have different rules at their core beliefs and they're usually incompatible with each other. One difference between religion and golf is that golf is not a men's only game. Women play golf by the same rules as men. This is not true in religion. These are two reasons why Erik's comparison was unrelated.

I did not call the entire membership deplorable men. I called those who opposed a bunch of old codgers who need to come into the 21st century.

I think I've been very careful to mention the percentage. If all 600 of their members voted we're talking about a total of 12 votes. The minority decided to forego the Open because it is a "rare event" in favor of retaining their men's only policy. Whatever Muirfield. It will change eventually.

I'm sorry if this upsets you because overall you're a great asset on this site and I enjoy all of your posts.  Women add complications to a mens only club.  From additional accommodations regardless of cost, additional space requirements and the fact that the men there will have to be careful of every word that comes out of their mouth out of fear of offending a lady.  

I have complete respect for women but these days of social justice warriors taking every word someone says and twisting it to be offensive, racist, sexist, xenophobic and whatever other terms they use is exhausting.   I think the men of Muirfield want a place where they can just have some drinks, talk about sports or whatever and not worry that they might use an inappropriate word or make an inappropriate comment that gets them in hot water for sexual harassment.   

Men and women are equal but they are different, our club dedicates Tuesdays to ladies golf, where only women can play, I'm sure they are happy that they can play a round of golf without men smoking stinky cigars, cursing and rushing them to play faster.  I see no problem with men wanting to hang out with men and women wanting to hang out with women, this notion that Muirfield is filled with old codgers because they don't want women as members is ignorant or a form of denial.  

I know a lot of men that would like to be part of a mens only club but they don't have the guts to admit it out of fear of being called politically incorrect or worse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, Chilli Dipper said:

What's getting lost is the fact that a sizable majority of Muirfield members did vote to allow women: just not quite enough to break the two-thirds threshold. If the vote was 64-36 against integration, I could understand some outrage. A 64-36 vote for integration means they are very close, especially since some of those "nay" votes will turn into "yeas" now that the R&A has called the club's bluff.

I don't think the R&A called their bluff at all,I reckon the members who voted against knew exactly what the reaction would be and don't care. For some people the world is not "MONEY MONEY MONEY"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gunther said:

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.

I picked up on that myself. The fangs and claws began to show.

Let's face it, it's a stratified world in a lot of ways, and birds of a feather will flock together. There are private clubs locally that I can't even dream of belonging to, but would love to play. And even that is a distant dream because that could only happen if I was a guest of a member, and we don't run in the same circles. But, such is life.

And it occurred to me that if some are going to get all bent out of shape over "discrimination", let's consider the LPGA. I don't know if it's still the same, but I know for sure that at one time the bylaws for membership on the LPGA tour called for the person to be BORN  a female! So, no gender reassignment surgery or hormone treatments would qualify. Kaitlyn Jenner need not apply! If it's still that way, I'm surprised the LGBT community isn't up their noses about it. But they seem to tread lightly on women.

Sometimes the guys just want a place they can go and hang out with their buds, no women included. We can cuss, scratch, fart, and be as gross as we want with no at home repercussions. For most of us that comes down to the local watering hole, or your man cave. And think about that! Why on earth is it called a MAN cave?! And sometimes I'm sure women want the same thing. They can talk fashion, hair styles, hot actors, and just dish the dirt with people who speak the same language.

But when men want to make the arrangement formal, suddenly, at least in these times, they are suspect! And some will maintain that the world is not being wussified! There is absolutely no reason that government fiat needs to force us to be together all the damn time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

4 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

The minority decided to forego the Open because it is a "rare event" in favor of retaining their men's only policy. Whatever Muirfield. It will change eventually.

That's the best part of a brick wall. It always ends the day believing it is correct. Each brick congratulates itself on a job well done as they beat back that which rails against them. But a brick wall is just that: a wall. It's static, inflexible, it can't move. We need only go around it, under, or help each other climb over it. There it will be stuck in the background as we move forward. That which was once "PC" will be the norm. Let the bricks congratulate themselves. We'll move forward with or without them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole argument about women only clubs is too easy. 

Of course you want equality. But the world we are in is not equal at all. Even in developed countries women still have a minority role. And let's not even begin to talk about underdeveloped countries.

