Well, Desert Scar, since NOW was and is still the largest woman's organization around, I think they do, in a power sense, represent the voice of women, good and bad. The reason NOW kicked, or maybe that's the wrong word, edged Friedan out, was her views did not represent the radical stance of the emerging organization leaders. Friedan called them female chauvinist, because they hated men. The reason that I think this is relevant is that more and more entrance into the largest woman's group in America meant that you had to hate men. Women, like Friedan, are strongly discouraged to give up men, for the cause. This type of pressure is, to me, equal or worst than what happens at Augusta National. You are excluding based on qualifications. At Augusta, you can't be a Woman and gain entrance into the club. At NOW, you can't be a mother or a woman who likes men and gain entrance to the organization. It doesn't matter whether one is percieved as socail and the other as political. In fact, I doubt you can make a case that Augusta is strickly social (don't they have politcal ties) or that NOW is purely political (isn't every group or organization of people social, to some extent). In the end, I think that it is far worst to exclude women to from the largest woman's group, where policies are advocated on your behalf, than to be excluded from a club, where just money is involved.
If there is nothing wrong with single gender entities, then what difference does their level of influence make? You've said you support some single gender institutions, so what is the problem? Has nothing to do with whether or not we're in the excluded group. If it is legitimate to have a single gender organization, as the Supreme Court has said we do, then it is legitimate. It is not legitimate to exclude based on race or religion. To exclude a black kid from boy scouts is not the same as excluding a male kid from the Girl Scouts. In quotes are from Augusta's written response... "2. Martha Burk tries to equate this to the Shoal Creek racial issue in 1990, but they are totally different. In America, there are women's colleges, the Girl Scouts of America and women's health clubs throughout the country. In Canada and overseas, there are women-only golf clubs." Gee, how nice of them. It so happens that they do not HAVE legal recourse since it is LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL to have single gender institutions. As for your reading between the lines... "3. The Club possibly will have a woman member in the future, but it should be the Club's decision, not the decision of an outside group that knows little about the Club or Tournament. In Ms. Burk's initial letter, she placed a deadline on the Club to have a woman member (2003), and discussed the sponsors of the Tournament." Again why is it illegitimate for the club to have no female members? Augusta is private so... So boys should be allowed in Girl Scouts? And in all-female schools? Oh no, you support those... How is that consistent?
KBM, I'm not quite sure what your fixation on Betty Friedan and NOW has to do with any of this (NOW isn't even the group that initiated the Masters' controversy). But you seem to have some pretty strange and unfounded ideas about membership in the National Organization for Women. I attended several NOW meetings at University of Houston and was never asked to "give up" men or actively dislike them. In fact there were usually men in attendance. NOW's current president, Kim Gandy, is married and has two children. Not exactly a man-hater, huh? As far as the Betty Friedan business, I was alway under the assumption that her leaving NOW had a lot to do with her personal dislike of Gloria Steinem rather than a grand ideology clash.
Hayestreet, I said I would "protect" private clubs that exclude certain groups and things like private all-girls schools and the KKK to boot--that is different than "supporting them". I said I would not support any kind of public funding for exclusionary organizations, and in fact if they were especially prominent again (like Yale and Harvard were when they only admitted White-Protestant-old money boys) I would certainly do what I could to diminish their influence using consumer driven approaches until they became more progressive. Same deal I see with the Masters/Agusta club, if they don't have this high profile quasi public turney worth a ton of money played on the course and get on TV I wouldn't make a big deal of it. There are many things that are constitutionally protected that I nontheless don't support or would seek to change through persuation and consumer driven influence (versus "force"). I am not a lawyer, so I don't know why all-boys or all-girls are protected and why advertising a job and only allowing men to apply is not constitutionally protected--even in "private" companies. I guess the courts view something different in education institutions then for profit companies. The bottom line is the court does frequently include women as a protected class (prohibits discrimination based on sex in hiring or one the job) just as it does with race, ethnicity, religion, etc. To the best of my knowledge it is the RARE very proscribed exceptions where exclusion based on sex IS allowed where for other things it isn't. Again it is a private club. I am not saying get rid of the club. I am saying it is fine for private citizens to belittle it, protest it, persuade it--all constitutionally protected actions in their own right, to diminish it. They can have the club, just as people are free to work at moving the Masters turney from that course, or work to diminish it (no TV, no sponsors).
