Muirfield Votes to Allow Female Members, Back on Open Rota

[Chilli Dipper]

The broad majority of Muirfield members go voted yes on this motion last year, and the supermajority who voted yes this year, likely don't give a flip about the opinions of a couple of MRAs who joined a golf forum for the sole purpose of complaining about men having their freedom taken away, and how the feminists and liberal activists are ruining these great traditions. If anything, they may be mildly insulted at the suggestion that they had no agency in their decision.

Unless you're one of the people at the top of Muirfield's waiting list whose place in line may be skipped by a woman fast-tracked for membership, the outrage is all a bit silly.

[BuckeyeGolf]

Spooky, your comments are spot on with the message I'm making regarding freedom being taken away. Muirfield has has hosted the Open 16 times, and then progressive activists come along that hate social norms, private interests, and individual liberties and attack a private club of several hundred members to change their policies or face consequences. The fans that showed up to watch Phil Mickelson win the '13 Open didn't appear to be outraged. The event was televised. Sponsors made their money. So back off progressive activists and leave these gentleman alone!

Also, McIlroy's comment saying the policy is obscene was spineless. He played Muirfield in 2013, and did he speak out then? The Golf Channel panel was spineless too. They would likely suffer possible job less from the coercion of NBC progressives if they spoke on a principled basis.  

8 minutes ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The broad majority of Muirfield members go voted yes on this motion last year, and the supermajority who voted yes this year, likely don't give a flip about the opinions of a couple of MRAs who joined a golf forum for the sole purpose of complaining about men having their freedom taken away, and how the feminists and liberal activists are ruining these great traditions. If anything, they may be mildly insulted at the suggestion that they had no agency in their decision.

Unless you're one of the people at the top of Muirfield's waiting list whose place in line may be skipped by a woman fast-tracked for membership, the outrage is all a bit silly.

This discussion illustrates how easily citizens are willing to forgo their own liberties.  

[bkuehn1952]

29 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

...and then progressive activists come along that hate social norms, private interests, and individual liberties and attack a private club of several hundred members to change their policies or face consequences...

What other groups of people do you feel it appropriate to specifically exclude from a fairly significant club/organization?  Are there any categories that you feel are inappropriate to ban?

[Chilli Dipper]

49 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

This discussion illustrates how easily citizens are willing to forgo their own liberties.  

If man had absolute freedom to do anything he wished, life would be nasty, brutish, and short...and he would still be turned away at the gates of Muirfield.

[krupa]

35 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

This discussion illustrates how easily citizens are willing to forgo their own liberties.

Nonsense.  What specific liberty did the Muirfield members give up?   What right did they lose?  Surely not the right to decide their own membership policy, they still have and use that.  

Clearly their decision was influenced by outside pressure (and therefore shouldn't be praised) but that's not the same as losing the freedom to make those decisions.  They could have very easily voted the same way and stayed off the rota which, as has been said before, is not a right but a privilege.

[mcanadiens]

If the members of Muirfield are happy then I'm happy. Hard to argue with the kind of money that I'm sure The Open brings.

What I wonder is whether any women really give a damn about joining that club in the first place. Are they lining up now or was this simply about proving a point at the expense of a soft target like Muirfield?

 

[Jeremie Boop]

3 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

If the members of Muirfield are happy then I'm happy. Hard to argue with the kind of money that I'm sure The Open brings.

What I wonder is whether any women really give a damn about joining that club in the first place. Are they lining up now or was this simply about proving a point at the expense of a soft target like Muirfield?

 

That's kind of the point. The members were already close to voting women in last time so it's not surprising that they passed the vote this time. I don't know that any women are chomping at the bit to get into this club though, I do believe it was more of a "look at this club, they are still not letting women in! Let's get them!" However, that's not necessarily to say that it wasn't warranted, as it is pretty strange that clubs exist that don't allow any sex/race in these days. That said, I don't really care what their policies are because they are a private club.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

Spooky, your comments are spot on with the message I'm making regarding freedom being taken away.

Absolutely no freedoms were taken away.

None. Zilch. Nada.

Hosting a British Open is a privilege, not a right, and the R&A get to decide who hosts their tournament by the criteria that they establish.

It's not a right or a "freedom" that says they get to host the British Open. It's a privilege. The R&A recognized that it was in their interests to host the British Open at more "with-the-times" clubs, so they told Muirfield. Muirfield members then exercised their freedom to decide what they wanted to do in response.

