Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
Thank you... using the above, there is nothing wrong with Augusta's practices. They have good reasons for not allowing women.

So why did you start this thread, and why have you kept saying that their practices are discriimination. All they are doing is enjoying their right of free association, and they have valid reasons for not allowing women.

Again... thanks for supporting most other people's view in this thread and finally dropping your illogical point of view.

I haven't dropped any of my views. This has been my view all along - as I've patiently tried to explain to you time and time again. The fact that you have at last got it is some progress on your part. There is nothing illogical about it either - you are just showing your own ignorance of logic.

You haven't so far provided any good reasons for excluding women from Augusta. The reasons you gave above just don't cut it. Your original reason was that it's a private club, but this as I argued is no defence for racists.

And you can drop the whining about the gym example - it's irrelevant. Even if I were to agree that women did not have good reason to have their own gyms, it would imply nothing about golf clubs.

In fact the likeliest explanation, given the history of the club is that they aren't admitting women for the same bad reasons they didn't admit blacks.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, it would be nice if every relationship, gathering, association or private club, was totally non descriminatory, But that can't be legally mandated since if violates are freedom to associate. No one here is saying anything about an ideal world. They're talking about rights. You seem to be argueing about the ideal world and the rest of us are argueing about rights. When people argue past each other, no resolution will ever be reached.

No - this has nothing to do with my view, because I think that it is indeed about rights. The problem is, there are two different sorts of rights in conflict here. The right to freedom of association and the right not to be the subject of racial discrimination.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

2. Agathon believes it is wrong for gymnasia to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons.

Actually, Agathon doesn't. He feels it is ok for women gyms to exclude men because of sexist 'men are pigs' reasons.

So if women are sexually harassed and complain about it, they are being "sexist"?

Compare: if racists don't have chocolate, then it follows by the laws of logic (according to the wise Imran) that nobody has any chocolate!

And chocolate and Free Speech are the same? Unlike chocolate, you can't 'increase' freedom of speech. It's an ideal. You either have it, or you don't. If you deny freedom of speech to one person, you destroy the entire concept!

No you don't. What you do is exactly deny freedom of speech to one person. Everyone else is left unmolested. And we prevent people from saying all sorts of things (incitement to riot, defamation, etc.). If one person being gagged means there is "no" free speech, then all you are doing is trading on an equivocation rather than making a point of substance.

How would you feel if you went out of your house every day, and saw posters everywhere saying that you were an animal and deserved to be lynched?

If it is on their property, I got no problem with it.

This tells me a lot about you.

I'd say that the KKK should be left alone as long as it's harmless. But if it becomes a threat to the well being of others - smash it.

Thank you for contradicting yourself. You said you'd smash the KKK simply for being a racist organization, which means even if they sat around saying how blacks suck, you'd still smash them even if they weren't a threat.

That's not what I said. I said that they were a criminal gang.

All I've been talking about is a law that would prevent institutions from wrongful discrimination on the basis of race or sex.

What's 'wrongful'. It seems to me that 'wrongful' to you is simply what Agathon thinks is wrong. In essense you would silence racists by destroying their institutions by making them admit people that are against their views.

If you can't accept that racism is wrong then I think you are a racist.

Are you saying the KKK has to admit blacks and Jews? Then you've just silenced them because their position is exactly opposite.

Never said it.

Game. Set. Match.

Hardly - as I said, you'll make a lousy lawyer. I'd love to go up in court against you - I'd have a field day.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sava
Agathon, I like you. But seriously... you are wrong. Instead of saying Augusta should be forced to admit women (which they shouldn't), how about you argue that they shouldn't be holding public events if they are a private club. That argument has merit. Your current one does not. And watching these guys pick you apart is like watching an animal get tortured. I just want it to stop.

