Ladies are aloud on the course, they just can't have a membership to the club. A close family friend of mine that is very good at golf played on it earlier this year. However, i think that the club has the right to do what they want. Women should go and belong to their own course. There are a quite a few great golf courses besides Agusta.
Yes, it is that simple. Not every issue has to be taken to a deeper level.
You're wrong.
The reason why I asked is because I have already presented information regarding how this is not just a normal private club situation. So the claims being made at the end of the thread are mirroring the claims made at the beginning of the thread. In other words, the arguments made against the initial claims have been ignored. All we're seeing now is just an echoing of the original claims.
Ladies are aloud on the course, they just can't have a membership to the club. A close family friend of mine that is very good at golf played on it earlier this year. However, i think that the club has the right to do what they want. Women should go and belong to their own course. There are a quite a few great golf courses besides Agusta.
Let me get this straight. You're saying this:
Black people and Jews are allowed on the course; they just can't have a membership to the club. A close Black/Jew friend of mine that is very good at golf played on it earlier this year [but had to have some kind of special pass and couldn't take advantage of the privileges of membership simply because he was black/Jewish]. However, I think that the club has the right to do what they want with regards to blacks and Jews. Blacks and Jews should go and belong to their own course. There are a quite a few great golf courses besides Augusta.
Next to my house there's a "women's only" health club and spa. I can't join it, there are plenty of other health clubs and spa's I can join, some even that are men's only establishments.
When you allow yourslef to see the key difference between the racial and sexual example, you'll see that there isn't anything that isn't widely condoned even by women going on at Augusta.
Sport is different, bathrooms are different, change rooms are different. Sounds stupid, but if it is, it's hardly specific to Augusta.
The simple fact is that the long standing sporting tradition accepted both by men and women is that for the purpose of sport, because the physical abilities of each differ, we segregate ourselves from each other. But we also do it for social interests, willingly. Men's clubs and women's clubs exist for what purpose? Because the sexes want to have basically homosocial venues for their activities.
Augusta is now the victim of a poorly thought critique of two deeply embedded and valid social practices, neither of which are inherently sexist merely because they make room for the sexes to be alone within themselves.
Racism is almost never accepted by the object group. We aren't talking about segregation, the back of the bus, whips and shackles, appartheid, etc etc... though if you wish, you may drag out examples of victims so indoctrinated into racist actions that they argue/claim to accept their victimization. No shortage of feminists makes that comparo -- at first theoretically valid, then pathologically ridiculous in its zeal to sniff out "oppression." Then we wonder why feminism has lost so much stock in the minds of men AND women. We like some sex differences, we want to preserve them in a social body.
Nothing I have written is immune to the ignorant substitution of terms for the same rhetorical effect, but you have to ask if that is really valid, if anyone really wants it or cares?
If you can't see the difference when it's so obvious in virtually every sexed social group you've ever witnessed, then a few words by me won't open your eyes.
The PGA enforces a non-discrimination policy based on race, sex, religion and national origin at all PGA Tour co-sponsored events.
The only the ones that aren't with the times, the ones that are not PGA Tour co-sponsored events are the Masters, PGA Championship, The U.S. and British Opens.
Well, it's a fine point, and however hyperbolic my response was, I would argue that there's a difference between a desire/implementation of structures that allow for homosocial venues (e.g. segregated bathrooms, women-only spas) and structures that are designed to perpetuate political hegemony and power among one and only one group. There's a reason, after all, that clubs like Augusta exist....
Look, don't get me wrong. This is a nasty, touchy issue, and it gets right at the heart of some fairly fundamental issues about American freedoms. And while I agree that private institutions should be allowed to make determinations about their constitution based upon whatever arbitrary conditions they wish (we are free, after all to be racists and sexists in such matters), we cannot ignore that there are private institutions which carry tremendous political and social power, and can wield that power as a means of carrying out what amounts to a socially-sanctioned injustice on a much larger scale than they would be able to as individuals.