So stop talking about what is pc and the wussification of society. That's just balance finding its way. As a majority you don't get to take a victim role.

 

i was surprised to hear that Augusta did not allow black people until 1990, is that really the case? Blows my mind. Anyone wants to defend that ?:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, slightlymad said:

The whole argument about women only clubs is too easy. 

Of course you want equality. But the world we are in is not equal at all. Even in developed countries women still have a minority role. And let's not even begin to talk about underdeveloped countries.

So stop talking about what is pc and the wussification of society. That's just balance finding its way. As a majority you don't get to take a victim role.

 

i was surprised to hear that Augusta did not allow black people until 1990, is that really the case? Blows my mind. Anyone wants to defend that ?:)

Does the KKK take black members?

Most are defending the right of a private organization to limit membership how they choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

16 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

Defending this vote is like defending Augusta's policy for not allowing members based on race until 1990.

 

13 hours ago, drmevo said:

It seems to me that one "side" is arguing that Muirfield not allowing women members is dumb and outdated, and the other "side" is arguing that it's their right to exclude women as members since they are a private club. Why are the two viewpoints mutually exclusive?  Who is arguing that private clubs should be forced to admit women members (an inference that many in this thread seem to be making)?  

I haven't seen or heard of anyone making the case that they should be forced to accept women. That's very different from saying that it makes no sense to exclude women.  

I've got to agree with @drmevo here.  I haven't read a single post here that says the Honourable Company made the right decision, I think most have said they would have voted to allow women as members.  However, many of us have defended the HC's right to make that decision.  As I tell many people who disagree with me, I respect your right to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Quote

Buckeyebowman said: Sometimes the guys just want a place they can go and hang out with their buds, no women included. We can cuss, scratch, fart, and be as gross as we want with no at home repercussions. For most of us that comes down to the local watering hole, or your man cave. And think about that! Why on earth is it called a MAN cave?! And sometimes I'm sure women want the same thing. They can talk fashion, hair styles, hot actors, and just dish the dirt with people who speak the same language.

I'm not convinced the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (as they are modestly named), are looking for a place to hang out with the guys, shoot some pool (or even play some golf), sink a few cold ones, and talk about the football and how they're going to drop a new radiator in their truck next weekend - all in the absence of the ladies of course, so they can "cuss, scratch, and fart" without fear of embarrassment or repercussions.

What I do see, however, is evidence of wealthy men wishing to belong to an organization where their companions will be solely limited to other wealthy, and, most likely, predominantly white men. Just as it's always been.

If you want to know how arrogant these men really are, take a look at the letter sent by thirty of them to the entire membership, which one of their more enlightened members leaked to the Scotsman: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/muirfield-braced-for-no-vote-on-admitting-women-members-1-4131100

Quote

On the balance of issues, would the R&A actually remove HCEG from The Open circuit given the economic benefit to the national and local economy and the lack of suitable supply of alternative venues? Their position should be researched and made clear and in particular the timescale whereunder we may attempt to satisfactorily address or dispense with the issues.

Rather breathtaking actually - a series of assumptions born of privilege: The R&A aren't really going to take the Open away from Muirfield because, well, there aren't any alternative places of equal standing and to remove it would hurt the local economy (the issue of the health of the local economy in this regard, also existing in the hands of HCEG, being utterly overlooked); and of course, the use of the phrase "dispense with" after the condescending "satisfactorily address" - in their minds, this isn't really a problem, more of an irritation that can eventually be remedied in a manner that suits their preference.

And who can blame them, in the wider sense? Look at the front bench of the current UK government in the House of Commons. I have never lived in such regressive times. Much as I loathed and detested the grocer's daughter from Lincolnshire who led the country when I was a young man, it is rather incredible to see, at this late stage, that power has been returned, wholesale, to the old Etonians and alumni of the Bullingdon Club. I rather thought British people would have tired of (male) class privilege by now. Still, at least Scotland is in a slightly different position. It does have a progressive woman leader who apparently wants to live in a more enlightened society, and her words for the HCEG are harsh, indeed: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-36333641

Still, the HCEG got what they wanted (to maintain an exclusive club, with a membership restricted to wealthy men) - but they didn't get to have their cake and eat it - they lost the Open Championship. Good. They believe there are no alternatives to their club, located elsewhere in the UK, when it comes to hosting the Open? They're wrong. Take it to St. Mellion, instead, for example - a wonderful, Nicklaus designed course that has hosted European Tour events. I'm sure belonging to that club isn't cheap either, but at least their are no gender restrictions placed on membership. 