I like Betty Friedan. She understood women's rights better than most people. That is why I fixate on her. I realize that NOW didn't start the protest, but the National Council of Women's Organizations does represent the NOW. Here is the link: http://www.womensorganizations.org/members/list.htm So in my mind they are one in the same, since neither the NOW nor the National Council of Women's Organizations would either become a member in the former or allow them to become a member in the latter if there were fundamental ideolgical differences. So can we agree that when talking about the NCWO we are also talking about the NOW by assocation? First, let me state that I refered to women being pressured into give up men at the time when Betty Friedan finished writing The Second Stage. And I suspect it is still in full force. But hey, keep up the myth. At any rate, my UNFOUNDED ideas, as you call them, come from the mouth of Betty Friedan herself. In this small introduction to the work, she explains what one radical feminist thought about children from the perpective of a working woman, and if you read the whole introduction you'll find that their there was in fact an all-girls network (like the good ol' boys network), and if you read the whole book, you'll find that her arguement was a fundamental shift from radical feminism or the NOW organization at the time. She is speaking here for women who want full lives and not just more "power." And so judging by what she says I tend to draw conclusions about NOW and other feminist groups, and I value what she says over what your experience was since she knows what goes on first hand. Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...6551/reader/6/103-8061936-3410238#reader-link Betty wrote The Second Stage as a response to radical feminism after she stepped down from the Presidency of NOW. Really, she was having major issues with many new-breed radicals (gloria steinem being one) and so it was a kind of force by choice. In large part, this book was how she addressed them and the issues that caused her to step down. I highly recommend you read it, if you haven't already. Furthermore, Steinem, and her ilk, don't understand real issues for women. That is why they fight these nonsense battles that accomplish nothing but publicity for them, and dues for their organization. Wow, they won a victory for women; augusta national isn't a major championship anymore. I'm sure that does a lot to help the commom woman's pocketbook.
You've based all your info on one woman's 21-year-old book, you "suspect" it's still the same and I'm the one holding up a "myth"? Okay. As I pointed out earlier, Gloria Steinem is not the president of NOW. She hasn't been for quite some time. And, in fact, NOW is not fighting this "nonsense battle." If you check the front page of their website, the issues they're most concerned about are welfare benefits, sexual harassment issues, gender-based crimes and gay/lesbian rights. These are real issues that affect real women. I did a search and found ONE mention of Augusta on the entire website. They won? Last time I checked, nothing had changed. The majors are still being held at Augusta, except now, courtesy of Hootie Johnson's largesse, they'll be commercial-free.
I wonder if you'd say the same about the Bible or Plato's Republic. As far as I'm concerned, and I am not alone, that is what you are reading when you open her books. You must have skipped the part where I showed you that National Council of Women's Organizations does represent NOW. Just because NOW wasn't the one who organized the protest, doesn't mean they aren't in the fight. They are a member of the NCWO, and as such, I'd say they have a say in what battles are to be waged, being that they are so large a group. I shouldn't even respond to this statement, but I will. It's sarcasm. I wanted to show that even if they win they haven't really won a thing in the larger sense.
A Woman Member at Augusta would be inappropriate as its 'Men Only'. Thats OK isn't it ? I dont want to go into or join 'Womens Only' Clubs and Organisations! In a Free Society each individual or group have the right to make their rules of Membership. If it doesn't hurt anyone it should be just OK.
What kind of principle is THAT? That makes no sense. If it wasn't on TV you wouldn't care whether it was all male or not? True, and yet you've never answered why its wrong to have an all male club. WHY is it wrong? WHY do you support the stance of the NCWO? DS, my question to you is NOT do they have a right to protest if they disagree. My question is 'what is there to protest?' Why is it wrong to have an all male club (although Augusta does NOT have such rules in the admittance policy - let's assume it was a written rule)?
Guys get this thru your skulls, it is a private club. THey can do as they wish. Now everyoine is fighting for the rights of tghe ultra-rich women who already belong to (more than likely) several other clubs to join this one. What would you guys think if the Union leaders spoke up and demanded entrance into the club for the Union boys. It is an Elitist club and they can do as they wish. If you think admitting one feamle CEO will change the thinking of the club you are wrong. I played at a top 50 course last week and in their bar area they do not allow women. Women members are allowed to play but they are not allowed in the bar. They have the my assinine rules in the world. Cell phones not allowed in the club house and not allowed on the course except at the half way house. No hats on inside the clubhouse, although most members had hat head after playing with a hat on. The course was great but you know what the club sucked. So my point i sfine let them have one female member who has more money then God. They will set up rules to make her feel left out, but hey it will make the womens group happy.
but u know what would have made it better. . . . to have TALL woman there to hand you your Capt Morgan's Gold of course if you squeezed that shot between the goalie and the defensemen . .then it would have been Sweeter!! Rocket River "If you know clothes make the man. .. and no clothes make the happy man! . . then you have a little Capt'n in ya!!" President of the XGA - Extreme Golf Associations
did anyone hear this Martha Burk character on the radio this morning??? The morning show on 1300 The Zone interviewed her, and I have changed my position... she is merely doing this to get her name out in public... she has no facts to back up her statements (how many women have been turned down for augusta membership, how man woman have gone on record as wanting to join augusta, etc.)... she's just spewing her own opinion as that of all women... she even went as far as saying that she doesn't believe there should be men excluded clubs either, like women's only gyms, etc. yet, she hasn't done anything about those "so called injustices..." why? b/c there is no publicity of course! and to think i actually sided with this goofball until hearing her speak... that'll teach me to take sides before getting all the facts!