Ah yes, if I swing to your side of the argument for a second, then I have to agree, but is Augusta on of the private institutions or does it merely represent them?
It seems to "represent" what you fear in many minds in the media at least. Though I think that the basically sexist sports media is playing it up in an attempt to look less sexist, not because they care, just because they do schlock reporting, will almost never do real reporting, aspire to it nonetheless, but will settle for psuedo-Pindaric odes to social injustice. Whatever
Power closes itself in, and the golf club is a symbol of that boys network, but really now, though Augusta is massively successful, it is private in all the key senses. It's invitational on every scale. You don't have to go there to keep your standing on the tour, you don't have to advertise there, and we DON'T have to watch if we disagree with it. But we do watch, so the complaint is largely artificial when we make it.
I believe Finboy said "markets are better," and in this case he's absolutely right.
We get into sticky territory when we attack things for what they represent rather than what they are, regardless of what they are, because what they represent depends so heavily on what WE think of them.
Ah yes, if I swing to your side of the argument for a second, then I have to agree, but is Augusta on of the private institutions or does it merely represent them?
I'm not sure that there's really a difference. Augusta and places like it exist for the purpose of limiting interaction between members of the public--of, in fact, transforming what would otherwise be public in the private--solely for the purpose of controlling the flow of information. And information is power.
Quote:
It seems to "represent" what you fear in many minds in the media at least. Though I think that the basically sexist sports media is playing it up in an attempt to look less sexist, not because they care, just because they do schlock reporting, will almost never do real reporting, aspire to it nonetheless, but will settle for psuedo-Pindaric odes to social injustice. Whatever
We're in agreement here. I don't know why this is even an issue, considering that whatshername (the woman who qualified for the Masters) would get completely creamed at that level.
Quote:
Power closes itself in, and the golf club is a symbol of that boys network, but really now, though Augusta is massively successful, it is private in all the key senses. It's invitational on every scale. You don't have to go there to keep your standing on the tour, you don't have to advertise there, and we DON'T have to watch if we disagree with it. But we do watch, so the complaint is largely artificial when we make it.
Well, now we're on to where I took this thread off-topic, as I was more or less talking about the club in and of itself, not as a part of some professional golfing thing.
I wonder, though, what happens if a professional golfer IS DENIED access to Augusta? You're right; they don't have to go. But surely there are implications? Repercussions? If only financial (prize money, advertising revenues, etc). I mean, at this level, it's most definitely not all about the game.
Quote:
I believe Finboy said "markets are better," and in this case he's absolutely right.
Yup.
Quote:
We get into sticky territory when we attack things for what they represent rather than what they are, regardless of what they are, because what they represent depends so heavily on what WE think of them. [/B]
Here's where, I think, we're simply going to get into a basic philosophical disagreement. I don't believe that there is an "are" to it. There is only representation and perception. Augusta is what it is to me. It is what it is to you. It is what it is to someone else.
There's no "there" there.
But again, this is a philosophical difference between us, I suspect.
Power closes itself in, and the golf club is a symbol of that boys network, but really now, though Augusta is massively successful, it is private in all the key senses. It's invitational on every scale. You don't have to go there to keep your standing on the tour, you don't have to advertise there, and we DON'T have to watch if we disagree with it. But we do watch, so the complaint is largely artificial when we make it.
This is where you are wrong.
First, the money-earnings from the Masters are counted in the official tour earnings.
Second, it is not private in the sense that the "club" engages in millions of dollars of commerce. I hope this will change your mind.
Quote:
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has not confronted a case with facts that closely resemble Augusta's situation, it has spoken. In 1988, the High Court upheld a New York City ordinance that barred discrimination in the city's private luncheon clubs if the club engaged in commerce and had more than 400 members. Some courts have upheld the application of civil rights laws to private clubs, if the clubs give evidence of engaging in commercial activity. The more the club looks purely private, purely social, not tainted with commerce, the more likely it will survive the court's scrutiny. (Chambers)
After reading this whole thread, and thinking about many others clubs weather it's sport club, or Service's club like the Lion's club, I wonder it there is good discriminations and bad ones. By good and bad, i mean moral ones and immoral ones.
