Muirfield Votes to Allow Female Members, Back on Open Rota

[DaveP043]

22 minutes ago, nevets88 said:

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.

Something to remember, the R&A is a separate golf club that plays on the municipal links owned by the Town of St Andrews, or now the St Andrews Trust.  There are a number of other clubs that share the same links, including the New Golf Club, the St Andrews Club, the St Regulus Ladies Club, and the St. Rule Club (also a ladies club).  Members of the St Regulus and St Rule clubs have been playing golf on the St Andrews links for over 100 years.  In contrast, the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers owns their course at Muirfield, they don't share it with other clubs.

[iacas]

I renamed the topic because I think it's important to note that they've voted to allow female members, they haven't yet admitted any.

Admitting the first female member - or the second, or tenth, which won't be the token membership the first one may be - could take years.

Also…

• When the R&A at St. Andrews admitted women, they admitted pretty old women who no longer play golf. Not many 30-year-olds in that group.
• The Muirfield waiting list is over two years long.

[Wally Fairway]

5 hours 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.

If history was the sole arbiter of how things should be then change would never occur. Somewhere along the way social norms and perceived right & wrong change. Maybe it is evolution, maybe it is revolution, maybe it is money talking differently now then it did then.
Whatever it is that drives the change, the R&A is certainly not a trend setter in recognizing the public pressure to have equal status for all. As stated Muirfiled (or properly stated the members of Muirfield) had a choice - as I see it they could choose what was more important to them: to remain a mens only club or to remain in the Open rota

[BuckeyeGolf]

Wally Fairway, thanks for your comments, but I do not believe for a minute that there is widespread "public pressure" to force Muirfield to change its' member policy. I don't recall any protests during the 2013 Open Championship. Was there any boycotts? No, this is a simple case of a small number of activists imposing their will to take away the freedoms or choices of a private organization. Incidentally, Martha Burke, a militant feminist attacked Augusta National back in 2002, and since that time there have been only 3 female members admitted to the club out of 300. Is 3 enough, or should the Masters be cancelled or taken from Augusta? Again, the focus should be placed on the freedom of private interests.

[iacas]

@BuckeyeGolf, I call bullshit on that. Their freedoms were not taken away or even impaired.

Not in the slightest.

They voted. They were free to make the choice they wanted to make, as a club and as individuals.

[GolfLug]

Not sure what this has got to do with freedom or losing it for that matter??

It has everything to do with a private org's need to associate with an org that has a mandate for gender equality. They didn't have to make any concessions.. just wanted to for a pay off.

Like the direction in general...   

[BuckeyeGolf]

I ask you, what prompted the vote? I don't believe for a minute that the members would have instigated this vote on their own. After all, they chose to pay large sums of money to be a member of Muirfield knowing the existing membership policies. Coercion from the outside prompted this vote.  A small group of activists imposed their will on a private club who exercises freedom of association as their policy. If the vote was initiated by the members without R&A and corporate coercion, then freedom would be intact.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

I ask you, what prompted the vote?

They were removed from the Open rota.

That's not a freedom being taken away.

Answer my question: exactly what "freedoms" were infringed upon?

And get yourself an avatar, please.

[Spooky]

By threatening to remove them from the rotation (and thereby jeopardizing their financial stability and status) their freedom was subjugated by the R&A. You can say that they had the freedom to vote however they want (with consequences) but the truth of the matter is this is just another piece of social engineering. In other circles it's called blackmail. "Do this,...or else". Now, that all said, I agree that it was foolish to ban women from full membership. Nothing says "stupid" like cutting your own profits....But the gorilla in the room is CONTROL.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Spooky said:

By threatening to remove them from the rotation (and thereby jeopardizing their financial stability and status) their freedom was subjugated by the R&A.

No it wasn't. They were given a choice. A choice they have always had. A choice they voted the other way on the last time.

Freedom does not mean freedom from consequences. Freedom does not mean you can trample on the rights of others. Hosting Opens was not a right, and the R&A did nothing to limit or trample on the freedoms of Muirfield.