No freedoms were taken away or even imposed upon.

[BuckeyeGolf]

Spooky, your comments are spot on with the message I'm making regarding freedom being taken away. Muirfield has has hosted the Open 16 times, and then progressive activists come along that hate social norms, private interests, and individual liberties and attack a private club of several hundred members to change their policies or face consequences. The fans that showed up to watch Phil Mickelson win the '13 Open didn't appear to be outraged. The event was televised. Sponsors made their money. So back off progressive activists and leave these gentleman alone!

Also, McIlroy's comment saying the policy is obscene was spineless. He played Muirfield in 2013, and did he speak out then? The Golf Channel panel was spineless too. They would likely suffer possible job less from the coercion of NBC progressives if they spoke on a principled basis.   

The question was asked... Would I seek to exclude others beyond this category? Well, I would not seek to exclude anyone. Please keep in mind that women do have access to Muirfield, but they can't become a members. The single gender policy has existed for over 270 years, and If I chose to join Muirfield, I would be made aware of that policy.  I don't have any objections to a single-gender club, and I don't have objections to a mixed gender club. The issue is the freedom of association in a private organization. Let me ask you... do you object to girls not being admitted to the Boy Scouts and vice versa? Should a progressive activist swoop in and attack the Boy Scouts of America and force them to change their policy? When does this nonsense of violating peoples liberty end?

[hcopenhagenh]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Absolutely no freedoms were taken away.

None. Zilch. Nada.

Hosting a British Open is a privilege, not a right, and the R&A get to decide who hosts their tournament by the criteria that they establish.

It's not a right or a "freedom" that says they get to host the British Open. It's a privilege. The R&A recognized that it was in their interests to host the British Open at more "with-the-times" clubs, so they told Muirfield. Muirfield members then exercised their freedom to decide what they wanted to do in response.

No freedoms were taken away or even imposed upon.

You can argue this point until you are blue in the face and you would be wrong 100% of the time.  Spooky and Buckeye are right on point.

 

Every time Rory opens his mouth, he gets dumber.  Have Zero respect for him because his comments were out of line.  If he is going to say that about Muirfied, he needs to say the same thing about every All Women's Gym, every Muslim only Mosque, BET Network, etc. etc.  His comments made no sense.

 

This issue is about rights.  Muirfield is a private organization that has the right to not allow women to become members.  How many years did the R&A not have a problem with playing the British Open Championship there without them having a problem with how they chose to run their club?  They then succumb to pressure, not much pressure at that, to ask for Muifield to change.  Hogwash.  That is impeding on the rights of those members freedoms.

 

Personally, I would never be a member at an all male club.  Not my cup of tea.  However, if they don't want women in, then that is their right.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

 That is impeding on the rights of those members freedoms.

The members still have their freedom.  They can be like Cypress Point, turn down the TV money and keep their policies.  The can be like Burning Tree, turn down real estate tax incentives and keep their policies.  The members at Muirfield chose to revise their policies, based on a financial advantage.

[freshmanUTA]

18 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

Every time Rory opens his mouth, he gets dumber.  Have Zero respect for him because his comments were out of line.  If he is going to say that about Muirfied, he needs to say the same thing about every All Women's Gym, every Muslim only Mosque, BET Network, etc. etc.  His comments made no sense.

Rory is a professional golfer, I think it's fair if he keeps quiet on things other than the world of golf. He recognized the male only rule was an issue, and spoke his opinion on it. If he feels it was about time and that he wouldn't mind not playing there if it meant they kept the male only rule then that's within his rights as a human to do so. He's a younger golfer and he's in the middle of the worlds movement for change, it's no shock he feels the way he does. 

Not to mention, after the heat he got from playing golf with the President, it's no shock he's trying to make himself look better.

[BuckeyeGolf]

We will never know if this vote would've surfaced if it were not for the attack forces outside the club. I believe that it would have remained the same given its 270+ year history. The vote to retain financial advantage as you put it was likely in response to the attack, and not an internal desire to amend the policy.  

[Wally Fairway]

11 minutes ago, hcopenhagenh said:

You can argue this point until you are blue in the face and you would be wrong 100% of the time.  Spooky and Buckeye are right on point.