For example, There is officialy no racial discrimination in the Lion's club, but officialy the club choose the members among the most influent poeple of the population. Traduction if you are a simple worker : you are not welcome, but if you own a company, or a university teacher you are welcome.
The question is whether this is prohibited discrimination. Based on the Supreme Court ruling restricting clubs from discriminating (based on sex, religion, race, etc.)if they engage in commerce, and given that the official name of the club is Augusta National, Incorporated-
I would say that this is prohibited discrimination.
Private club = They can do their rules exactly as they want. They could exclude also not just all "not males" but "not whites" "not rich enough" "not smoking" "not drinking" "not statistically Christian" "not sexually oriented on the preferred away" "not enough conservative" and so on. Their problem.
"Should people be allowed to do / be // ont do / not be something only because they are of a certain sex?"
I would NEVER join any association or club that was for women only. Never. I don't understand women, and most of the topics that interest most women are for me about as interesting as fixing the motors of old motorcycles would be for most of the other women. But being excluded of something _only_ because of the sex sucks. As much and maybe even more than being supposed to be something or be supposed to be interested in all girly topics only because of being born as a part of a sex you didn't choose.
The question is whether this is prohibited discrimination. Based on the Supreme Court ruling restricting clubs from discriminating (based on sex, religion, race, etc.)if they engage in commerce, and given that the official name of the club is Augusta National, Incorporated-
I would say that this is prohibited discrimination.
So there is nothing wrong to discrimate on sex, race or religion as long there is no commerce ?
You may be right, but our objective "be" would have to be legal (a philosophical problem in itself, and that does not escape the lens you're disposed to use.)
We then might collapse back to the "well, it's private" argument, which of itself doesn't excuse anything unless it's also basically harmless.
Augusta has a right, though, to limit its associations and the flow of information, just as anyone other social group may do within certain limitations. To transform the public into the private? Yeah, that too, maybe. So, it sucks when a group of rich guys can get together and keep the po' folk out. Don't I know it. But what can we do?
One premise which I distrust is captured with the phrase "which would otherwise be public."
I don't think so, I know we've been sold the information wants to be free schpiel, but I think anyone who forms social bonds makes them precisely to limit he extent to which their affairs are free to others. The priveleged classes want to keep their networks, and the less privledged want to join them, or in the case of revolution make their own up and then immediately close them off.
Women will come to Augusta when enough monied women have something the monied men want, not before.
When the issue is forced in this way, it may ultimately transform that "thing they want" from an association of peers, into a level of public credibility. If that happens, you've basically got a form of affirmative action where people are admitted to project an image.
Does that help? iDunno. A big concern becomes whether anyone, the affirmator or affirmee can trust the others motivations. In some ways it probably derails real progerss in favor of appearances.
Are they counted? Whoa, that's different then, but not what I read, must check. Counted by whom, the PGA? If so, we've got a whole new game then because I believe the PGA only offically supports unisex clubs. Hmmm...
We need an avid golf afficionado to clear this up prease?
Is it prohibited discrimination? There's probably more legal room for manouver than you let on, since this now gets into a whole other host of arbitrary stipulations, like the number.
And where does it leave religious groups? Some of whom easily hav more than 400 members and DO conduct some pretty big business, yt by definition discriminate on the basis of religion?
Private club = They can do their rules exactly as they want. They could exclude also not just all "not males" but "not whites" "not rich enough" "not smoking" "not drinking" "not statistically Christian" "not sexually oriented on the preferred away" "not enough conservative" and so on. Their problem.
"Should people be allowed to do / be // ont do / not be something only because they are of a certain sex?"