I don't think they are even close to picking me apart - I suggest you read more carefully. So far their arguments appear to be the usual right wing knuckle dragging trash:

1. It's a private club so they can do what they want. I don't buy this line of reasoning and I've given reasons why - none of which have been refuted.

and

2. Men can have their own clubs when there is good reason. This is my position but they've stupidly spent most of the thread arguing that it isn't, even though I've patiently explained my position. Regarding golf clubs - the clubs that don't admit blacks and women have painfully bad reasons for doing so (like - they play slow - whoopee, so do old men) and it doesn't change the fact that golf clubs have a racist and sexist history so that is the more likely explanation. You can't tell me that a club that up until a few years ago has signs saying "No Dogs and Women" can be free of suspicion of sexism.

[Ming]

Again Agathon... Valid reasons have been given and you just choose to ingore them. It really comes down to one thing... It is your personal opinion that there is no valid reason for it, therefore it is discrimination and action should be taken. There is no logic at all in any of your arguments, just your unsuported opinions against Golf Clubs vs other private clubs.

And because of your proven lack of knowledge of Private Golf Clubs, you are in no position to judge.

As far as saying that your gym example is irrelevent...
It only is irrelevent to you now because everybody distroyed your poor example. Every reason you gave why it is ok for them also apply to Private Golf Clubs, so it is still relevent to this conversation for showing that you really have no leg to stand on here

The law is the law... so the burden of proof is on you to show how it's discrimination. All you have offered up so far is your opinon... So all you have said is that you are the only one that can determine if it is discrimination or not. Again... no logic on your part.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

Again... his only arguments seem to be is that it is discrimination, because he says so...

Not really. It's discrimination because the reasons you have offered for having men's only golf clubs are pathetic.

[Ming]

Your opinion only... People who play golf have given reasons. Your POV of view is that you don't like them... So it is just a matter of you saying it's all based on your opinion. And again... your lack of knowledge on the subject makes your opinion kind of worthless

Rmember... every reason you gave for women only clubs can be applied to Men's Clubs... It's only logical that Men's Clubs should be ok as well.

[rah]

(cross posting with ming, must learn to type faster )


Upon rereading this thread one must think.

The people that are defending their rights are AVID golfers that have had previous experiences with private golf clubs.

The person that is on the other side, I'll guess, has never golfed or has so infrequently that he sucks. I would be also willing to bet that his experiences with private golf clubs is equally close to zero.

The experienced people have stated numerous reasons why they would prefer not to have women join the club.

The inexperienced person dismisses those reasons as not sufficient.

This is simply another case of a person that doesn't know what he's talking about trying to impose his morality on people that are experienced with it.

And yes, I'd love to meet you in a court of law. I would love to see the judge laugh you right out of there.
Even though my only experience is that pre-law was my major in school, I'm sure it would be enough.
(you'll notice that even Burk hasn't suggested taking this to court because she realizes that she doesn't have a leg to stand on) So the only option she has is public opinion and trying to damage using economic means. I support her right to do this, even though I laugh at her futile attempt)

RAH

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
Again Agathon... Valid reasons have been given and you just choose to ingore them. It really comes down to one thing... It is your personal opinion that there is no valid reason for it, therefore it is discrimination and action should be taken. There is no logic at all in any of your arguments, just your unsuported opinions against Golf Clubs vs other private clubs.

Utter rubbish! I've pointed out to you why, for example, saying that women play slow is not a sufficient justification.

And because of your proven lack of knowledge of Private Golf Clubs, you are in no position to judge.

And because of your proven lack of knowledge of logic and argument you are in no position to judge.

As far as saying that your gym example is irrelevent...
It only is irrelevent to you now because everybody distroyed your poor example.

Oh god.. The status of women only gyms is irrelevant to the status of golf clubs because the fact of whether women are sexually harassed at gymnasia has nothing to do with golf club admission policy. For the umpteenth +1 time - it wasn't originally my example and it was only used to point out a case where differential treatment of the sexes could be justified. I know a case where there had to be a "women only day" at a gym because of the bad behaviour of the male members.