 

Every time Rory opens his mouth, he gets dumber.  Have Zero respect for him because his comments were out of line.  If he is going to say that about Muirfied, he needs to say the same thing about every All Women's Gym, every Muslim only Mosque, BET Network, etc. etc.  His comments made no sense.

 

This issue is about rights.  Muirfield is a private organization that has the right to not allow women to become members.  How many years did the R&A not have a problem with playing the British Open Championship there without them having a problem with how they chose to run their club?  They then succumb to pressure, not much pressure at that, to ask for Muifield to change.  Hogwash.  That is impeding on the rights of those members freedoms.

 

Personally, I would never be a member at an all male club.  Not my cup of tea.  However, if they don't want women in, then that is their right.

You can say that people have the right. But how is that different than white only, or clubs that exclude specific religions. Just because they have the right to choose doesn't make it right.
Privately you can choose to associate with whomever you want, and exclude any and all that you choose not to interact with. But the minute you do this as a business  it is wrong, Again just because history allowed all men's clubs doesn't make them right, and your examples (though some are extreme), I agree that they are not the right way to go about it either.
But don't kid yourself that these golf clubs are places of leisure, it is a place that people go to make social and business dealings and exclusions of large (or small) groups of the population based on race, creed, color or gender is discrimination any way you want to paint it. And almost all of these clubs allow women into their clubs, not as members but as spouses, or children or employees. So it is just that they won't recognize them as equal humans.

IMO, for too long discrimination has tried to hide its ugliness behind other names like exclusive or private instead of what they really mean restricted, segregated, and exclusionary.

 

[hcopenhagenh]

20 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The members still have their freedom.  They can be like Cypress Point, turn down the TV money and keep their policies.  The can be like Burning Tree, turn down real estate tax incentives and keep their policies.  The members at Muirfield chose to revise their policies, based on a financial advantage.

That is impeding on a freedom.  If you give someone an ultimatum, which is what the R&A did, then you are impeding on someones freedom when they have the right to allow whatever type a member that they want.  By the very definition of Freedom, the members lost the right to act how they want.  They were forced.  That is loss of freedom.  It is honestly pretty simple.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

We will never know if this vote would've surfaced if it were not for the attack forces outside the club. I believe that it would have remained the same given its 270+ year history. The vote to retain financial advantage as you put it was likely in response to the attack, and not an internal desire to amend the policy.  

I don't think any of us know what would have happened.  In any club, the membership turns over as people leave, or die.  Older, more traditional, members often get replaced by younger, potentially more progressive members.  At the time of the previous vote, there was no overt threat that Muirfield would be excluded from the Open rota, and the vote was strongly in favor of opening the membership to women (64%), just not quite strongly enough to make the change a reality.  

Its interesting that you speculate that the recent vote was a response to the "attack".  Its just as easy to speculate that in the previous vote, at least 3% of the vote against change was simple stubbornness, a resistance to change for the simple purpose of resisting change.  And that stubbornness disallowed the more progressive majority of  members their freedom to make a change.

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Absolutely no freedoms were taken away.

None. Zilch. Nada.

Hosting a British Open is a privilege, not a right, and the R&A get to decide who hosts their tournament by the criteria that they establish.

It's not a right or a "freedom" that says they get to host the British Open. It's a privilege. The R&A recognized that it was in their interests to host the British Open at more "with-the-times" clubs, so they told Muirfield. Muirfield members then exercised their freedom to decide what they wanted to do in response.

No freedoms were taken away or even imposed upon.

I agree here, as the opposite also holds true, you cannot force the R&A to hold the event somewhere they don't want to, that's also an infringement on their rights. 

I think the point others are trying to make is that this trend of policing thought is a dangerous one. The lines of where it should end are not clear. 

What if the employer of a member threatened to fire him unless he relinquished his membership? Would you say they are both exercising their freedoms? The employee has the freedom to join the club, the employer has the freedom to fire the employee? Where does it end? 

This trend of being forced to conform to an ever-changing and ambiguous set of social justice rules is a very slippery slope. We are seeing people face consequences for simply playing golf with the President. 

While legally, there is nothing wrong with what took place at Muirfield, it is certainly a symptom of a larger cultural trend with an uncertain outcome. 

[JxQx]

No freedoms were taken away because holding the Open is a privilege not a right, just like driving a motor vehicle. The R&A gets to pick and choose what courses they want to put in rotation and if your course don't fall in line with their views and expectations then you don't get that honor.