I would NEVER join any association or club that was for women only. Never. I don't understand women, and most of the topics that interest most women are for me about as interesting as fixing the motors of old motorcycles would be for most of the other women. But being excluded of something _only_ because of the sex sucks. As much and maybe even more than being supposed to be something or be supposed to be interested in all girly topics only because of being born as a part of a sex you didn't choose.
why even post my own reply when mulatt sums it all up for me
Comments
Originally posted by finboy
Right on. This distracts people from the real issues such as gender equity and (legitimate) sexual harrassment.
I would be interested as to learning how that is the case.
Originally posted by Naderfan
Yes, it is that simple. Not every issue has to be taken to a deeper level.
You're wrong.
The reason why I asked is because I have already presented information regarding how this is not just a normal private club situation. So the claims being made at the end of the thread are mirroring the claims made at the beginning of the thread. In other words, the arguments made against the initial claims have been ignored. All we're seeing now is just an echoing of the original claims.
I.E:
"The World is Flat"
"The World is not flat because of xyz"
"The World is Flat"
Originally posted by MGG
Ladies are aloud on the course, they just can't have a membership to the club. A close family friend of mine that is very good at golf played on it earlier this year. However, i think that the club has the right to do what they want. Women should go and belong to their own course. There are a quite a few great golf courses besides Agusta.
Let me get this straight. You're saying this:
Black people and Jews are allowed on the course; they just can't have a membership to the club. A close Black/Jew friend of mine that is very good at golf played on it earlier this year [but had to have some kind of special pass and couldn't take advantage of the privileges of membership simply because he was black/Jewish]. However, I think that the club has the right to do what they want with regards to blacks and Jews. Blacks and Jews should go and belong to their own course. There are a quite a few great golf courses besides Augusta.
Did I get it right?
Next to my house there's a "women's only" health club and spa. I can't join it, there are plenty of other health clubs and spa's I can join, some even that are men's only establishments.
When you allow yourslef to see the key difference between the racial and sexual example, you'll see that there isn't anything that isn't widely condoned even by women going on at Augusta.
Sport is different, bathrooms are different, change rooms are different. Sounds stupid, but if it is, it's hardly specific to Augusta.
The simple fact is that the long standing sporting tradition accepted both by men and women is that for the purpose of sport, because the physical abilities of each differ, we segregate ourselves from each other. But we also do it for social interests, willingly. Men's clubs and women's clubs exist for what purpose? Because the sexes want to have basically homosocial venues for their activities.
Augusta is now the victim of a poorly thought critique of two deeply embedded and valid social practices, neither of which are inherently sexist merely because they make room for the sexes to be alone within themselves.
Racism is almost never accepted by the object group. We aren't talking about segregation, the back of the bus, whips and shackles, appartheid, etc etc... though if you wish, you may drag out examples of victims so indoctrinated into racist actions that they argue/claim to accept their victimization. No shortage of feminists makes that comparo -- at first theoretically valid, then pathologically ridiculous in its zeal to sniff out "oppression." Then we wonder why feminism has lost so much stock in the minds of men AND women. We like some sex differences, we want to preserve them in a social body.
Nothing I have written is immune to the ignorant substitution of terms for the same rhetorical effect, but you have to ask if that is really valid, if anyone really wants it or cares?
If you can't see the difference when it's so obvious in virtually every sexed social group you've ever witnessed, then a few words by me won't open your eyes.
The only the ones that aren't with the times, the ones that are not PGA Tour co-sponsored events are the Masters, PGA Championship, The U.S. and British Opens.
Originally posted by Matsu
[B]There's always gotta be one.
Well, it's a fine point, and however hyperbolic my response was, I would argue that there's a difference between a desire/implementation of structures that allow for homosocial venues (e.g. segregated bathrooms, women-only spas) and structures that are designed to perpetuate political hegemony and power among one and only one group. There's a reason, after all, that clubs like Augusta exist....
