Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[Lawrence of Arabia]

What's the point of opposing racism if you are going to let people get away with it?

Racism is a fact. Ignoring it or banning it will not make it go away. These people believe that what they think is correct, and in a country which values freedom, we should not have them shut up. If these people attack or hurt other people, they should be put in jail with the severest of penalties. Otherwise, they are just expression their opinion

[SnowFire]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way it's been spun to me is that Augusta Gulf Club has nothing in its charter or rules against women joining (compare this to, say, the Boy Scouts. Which I still stand by for a different reason, but they pretty much bar homosexuals who are open about it). It's just that by curious coincidence they hadn't admitted any females. A feminist group made this an issue by functionally asking them to prove they aren't exclusionary by hurrying up and admitting some females now, darn it. The Golf Club responded that they'll admit females in their own time, and not as tokens for appeasement.

If they're actually sincere about it, I don't mind. But it's hard to tell.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Put me down for: Private club = thier rules

I guess I just don't agree, and I'm mystified at those who believe that racism should be tolerated at all.

I guess those blacks should just know their place, eh?

The main question, I think, is do you actually believe that discrimination against blacks and discrimination against women is the same thing?! There is a reason the US Supreme Court holds them to different tests.

Discrimination based on gender usually has many, many, many more rational reasons than discrimination based on race. People pointed out 'womens only clubs', there are also same gendered schools. People generally acknowledge that gender segregation isn't always wrong.

Btw, private organizations always HAVE been able in the US to exclude based on race... or do you think the KKK is forced to integrate?

--

Snowfire: I actually believe that Augusta WOULD have admitted a female in a few years, but this Martha Burk thing came up and now they are steadfast in opposition and won't 'bend to these rabble-rousers'.

[cinch]

I think I'll have to agree with the "their club, their rules" people here.

I don't like the fact that they don't allow women in, but if the KKK is legal, so should Augusta surely be.

Personally, I would never go there, because I don't agree with their policy. But they are perfectly entitled to have it.

[Pekka]

Yes, this golf club could be like gentlemens club, old geezers playing golf, enjoying drinks and smoking cigar back at the club house, reading paper and having dress code. It is clear, that they want that kind of atmosphere, so they should be able to enjoy it and not be forced to have members they simply don't want. Besides, there are tons of ways to still keep women out if they want to, like having to have to be recommended by one actual member etc. That way they wouldn't have to say they exclude women, but they could do that. If they want to have their own thing, we should let them have it.

[Pekka]

Just like women should be able to have their own clubs and exclude men.

I fail to see what is so wrong in this. I think it's perfectly OK. This news has even arrived here, so I only have to wonder what kind of power these super feminists have. They just hate men.

[Pekka]

And if I want to have a club that has requirements: 20-25 years old, white, $50 000 income a year, hetero sexual, man, no moustache, no fat people.. then damn it should be able to have it. I don't say this club would be very PC, or 'cool', but as long as we wouldn't have illegal activies or praise racism, it should be possible. I can associate with who ever I want to, and exclude associating with who ever I want to. I wouldn't naturally have this kind of club, but no one should be able to stop me if I decided I want to have it.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Really? So if it was "no blacks; no Irish; and no Jews" you wouldn't object at all?

One can object without demanding government step in.

So what if it is a private organisation.

You need a dictionary, look up "private".

Companies are private organisations and they can't have racist hiring policies - it's against the law in most countries.

Citing laws that already violate our freedom of association to support a desire to further violate our freedom of association is circular "logic".

Besides - it is a private organisation which holds a very public event.

Really? So you can enter the tournament? If they don't want you walking on their course, do you get to trespass because the event is "public"? The event isn't public, everyone involved - from the broadcasters to the players, on site spectators, and owners - agreed to contracts. If you don't like what appears on your TV, turn the channel or complain to the broadcasters. There is a difference between public property and private events temporarily open to public viewing.

What's the point of opposing racism if you are going to let people get away with it?

That question delves into actions and appropriate reactions. If you dis-like a group of people, do others acquire the right to threaten you with violence to make you think correctly? Apparently you think that's an appropriate reaction, some people disagree.

So you think that corporations should be allowed to enact racist hiring policies if they want to?

Yup, and they can lose the business of all the people who don't like what they're doing.

I'm amazed - this is just standing buy and doing nothing to prevent people being discriminated against by racists.

Who said opponents of such a hiring policy must stand by and do nothing?

Racists are foul and disgusting people who should be hounded out of society.

The thought police are on the way to a town near you...Once you've gotten rid of the racists, I'm sure the people who find you commies disgusting will need to be removed too...

I guess those blacks should just know their place, eh?

I guess demagogues just can't debate without inventing strawmen.

[TheStinger]

The club should be allowed to ban women. the palyers however if they have any standards should refuse to play. If Tiger woods et all refused to turn up the rule would change overnight.

[Ming]

Uhhh... they should turn down big bucks and a chance at a major championship when there is no Illegal activity going on... get real.

This lady is looking for her moment's in the press. The club is doing what they are allowed to do... No story here.

[TheStinger]

Well it must be a story its reached here.

They would onlly have to theraeten a boycott and the rules would be changed. If the club didn't allow blacks or jews to join they would certainly protest.

[Pyrodrew]

It depends what kind of club it is.

All those "Women Only Club" I talked about are not limited to "something to do with" exclusively women.

If the club didn't allow blacks or jews to join they would certainly protest.

If the club didn't allow men would those women groups still be protesting? Women fitness clubs? Women investment clubs?

[Ming]

Why should the pros threaten a boycott of one their major events? There are all types of Private Clubs out there that limit who can join. That's life, and also allowed by law.

You would think that she would have better things to do than protest something that's totally legal... like maybe protest more serious issues... like spousal abuse and unfair pay issues for women in the work place...

[Agathon]

I expected better arguments from Apolyton.

The "their club, their rules" argument does not hold water. It's easy to think of many things that private individuals or clubs are not allowed to do. A better argument than this has to be found.

Similarly, with the "women are treated differently in X" argument. This is also not a sufficient response. One can justify treating the sexes differently when there is a good reason to do so, and not when there isn't. For example, women aren't entitled to publicy funded prostate exams because they don't have prostates; and we have separate toilets for men and women because anyone whose ever used a "gents" knows that men are pigs.

I don't believe that anyone here thinks that either racism or sexism is not unjust. What this issue boils down to is the conflict between two freedoms.

(1) The freedom of racists to construct racist institutions.

and

(2) The freedom of minorities not to be discriminated against.

Violation of the second is clearly the more harmful so the first should be curbed. This needn't be by making it illegal, rather the tax system could be brought to bear. Would anyone care to suggest that violating (1) is more harmful? I think not. All the arguments about liberty and so one have to face this uncomfortable fact.

In other words racist institutions should not be tolerated. There are of course pragmatic limitations to what can be done (as there are with any policy), but giving racist clubs and corporations a hard time seems feasible.

And yes - I think the KKK should be outlawed - it is basically a criminal gang set up with the express purpose of violating the civil rights of black people.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
Why should the pros threaten a boycott of one their major events? There are all types of Private Clubs out there that limit who can join. That's life, and also allowed by law.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it should be legal.