Every reason you gave why it is ok for them also apply to Private Golf Clubs, so it is still relevent to this conversation for showing that you really have no leg to stand on here.

You have still yet to show that there is some real harm to men done by admitting women to a golf club - commensurate with the harms inflicted upon women in a sexist society. Ditto for racists.

The law is the law... so the burden of proof is on you to show how it's discrimination. All you have offered up so far is your opinon... So all you have said is that you are the only one that can determine if it is discrimination or not. Again... no logic on your part.

I have not said that I'm the only person to determine whether it is discrimination or not. I think the history of Augusta with regard to blacks shows what they're about.

Let me summarize what I'm proposing:

A law such that it is illegal for private clubs (a concept which will have to be defined to legal standards to exlcude things like poker nights) to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons. This law recognizes that there can be circumstances for clubs to discriminate for other (good) reasons, so it is not a law that mandates no differential treatment of the sexes at all. Nor is it a law that prevents any other sort of differential treatment that has nothing to do with race or sex.

The application of this law would be that if there was good reason to believe that a club was discriminating for racist or sexist reasons, a court case would follow in which it would be determined, using the standard of reasonable doubt, whether or not the club was racist or sexist. If the club was found guilty, punishment would follow.

The fact of whether an organisation discriminates for racist or sexist reasons (or for good reasons) isn't up to me or dependent on my opinion - it is a fact about their behaviour.

Look - I can't say for sure whether or not Augusta really is a sexist club. None of us can because we aren't members or we don't have any inside knowledge. But, if such a law as this existed and that Burk woman brought a case against Augusta and lost, I would be perfectly happy with the decision. My position throughout has been that it is not enough to say "it's a private club" and leave it at that. This seems to me a fig leaf for racist practices which should not be tolerated in a civilised society. A law such as the one I have proposed would be a way to remove that fig leaf.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
(cross posting with ming, must learn to type faster )


Upon rereading this thread one must think.

The people that are defending their rights are AVID golfers that have had previous experiences with private golf clubs.

The person that is on the other side, I'll guess, has never golfed or has so infrequently that he sucks. I would be also willing to bet that his experiences with private golf clubs is equally close to zero.

The experienced people have stated numerous reasons why they would prefer not to have women join the club.

The inexperienced person dismisses those reasons as not sufficient.

This is simply another case of a person that doesn't know what he's talking about trying to impose his morality on people that are experienced with it.

And yes, I'd love to meet you in a court of law. I would love to see the judge laugh you right out of there.
Even though my only experience is that pre-law was my major in school, I'm sure it would be enough.
(you'll notice that even Burk hasn't suggested taking this to court because she realizes that she doesn't have a leg to stand on) So the only option she has is public opinion and trying to damage using economic means. I support her right to do this, even though I laugh at her futile attempt)

RAH

Yes I have played golf quite a bit, although I haven't played for some years. I never did join my local club, although I was invited to join, because I only played when I was home from school and it wasn't worth paying the whole year's fees for 1/3 of a year's golf - especially when my friends and I only played for fun.

I wouldn't pull the "experience" trick if I were you. I could easily just pull rank on my experience teaching logic and critical reasoning (which would make whatever you have look pathetic). But both of these are mere appeals to authority rather than good argument.

I agree that Burk has no legal leg to stand on. I don't much care for her either, but I think there is a point here. That's why I've been suggesting for the whole thread that a new law is needed. I've described this law and it's only aimed at racism and sexism, as I've argued nothing else is implied. I can't see your problem.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
Utter rubbish! I've pointed out to you why, for example, saying that women play slow is not a sufficient justification.

Only in your opinion... In a survey of golfers, the number one problem with golf is SLOW PLAY... It is one of the most important issues in golf. Even in tournaments, if you play slow, you are penalized.