Look, don't get me wrong. This is a nasty, touchy issue, and it gets right at the heart of some fairly fundamental issues about American freedoms. And while I agree that private institutions should be allowed to make determinations about their constitution based upon whatever arbitrary conditions they wish (we are free, after all to be racists and sexists in such matters), we cannot ignore that there are private institutions which carry tremendous political and social power, and can wield that power as a means of carrying out what amounts to a socially-sanctioned injustice on a much larger scale than they would be able to as individuals.
Cheers
Scott
It seems to "represent" what you fear in many minds in the media at least. Though I think that the basically sexist sports media is playing it up in an attempt to look less sexist, not because they care, just because they do schlock reporting, will almost never do real reporting, aspire to it nonetheless, but will settle for psuedo-Pindaric odes to social injustice. Whatever
Power closes itself in, and the golf club is a symbol of that boys network, but really now, though Augusta is massively successful, it is private in all the key senses. It's invitational on every scale. You don't have to go there to keep your standing on the tour, you don't have to advertise there, and we DON'T have to watch if we disagree with it. But we do watch, so the complaint is largely artificial when we make it.
I believe Finboy said "markets are better," and in this case he's absolutely right.
We get into sticky territory when we attack things for what they represent rather than what they are, regardless of what they are, because what they represent depends so heavily on what WE think of them.
Ah yes, if I swing to your side of the argument for a second, then I have to agree, but is Augusta on of the private institutions or does it merely represent them?
I'm not sure that there's really a difference. Augusta and places like it exist for the purpose of limiting interaction between members of the public--of, in fact, transforming what would otherwise be public in the private--solely for the purpose of controlling the flow of information. And information is power.
It seems to "represent" what you fear in many minds in the media at least. Though I think that the basically sexist sports media is playing it up in an attempt to look less sexist, not because they care, just because they do schlock reporting, will almost never do real reporting, aspire to it nonetheless, but will settle for psuedo-Pindaric odes to social injustice. Whatever
We're in agreement here. I don't know why this is even an issue, considering that whatshername (the woman who qualified for the Masters) would get completely creamed at that level.
Power closes itself in, and the golf club is a symbol of that boys network, but really now, though Augusta is massively successful, it is private in all the key senses. It's invitational on every scale. You don't have to go there to keep your standing on the tour, you don't have to advertise there, and we DON'T have to watch if we disagree with it. But we do watch, so the complaint is largely artificial when we make it.
Well, now we're on to where I took this thread off-topic, as I was more or less talking about the club in and of itself, not as a part of some professional golfing thing.
I wonder, though, what happens if a professional golfer IS DENIED access to Augusta? You're right; they don't have to go. But surely there are implications? Repercussions? If only financial (prize money, advertising revenues, etc). I mean, at this level, it's most definitely not all about the game.
I believe Finboy said "markets are better," and in this case he's absolutely right.
Yup.
We get into sticky territory when we attack things for what they represent rather than what they are, regardless of what they are, because what they represent depends so heavily on what WE think of them. [/B]
Here's where, I think, we're simply going to get into a basic philosophical disagreement. I don't believe that there is an "are" to it. There is only representation and perception. Augusta is what it is to me. It is what it is to you. It is what it is to someone else.
There's no "there" there.
But again, this is a philosophical difference between us, I suspect.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Matsu
Power closes itself in, and the golf club is a symbol of that boys network, but really now, though Augusta is massively successful, it is private in all the key senses. It's invitational on every scale. You don't have to go there to keep your standing on the tour, you don't have to advertise there, and we DON'T have to watch if we disagree with it. But we do watch, so the complaint is largely artificial when we make it.
This is where you are wrong.
First, the money-earnings from the Masters are counted in the official tour earnings.