Edited by ScouseJohnny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 14ledo81 said:

Does the KKK take black members?

Most are defending the right of a private organization to limit membership how they choose.

Way off topic. Please steer back to golf please.

This thread is getting a bit too angry. Let's reflect that we are talking about a golf club in Scotland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

As I tell many people who disagree with me, I respect your right to be wrong.

A different opinion cannot be wrong, @DaveP043. Simply different. Telling someone they're wrong for having a different opinion is poor form.

Nobody here is a member of the club. For all we know, some of us might have voted similarly to the 1/3+. We don't know what the reasons for their vote are, but they could be institutional, financial, familial, mysogynistic, or any other number of reasons, good or bad. Heck, for all we know, one of the first women who would be admitted is despised by 40% of the membership, so they voted no. (There may be male members that 75% of the members hate - that seems to be true at every club :-D, but it's too late to ban them from membership. :-)).

By definition they made the right decision for them. Though it's interesting to note that it requires 2/3 and not just a majority. Looks like it may change the next time they vote. But then again, they've said that about Mouvement souverainiste du Québec too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

You're correct, but to say it accurately would be "I respect your right to hold an opinion with which I disagree", and that doesn't really flow off the tongue.

53 minutes ago, iacas said:

By definition they made the right decision for them

I'm not sure I'd define it that way.  They made their decision, and probably did so in accordance with the bylaws of the club, but to evaluate whether its the right one or not would depend on the short-and long-term consequences of the decision.  Just my opinion, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Issue at Muirfield sounds very much like the situation the PGA tour put forth to Augusta regarding a possible boycott of the Masters by PGA tour members if the club did not meet their membership policy standards - when directly confronted Augusta declined to change their policy but after things died down for awhile it was noted that indeed Augusta did make changes to their policy based upon their own "independent decision" to admit women members. 

One expects that in the next year or so while still in the window to retain their spot in the Open rota one might hear that the members of Muirfield, of their "own free will" and not because of any pressure from the R&A or anybody else, have decided to take in women as members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

Way off topic. Please steer back to golf please.

This thread is getting a bit too angry. Let's reflect that we are talking about a golf club in Scotland. 

Really?

I thought we were discussing private organizations and if the have the right to "discriminate".

I'm certainly not the first to use a different private organization as an example. (Can't remember, think someone else even mentioned KKK...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 1389 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    SuperSpeed
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Posts

    • Day 54 - Trying to get comfortable with this new setup, just hitting some balls indoors. 
    • I’ve never tinkered with swing weight before, and when I build a set of irons I usually just settle for the feel of the clubs as-built with the idea that I’ll eventually get used to the different feel. That said, my main set of irons feels perfect to me (probably just familiarity with them), and adjusting swing weight is something I’d like to be able to do in the future to make my other sets feel closer to them. I’ve just never invested the time to work on it. 
    • Day 321 Did mirror work on takeaway/backswing piece, and then hit balls with 7-iron and 3W working on hip turn piece. 
    • You know, as a musician I find a lot of similarities between learning a musical instrument and golf. I don’t think I’ve found any two hobbies more similar.    When it comes to equipment, the similarities hold true. A professional guitarist will be able to make a cheap First Act guitar from Walmart sing in the same way a scratch golfer will play scratch golf regardless if he uses his own clubs or yours. The overall result is pretty much the same regardless of the equipment. The skill of the player eclipses it in importance.    I think in both hobbies, cheap equipment has come a long way, to the point where the differences are subtle. In golf I notice more expensive clubs have less cosmetic defects. The material is better, meaning the clubs are less likely to break, and definitely in the case of wedges/irons wear down. But is that to say a cheap club is going to break in a year? Probably not. To be honest, most of it just feel. The strike of an expensive club feels smoother, sounds better, and frankly is a more enjoyable experience in most cases to hit. 
    • So, that's really a thing? Never even heard of it. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Alecb
      Alecb
      (23 years old)
    2. BamaWade
      BamaWade
      (45 years old)
    3. Breaka100
      Breaka100
      (80 years old)
    4. dust1978
      dust1978
      (42 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...