Oh god.. The status of women only gyms is irrelevant to the status of golf clubs because the fact of whether women are sexually harassed at gymnasia has nothing to do with golf club admission policy. For the umpteenth +1 time - it wasn't originally my example and it was only used to point out a case where differential treatment of the sexes could be justified. I know a case where there had to be a "women only day" at a gym because of the bad behaviour of the male members.

But again... you are implying that sexual harassement is only a female problem. I know many cases where men have been harassed... So if it's OK for women to use that as reason, logic says, it's a valid reason for men as well...

Ditto for racists.

There you go bringing up racists again. It's not relevent to the Augusta case since they DO allow members of ALL races. You are the one that started this thread because of Augusta's policy of no women... so stop trying to blow smoke by raising the racist flag... Yes, racism is bad... but it doesn't apply here.

I have not said that I'm the only person to determine whether it is discrimination or not. I think the history of Augusta with regard to blacks shows what they're about.

And they have corrected their past sins... So how is this relevent to the discussion.

Let me summarize what I'm proposing:

Using your system... Augusta passes with flying colors.
They have legitimate reasons to not allow women.
Case Closed.

Look - I can't say for sure whether or not Augusta really is a sexist club. None of us can because we aren't members or we don't have any inside knowledge.

Hmmm... I know members of Augusta... And I'm very familiar with Private Clubs...

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes I have played golf quite a bit, although I haven't played for some years. I never did join my local club, although I was invited to join, because I only played when I was home from school and it wasn't worth paying the whole year's fees for 1/3 of a year's golf - especially when my friends and I only played for fun.

Ok, I'll concede you have some experience but still classify you as a novice. In a court of law, we look for expert witnesses, not novice witnesses.

Originally posted by Agathon
I wouldn't pull the "experience" trick if I were you. I could easily just pull rank on my experience teaching logic and critical reasoning (which would make whatever you have look pathetic). But both of these are mere appeals to authority rather than good argument.

If your arguements in this thread are indication of your expertise in logic and cirtical reasoning, calling you a novice might be an overstatement.

My schooling and 25 years of dealing with contract law, labor laws, and vendor contracts is nothing to sneaze at. Those that can do, those that can't teach.

And finally, thank god we live in the good ole USA were we can count on that fact that any law similar to the one you suggest has absolutely zero chance of being passed.

[SlowwHand]

If I had the same approach to sex that you people have about golf, I'd be childless.

Quit talking about it and do it.

[rah]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If I had the same approach to sex that you people have about golf, I'd be childless.

Quit talking about it and do it.

When you're done having all the kids you're going to have, you have to do something.

And the weather isn't cooperating quite yet, but we played last weekend and plan on playing tomorrow (at a private club ) and Saturday. (weather permiting)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

Only in your opinion... In a survey of golfers, the number one problem with golf is SLOW PLAY... It is one of the most important issues in golf. Even in tournaments, if you play slow, you are penalized.

Sure - but it's not a solely female problem

But again... you are implying that sexual harassement is only a female problem. I know many cases where men have been harassed... So if it's OK for women to use that as reason, logic says, it's a valid reason for men as well...

Yes it is. Are men sexually harassed in mixed golf clubs? If they were then that would be a good reason.

There you go bringing up racists again. It's not relevent to the Augusta case since they DO allow members of ALL races. You are the one that started this thread because of Augusta's policy of no women... so stop trying to blow smoke by raising the racist flag... Yes, racism is bad... but it doesn't apply here.

It's an equivalent argument. The same arguments against racist practices can be used against sexist practices.

And they have corrected their past sins... So how is this relevent to the discussion.

Because you and others were defending the rights of private clubs to be racist on the same grounds that you were defending their rights to be sexist.

Using your system... Augusta passes with flying colors.
They have legitimate reasons to not allow women.
Case Closed.

That would be for a court to decide. But even if you were right this doesn't refute my claim that there should be a law to punish racist and sexist organisations. You still haven't come up with a decent argument why such a law would be wrong.