Muirfield Votes to Allow Female Members, Back on Open Rota

[nevets88]

Looks like Muirfield's back on the menu, boys.

Quote

Members at the privately-owned club voted 80.2% in favour of updating their membership policy.

It followed a decision by golf's ruling body, the R&A, to remove Muirfield as a host venue for the Open Championship after it failed to change in 2016.

R&A chief executive Martin Slumbers said the club would now be reinstated as an Open venue.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39260578

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, nevets88 said:

Looks like Muirfield's back on the menu, boys.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39260578

Interesting. 

[bkuehn1952]

670 voting members - that seemed like a high number.  I checked Oakland Hills.  They have 1,140 people with handicaps.  Assuming the average member has a spouse listed or spouse and one child, that is 380 to 570 members.  Maybe 670 isn't out of line considering they may have a significant number of foreign members and some courses have members who formerly played and now just retain the membership out of habit.

At any rate, it seems like a wise move to no longer exclude 50% of the population from possible membership.

[DaveP043]

It was only a matter of time.  If I remember right, last time they voted they had a majority vote to accept women as members, but just under the percentage required to make the change.  Being removed from the rota was a wake-up call.

[nevets88]

Tell us what you really think, McIlroy.

 

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Tell us what you really think, McIlroy.

Glad to see he speaks his mind. Let's try to remember how often people complain about pros not doing this should he ever say things with which we disagree.

Those 20% may have had their reasons, for all I know. I'd have probably voted to integrate and allow women, but I don't blame someone else for voting how they feel.

[DaveP043]

51 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

Tell us what you really think, McIlroy.

Interesting comments.  Up until now, I had thought that most players liked and respected the golf course, so its surprising to me that he doesn't care for it.  As for his opinions on the Muirfield membership and their original vote, I think most of us here agreed with his general sentiment at the time.   I know I felt it was a poor choice, but I defended the right of the Muirfield members to make their own choice.  I'd say he's much more vehement than I would be, with the use of words like obscene, ridiculous, and horrendous, but younger folks often see things as more black and white than I do.

[mchepp]

I like Rory being honest. Please keep it up Rory. (I know how he loves to lurk here on TST so for sure he's gonna read this )

The golfing powers that be keep talking about growing the game of golf, and I feel that one of the main areas that needs to improve is allowing everyone access to the game. It should not look and feel like an old mans game, but be inclusive and allow anyone who wants to play a chance to do so. 

[BuckeyeGolf]

6 hours ago, nevets88 said:

Tell us what you really think, McIlroy.

 

I like Rory, but I think he is misguided. The broader issue here is the loss of freedom. Muirfield is a private club. Women have access to the club to play golf, so it is not a harsh ban. What is wrong with Men or Women choosing to interact with their own gender in a private setting? I guess the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto will have to abandon their women-only membership policy.

[Chilli Dipper]

3 hours ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

I like Rory, but I think he is misguided. The broader issue here is the loss of freedom. Muirfield is a private club. Women have access to the club to play golf, so it is not a harsh ban. What is wrong with Men or Women choosing to interact with their own gender in a private setting? I guess the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto will have to abandon their women-only membership policy.

Muirfield had the freedom to remain closed to women, but freedom has its consequences; namely, no longer being entitled to host Open Championships based on the club's prestige alone.

[boogielicious]

9 hours ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

I like Rory, but I think he is misguided. The broader issue here is the loss of freedom. Muirfield is a private club. Women have access to the club to play golf, so it is not a harsh ban. What is wrong with Men or Women choosing to interact with their own gender in a private setting? I guess the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto will have to abandon their women-only membership policy.

Do they play LPGA event there? I agree that clubs have the right to be private. But if they want to host a public event, then the organization running that event also has the right to specify what type of club can hold that event. That is the issue here. Murfield wants to have the Open Championship more than remain a Men's only club.

I like that Rory speaks his mind.

[woodzie264]

10 hours ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

I like Rory, but I think he is misguided. The broader issue here is the loss of freedom. Muirfield is a private club. Women have access to the club to play golf, so it is not a harsh ban. What is wrong with Men or Women choosing to interact with their own gender in a private setting? I guess the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto will have to abandon their women-only membership policy.