Second, it is not private in the sense that the "club" engages in millions of dollars of commerce. I hope this will change your mind.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court has not confronted a case with facts that closely resemble Augusta's situation, it has spoken. In 1988, the High Court upheld a New York City ordinance that barred discrimination in the city's private luncheon clubs if the club engaged in commerce and had more than 400 members. Some courts have upheld the application of civil rights laws to private clubs, if the clubs give evidence of engaging in commercial activity. The more the club looks purely private, purely social, not tainted with commerce, the more likely it will survive the court's scrutiny. (Chambers)
For example, There is officialy no racial discrimination in the Lion's club, but officialy the club choose the members among the most influent poeple of the population. Traduction if you are a simple worker : you are not welcome, but if you own a company, or a university teacher you are welcome.
Is this discrimination by the job moral ?
The question is whether this is prohibited discrimination. Based on the Supreme Court ruling restricting clubs from discriminating (based on sex, religion, race, etc.)if they engage in commerce, and given that the official name of the club is Augusta National, Incorporated-
I would say that this is prohibited discrimination.
"Should people be allowed to do / be // ont do / not be something only because they are of a certain sex?"
I would NEVER join any association or club that was for women only. Never. I don't understand women, and most of the topics that interest most women are for me about as interesting as fixing the motors of old motorcycles would be for most of the other women. But being excluded of something _only_ because of the sex sucks. As much and maybe even more than being supposed to be something or be supposed to be interested in all girly topics only because of being born as a part of a sex you didn't choose.
Is it?
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
We discriminate every day.
The question is whether this is prohibited discrimination. Based on the Supreme Court ruling restricting clubs from discriminating (based on sex, religion, race, etc.)if they engage in commerce, and given that the official name of the club is Augusta National, Incorporated-
I would say that this is prohibited discrimination.
So there is nothing wrong to discrimate on sex, race or religion as long there is no commerce ?
It appears to me a little reductive.
We then might collapse back to the "well, it's private" argument, which of itself doesn't excuse anything unless it's also basically harmless.
Augusta has a right, though, to limit its associations and the flow of information, just as anyone other social group may do within certain limitations. To transform the public into the private? Yeah, that too, maybe. So, it sucks when a group of rich guys can get together and keep the po' folk out. Don't I know it. But what can we do?
One premise which I distrust is captured with the phrase "which would otherwise be public."
I don't think so, I know we've been sold the information wants to be free schpiel, but I think anyone who forms social bonds makes them precisely to limit he extent to which their affairs are free to others. The priveleged classes want to keep their networks, and the less privledged want to join them, or in the case of revolution make their own up and then immediately close them off.
Women will come to Augusta when enough monied women have something the monied men want, not before.
When the issue is forced in this way, it may ultimately transform that "thing they want" from an association of peers, into a level of public credibility. If that happens, you've basically got a form of affirmative action where people are admitted to project an image.
Does that help? iDunno. A big concern becomes whether anyone, the affirmator or affirmee can trust the others motivations. In some ways it probably derails real progerss in favor of appearances.
We need an avid golf afficionado to clear this up prease?
Is it prohibited discrimination? There's probably more legal room for manouver than you let on, since this now gets into a whole other host of arbitrary stipulations, like the number.
And where does it leave religious groups? Some of whom easily hav more than 400 members and DO conduct some pretty big business, yt by definition discriminate on the basis of religion?
Very interesting...
Originally posted by Mulattabianca
Private club = They can do their rules exactly as they want. They could exclude also not just all "not males" but "not whites" "not rich enough" "not smoking" "not drinking" "not statistically Christian" "not sexually oriented on the preferred away" "not enough conservative" and so on. Their problem.
"Should people be allowed to do / be // ont do / not be something only because they are of a certain sex?"
I would NEVER join any association or club that was for women only. Never. I don't understand women, and most of the topics that interest most women are for me about as interesting as fixing the motors of old motorcycles would be for most of the other women. But being excluded of something _only_ because of the sex sucks. As much and maybe even more than being supposed to be something or be supposed to be interested in all girly topics only because of being born as a part of a sex you didn't choose.
why even post my own reply when mulatt sums it all up for me