[Spooky]

Trample on the rights of others??...Who?...For a private club to decide it's member base isn't an infringement on anyone's rights...For the R&A to try to make a "feel good" social statement on the hot topic dujour, (merely to boost it's own public image, I might add) is the real problem here. The old boys network of Muirfield and the ever shrinking pool of "old money" clubs like it cannot sustain themselves indefinitely. The world is changing and they're getting old and dying off. The problem comes when organizations like the R&A attempt to offer a false catalyst to strongarm their demise. You don't really think the R&A are sitting at home wringing their hands and crying over the membership policy of Muirfield, do you??...Of course not. This is social positioning and marketing. Period. What I would like is for the R&A to focus on golf; not social/politically correct sideshows. That's our expectation and their true reason for existence. 

[Chilli Dipper]

Oh, the Red-Pillers: they get so worked up over this sort of topic.

[Spooky]

And so now we've devolved to name calling.....sigh....we can't even debate facts without it becoming an emotional.  Toodles

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Spooky said:

And so now we've devolved to name calling.....sigh....we can't even debate facts without it becoming an emotional.  Toodles

I'm trying to figure who you think called you a name. If someone did, we moderators would have addressed that. I don't consider @Chilli Dipper's comment a name call directed at you. Please indicate if you did.

[DaveP043]

11 hours ago, Spooky said:

This is social positioning and marketing. Period.  

I agree to a large extent, this IS marketing.  The R&A doesn't want their advertisers to be pressured, to be linked to a club where women aren't accepted as members.  That link could devalue the advertising, lowering the "take" from the Open.  I don't know for sure, but I imagine that the R&A is a lot like the USGA, where a big part of their yearly budget comes from the profit from a single event.  The R&A doesn't want decreasing revenue, no entity does.

Very little social change, whether its for better or worse, comes about on its own.  It gets nudged and pushed and often becomes reality only when economic pressures make the change seem advantageous.  This is just another case of social change being pushed forward by financial pressure.

[Chilli Dipper]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree to a large extent, this IS marketing.  The R&A doesn't want their advertisers to be pressured, to be linked to a club where women aren't accepted as members.  That link could devalue the advertising, lowering the "take" from the Open.  I don't know for sure, but I imagine that the R&A is a lot like the USGA, where a big part of their yearly budget comes from the profit from a single event.  The R&A doesn't want decreasing revenue, no entity does.

Very little social change, whether its for better or worse, comes about on its own.  It gets nudged and pushed and often becomes reality only when economic pressures make the change seem advantageous.  This is just another case of social change being pushed forward by financial pressure.

Right: changes in society generally occur when the existing status quo becomes bad for business. If Muirfield's choice was between the tradition of not admitting women, or the tradition of being the only course custom-built to host the Open and serving in that role for over a century, there is no case that the former is the better choice in the long run.

[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.   

[DaveP043]

5 minutes ago, BuckeyeGolf said:

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.   

It seems quite possible that Rory has matured a little in the 4 years since the last Muirfield Open, and that his opinions have changed.  He may even come to decry the conditions in Dubai too at some point, although I'm sure its hard to turn down 6 or 7-figure appearance fees.  You also seem to believe that the Golf Channel panel agrees with you, but was forced to present the opposing viewpoint.  Its quite possible that some of all of the GC panelists were simply voicing their real opinions.  Remember, honest principled people may hold opinions different to yours.

I respect your freedom to hold personal opinions.  You freedom the right to believe that people of a different race, or religion, or even gender, are inferior.  You have the right to gather with people who believe the same, and exclude those who don't agree.  You have the freedom to exclude anyone you choose to exclude from your little club, based on whatever criteria you choose.  However, the world at large has the freedom to react to your policies.  Individuals and organizations have the freedom to act in ways that might affect you and your club, based on your policies.  Freedom isn't as one-sided as you seem to believe.