So I'd agree. I'm not sexist or anything, but I wouldn't expect a women's group to accept men...why would I expect a men's club to accept women? I don't care strongly either way...but I certainly don't understand folks who act like it's some abhorrent issue to choose to keep it a men's only organization. 

[krupa]

11 hours ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

I like Rory, but I think he is misguided. The broader issue here is the loss of freedom. Muirfield is a private club. Women have access to the club to play golf, so it is not a harsh ban. What is wrong with Men or Women choosing to interact with their own gender in a private setting? I guess the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto will have to abandon their women-only membership policy.

There's no loss of freedom here; they were free to vote however they wanted.  They were even free to not  have a second vote at all!  Freedom isn't a shield to protect you from criticism or consequences.

[DaveP043]

I'll pile on with the others, The Honourable Company was free to remain a mens-only club, and there were consequences if they chose that route.  Other clubs have chosen to remain exclusive.  Cypress Point is no longer part of the Crosby/AT&T/(your name here) tournament at Pebble.  Burning Tree, in Maryland, remains a favorite among movers and shakers in the DC area.  The allow women on the property only for Christmas shopping, and they accept that they get lose out on potential real estate tax benefits that could be available if they accepted women.  There's plenty of freedom to make choices, and there are consequences of those choices.

[BuckeyeGolf]

18 hours ago, iacas said:

Glad to see he speaks his mind. Let's try to remember how often people complain about pros not doing this should he ever say things with which we disagree.

Those 20% may have had their reasons, for all I know. I'd have probably voted to integrate and allow women, but I don't blame someone else for voting how they feel.

Krupa, I agree that freedom is not a shield against criticism, so I will criticize the R&A for coercing Muirfield and its' members to change their private policies or face the loss of hosting the Open Championship. After all, R&A has been comfortable hosting the Open there 16 times before now. What has changed? Well, a few PC activist have imposed their will to negatively affect the freedom of others. In defense of freedom, it would be interesting if other clubs within the rota rose up and defended Muirfield's freedom by telling the R&A that they will not host the Open at their clubs unless they stop harassing Muirfield. Freedom is worth defending.

[DaveP043]

6 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

Krupa, I agree that freedom is not a shield against criticism, so I will criticize the R&A for coercing Muirfield and its' members to change their private policies or face the loss of hosting the Open Championship. After all, R&A has been comfortable hosting the Open there 16 times before now. What has changed? Well, a few PC activist have imposed their will to negatively affect the freedom of others. In defense of freedom, it would be interesting if other clubs within the rota rose up and defended Muirfield's freedom by telling the R&A that they will not host the Open at their clubs unless they stop harassing Muirfield. Freedom is worth defending.

I'm only guessing here, but I'd bet that the R&A was getting pressure from sponsors who didn't want to be associated with the image of Muirfield denying women an opportunity to become members.  The sponsors, or advertisers, were probably envisioning a decrease in revenue based on that association, which could in turn lead to a loss of income for the R&A from said advertisers.  More often than not, its about money.  

I remember the year that The Masters  turned down substantial advertising revenue, rather than expose willing sponsors to the fallout from Augusta National's male-only membership policy.  

[nevets88]

Article states when St Andrews accepted women, they put nonagenarians on the list. De jure change, de facto, not so much. So Muirfield changed the policy, how long before it actually enacts it? Waiting list is two years.

Quote

The next battleground is Kasumigaseki Country Club, which was chosen as the site of the men’s and women’s golf competition at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. The club denies women full membership and prohibits them from playing on Sundays. In an interview with Reuters last month, the International Olympic Committee’s vice president, John Coates, said that if the club did not “achieve gender equality,” the Olympic competition would be moved to another course.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/sports/golf/muirfield-female-members-british-open.html

 

[krupa]

24 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

Krupa, I agree that freedom is not a shield against criticism, so I will criticize the R&A for coercing Muirfield and its' members to change their private policies or face the loss of hosting the Open Championship. After all, R&A has been comfortable hosting the Open there 16 times before now. What has changed? Well, a few PC activist have imposed their will to negatively affect the freedom of others. In defense of freedom, it would be interesting if other clubs within the rota rose up and defended Muirfield's freedom by telling the R&A that they will not host the Open at their clubs unless they stop harassing Muirfield. Freedom is worth defending.

I'm sure the reality of the situation is somewhere between your interpretation of events and mine.