IT IS A PRIVATE CLUB!!!!! So long as they aren't discriminating on an illegal (race, religion) basis (which they're not) they can do whatever the hell they please. It's this silly little notion we have here called private property rights. So if a boy wanted into the Girl Scouts you'd be clammoring to let him in...even to the point of drawing wild comparisons to racial discrimination in order to strongarm them to let him in? Somehow I doubt you would.
Originally posted by dimsie For the record, I think private clubs, generally, are r****ded. I think fraternities and sororities are r****ded, too. But if they exist, making them gender-specific for no readily apparent reason is discrimination, plain and simple. Private women's colleges discriminate against men and Martha Burke doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Burke is going for the visibility and hasn't really thought out what she's doing because if she succeeds she only sets a precedent to knocking down every private women's college and organization in the country.
the club can do whatever it wants and i have zero problem with the club only having male members. there are plenty of schools and organizations that discriminate based on gender, both male and female.
They can do whatever they want I guess, but you guys have shown your true colors if you think that what Hootie is doing is morally right and calling N.O.W. a bunch of lesbos. Considering that this Club didn't allow black members until the 90's (there are only 4, yup, they are tokens), tells you what type of person Hootie is. Hell, members have already come out and said that they would be ok with allowing females join, yet Hootie still wants to fight it. Don't give me that "he's fighting for his rights" bull crap. It's all about pride for Hootie, he doesn't want to let women join because a women demanded that he change a policy. He's just an insecure prick if you ask me. Come on, how can you compare a country club to a frat or a sorority. Frats and sororities are places for men or women to bond, a country club is a place to play golf. Damn, I had no idea how many of you guys here were big fans of Andy Rooney. Sheesh, tell me, how's life in the 1800's, I've got a history paper due and interviews with dinosaurs like you guys could really help me out.
I have some questions, and don't get me wrong, I don't really know how I feel, but: How is it wrong for people to choose who they associate with? Wouldn't that be a part of freedom too? If a bunch of people want to have a private organization and choose who can join, isn't that their call? And why does everyone feel like its their right to be a member of everything? Its not a constitutional right to be allowed to join or be a part of everything, is it? If there's a church, and they don't want you to be a member if your Muslim, that's their right, correct? Or even the other way around. I don't understand how everyone feels like they need to be part of everything, just live your life and leave that CLUB alone, I guess...I don't know...who has the rights here, the club or the individual??? So confused...
a) Answer me this: how is it a wild comparison? Explain. What's the difference between discriminating against someone based on skin colour and discriminating against someone based on genitalia? Read this as a hypothetical example, with apologies to NJRocket for changing his words: "There are plenty of golf clubs in the US (one in Houston as a matter of fact...Lochinvar...at least it was still all whites when I was living there) that dont allow blacks on the premesis, let alone join. At least blacks can play at Augusta." Why would *that* be (rightly) offensive to us all, but open gender discrimination based on *nothing but body parts* is *not* offensive to all of us? Please explain your viewpoint, Refman, because I can't understand how anyone thinks this is OK (not legally, but morally. I know the ERA failed thanks to Schlafly and her ilk, but her arguments against it were ridiculous). b) That's cool if a boy wants to get into the Girl Scouts (we call them Girl Guides down here, though). Of course, since women's clubs and pursuits are generally valued less by men than vice versa, it's hard to imagine that this would ever become an issue. c) The school comparison doesn't hold up because there are certain documented reasons why women often choose same-sex schools for their kids or even colleges for themselves (surveys I've read show that mixed-sex classes often leave girls to 'cope on their own' with schoolwork, particularly in high school and junior high, because boys are socialised to be louder and get most of the attention from teachers). (Note: I'd love it if there was no such thing as same-sex schools, myself.) *However*, what's the big deal about letting women become members of a golf club if they *already play there*? That's the thing. They *already do what you do at the club* - play golf. They *already associate with the members*. There are no reasons for it (like, men play better golf if women aren't getting all the attention, to use the school comparison) that I can see. None.
Originally posted by dimsie c) The school comparison doesn't hold up because there are certain documented reasons why women often choose same-sex schools for their kids or even colleges for themselves (surveys I've read show that mixed-sex classes often leave girls to 'cope on their own' with schoolwork, particularly in high school and junior high, because boys are socialised to be louder and get most of the attention from teachers). (Note: I'd love it if there was no such thing as same-sex schools, myself.) That's very consistent. If women often choose same-sex schools for their kids then why are there 52 women's colleges and 2 men's colleges? College enrollment is 55% female. That looks like gender bias to me, not that Martha Burke really cares. If male students are interested in a private women's college for whatever reason (degrees offered, quality of education, etc.) then it's hypocritical for you to say they shouldn't be allowed to attend that school.