HayesStreet, 4chukie--I recognize it is a private club. I also recognize the rights of KKK members to organize with like minded people. Protecting their "rights to exist" is different from "supporting and promoting" them. Now why do I think exclusion of is wrong? Again it excludes a group of adult people based on some general characteristic. Whether it excluded Blacks, Whites, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Gays or Women--I think that is fundamentally a negative element in society, even if protected. Hayes and others want to stick to well, exclusion based on sex is different than exclusion based on sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Well to me as a generally rule this isn't true (e.g., hiring, firing, company policies, voting, etc, etc.), rather it is only in a few very proscribed cases (education of children) such exclusion based on sex is allowed to occur even privately--more often than not exclusion based on sex is viewed like exclusion based on any other general characteristic and not acceptable and/or illegal. Hayes, you seem to not like my argument about level of influence is important, or that "size matters" I think I make a pretty good case above concerning Yale and Harvard which you never addressed. Was it wrong that those immensely influential and symbolic “private” institutions were pressured internally and externally to admit persons other than White-Protestant-Old money-boys. I think it was good such private institutions became more open. I see the Augusta club/Masters turney--the most prestigious turney in golf, in a similar light. If they didn't have such national and international exposure and carry with it a lot of symbolic important to the private club--it would not be worth the trouble to try to change it, but the fact is the turney does have such influence and carries a lot of symbolism just Yale and Harvard did in all their exclusionary years. Hayes,4chukie—do you think it was wrong that Yale and Harvard were pressured (not “forced”) to include girls, non-Protestants, Blacks and other minorities—or should they have just been left alone to do as they wish because they are “private”?
Interesting point drapg. I was wondering...the NOW is quite well known, but had never heard of the NCWO before. And I've actually have quite a bit of exposure to many of the different 'feminisms' out there. Anyone think they are particularly well known? If so then maybe its not for publicity, but if they aren't... And I find her comments, as relayed above, to be objectionable. I don't think a gradual slide toward one homogenized person is the direction we should take.
Sometimes, but not really. I just play for fun....or for aggravation, depends on how I am playing. DaDakota
It is up to the club as to what they want. Yale and Harvard are considered the top universities because they admit the best students (regardles sof background). It is not very likely they would be regarded so highly if they didn't admit certain people. But it was their decision. Golf clubs (and clubs in general) have the same rules. THis club may be regarded as even more prestigious if they did admit females, but the members liek it the way it is. It is their club and they do with it what they want.
In this case you are supporting the NCWO's position and it hardly seems like you know what their position is (re: you said they want to decrease the influence of the club when they say they want a woman admitted and that NO clubs should be single gender). My fear is that more people will knee-jerk (Uh, women's rights good) as you have and give them more market power through perception than they should have. That would seem to contradict your claim that you support their right to exist. Why support their right to exist if you feel its a negative societal influence. Also, does that mean that you do not support the Girl Scouts, or female only health clubs, or female only golf clubs, or any other gender based group have gender only policies? And why don't you think the PGA should allow women into the Master's? You don't seem to think there is a difference between women and men. Uh, no. The only gender exclusion that is generally illegal are those that are work based. Those stem from the argument that if a woman can do equal work they should get equal pay. I have no problem with that argument since it makes perfect sense. In comparison there are women only colleges, which does not meet your 'child welfare' test. Even in the work environment there are exceptions, as with the guy who tried to sue to force Hooters to hire him as a waiter. Well, first the tournament known as the Master's would not change, and would not admit women, so I think it is a bad analogy. In fact, the sport itself goes against your theory that total inclusion is always better. Women are not allowed in any PGA events. And I don't think women and men are similar enough to compare it to the difference between a black man and a white man. Well, Augusta National has always and will always be reknown for its connection with Bobby Jones. It is that connection that creates the influence (whatever that may be). And I find your argument troubling. You say an organization has to be 'worth the trouble' in relation to its size, to protest. I don't understand how that is consistent with your pronounced principle that they are a negative influence that does society some harm. I think we're talking about women, first of all, not girls (you sexist pig). And the effect of opening up the Ivy League to minorities is MUCH BIGGER (since size matters) than opening up August to women will be. One is the key to top level jobs throughout the business and academic world. The other is the key to one golf course, and possibly a step back for women if applied to institutions that ONLY allow women. And women are not in the same position in relation to economic or social power as they were before they started getting into the elite schools (when was that, anyway, the 30s?). The whole idea of the NWCO using their 'consumer power' as you put it, is that they HAVE FINANCIAL POWER. The could just as easily build as nice a club as Augusta National in Augusta if they wanted to. Since women are now or soon will be the majority, this is more a case of the majority squashing a minorities right to be left alone, if they so choose. All of that assumes, of course, that the NWCO speaks for all or a majority of women, which it decidely does not. They have 6 million members. Contrast that with the fact the FOUR MILLION WOMEN watched the Master's on TV last year, lol. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, the NCWO will get disproportionate mileage out of the publicity since people will automatically lean toward the 'I support women' response, no matter the point or the agenda of the group we're talking about.
I think that women should be allowed to join Augusta, but only if men are allowed into all of the women only institutions. I want to play in the women's professional football league personally. I think I have the size and skill to be at least an average player. Maybe if women would realize that they aren't getting the short end of the stick when it comes to single gender institutions, they wouldn't be so quick to abolish them.