No. Not what I said. I said there are *reasons* for people to choose same-sex schools, not that I agree with the legal existence of same-sex schools or same-sex clubs like Girl Scouts. Go ahead and attend a girl's school if you're a guy. Fine with me. Fight the power, too. Take them to court, and I hope you win. What I'm saying is that the comparison between girls' schools and this golf course does not hold up because the women *already attend the course and play the game*. The club exists for this one purpose - to play golf. If women already play golf at the club if they're friends with a member, what's stopping them from being members? Even though it's probably faulty reasoning, there is at least *some* kind of reasoning behind the existence of girls' schools: there is no reasoning whatsoever behind this - apart from plain old discrimination. The women *already do what the club exists for*. They play golf at it! This is just as if a guy was attending a girls' school and taking classes but the school refused to legally enroll him because he was male! r****ded. Lame. Indefensible on any level.
I respect that you have a consistent opinion about private clubs Dimsie. I don't understand why you think it's wrong for any private club to choose who belongs as members. I believe that I have the right to associate with who I want. If I created a public club, what right does ANYONE have to tell me who I can have in my club? Obviously, if my club is, for example, "The Wives Club", then I am going to exclude men as members. I don't know the details about Augusta National golf club, but in many cases, the golf club at a particular golf course runs the golf course and makes all of the financial and operational decisions about the course. It is also one of the most exclusive clubs in America. I would have a better chance of joining the PGA tour than Augusta National. In general, if you want to join, you should be connected, rich, a CEO or of similar status, AND a good golfer. And that is why Martha Burke should be relieved of her position as head of her organization for pursuing this issue. MB's organization is supposed to be working to benefit women in America, but there are probably less than 10 women in America who could possibly benefit from this. In addition, those 10 women are probably comfortably esconced at a different private club that have atmospheres that they enjoy. It looks like this is just an ego trip for Martha. It gets her name in the spotlight, but does nothing to further women's rights.
Funny that I now remember where I saw it. ESPN showed some of the questions Augusta officials asked people in a poll of what people thought on this issue. It said in one of those questions that the womens group mentioned didnt allow males to join. So I didnt hear wrong...maybe ESPN of the club got it wrong on their question. Im guessing if a man wanted to join their organization he'd be welcomed with open arm.
Do you suppose this has anything to do with the fact that approximately ninety percent of CEOs in the nations's top firms consist of white males? If NOW or any minority group wants social/gender/legal equity, they should start at the top. University (Sub-Par) Blue
If you're going to say that, then you have to be consistent about the complete privacy of the club. For example, you have to believe that it's cool for clubs to exclude black people, or Hispanic people, or any group they want to exclude. If you believe completely in private property rights, then you have to legally accept overt racism and discrimination. Do you? Because if you do then I don't have a problem with your position (although I find the idea pretty distasteful, as I'm sure you do too). That's what I'm saying. Either exclude *everyone* legally, or be legally bound to accept all comers. This 'we accept African-Americans but not women' **** has to *end*.
The whole point of a private club is to restrict the membership to a certain criteria. One of the criteria for becoming a member at Augusta is being male. Its not discriminatory, its a rule of a private organization. If it were the ONLY private golf club in America, I could sympathize with the "discrimination" argument...but its not. There are hundreds of golf clubs that don;t even have a women's restroom on the premesis because women aren't allowed in the front door. If Burke wants to complain, she should go to one of those clubs and picket. Obviously, all she wants is some TV time...otherwise, she would be fighting against lesser known clubs that don't allow women players, let alone members.
So, the debate is whether a bunch of rich male snobs should let some rich female snobs play golf with them? Is this REALLY that important? Why don't these women just start their own golf club and only allow chick members?
I'm female and I believe a private organization can let in, or not let in, whoever they want. In some cases, such as this one, it's certainly not very nice; if a man were to stand up and say "I refuse to join this club or play golf here because of their policy of excluding women", that would be a good example of someone standing up for his beliefs. However, no one can force that change to be made. N.O.W. is not <i>just</i> a bunch of lesbians, but don't tell me there aren't a bunch of lesbians <i>in</i> N.O.W. Some people may like single-sex clubs, schools, fraternities, sororities, etc. They can have them. Personally, I get bored being around only one gender, especially if it's my own, so I prefer coed organizations and schools. But to each his/her own. And some things are always going to be single-sex (am I supposed to sue for discrimination if I get kicked out of a men's bathroom?). I'm glad, however, that there are no gender restrictions on this BBS.
Male here. I can honestly say if there was a club such as Augusta that only allowed women, would I complain (or sue since its the next step) no. I would not think twice about it. Once I found out something is for women only, I move on, I would not bat an eye or think twice about it. I could careless if some one wants a female only club. That means the do not welcome me there so why would I care to be there? There are no laws being broken, thus our leagal system should not be involved. my .02
