I am both For and Against the argument that Augusta should admit women. and I’ll tell you why…
The only reason I got interested in golf was because of Tiger Woods. I was in England when such a fuss was being made over Tiger Woods (he was playing in the British Open, I think…) that I decided to watch…and was fascinated. I later watched him play at the 1999 Ryder Cup – in Brookline, MA. And that’s the extent of my dealings with golf.
Why MUST private male clubs like The Augusta National Golf Club be forced to admit women if it wishes to remain non-inclusive?
You can argue that they’re sexist, or racist or anti-whatever. I say so what?
It seems to me that a group of men or women or kids or dogs or racists or nationalists or immigrant haters or constitution amenders CAN and should be able to form a group or an organization and DECIDE who should be members.
Are you telling me that I would be a bad person or a hater of fathers or disrespectful of married women if I started a club for single mothers and limited it to single black mothers…or single mothers who underwent a gender change – or single mothers who don’t work – or single mothers from the projects or single mothers from English speaking countries?
What if the club develops so much power that eventually anyone we back for President wins?
Should I then open up to other people – even if my agenda is to propel the specific group I represent into the White House? A group that I decide YOU do not fit? What if I do not want you or others like you, (whether they be black, white or female) to ever gain power, misguided as my sentiments may be? Should a Republican sue to join the Democratic National Committee – and vice versa?
Would someone then FORCE me to accept DIVORCED mothers? Or married mothers? Or mothers from Poland? Why…?
Seems to me that as soon as SOMEBODY does NOT like what you say – or WHO you are – or WHAT you do — it becomes a NATIONAL furor!
Let’s FORCE other people into OUR way of thinking.
Should I now try to join the Ku Klux Klan? What if I believe that after interacting with ME they’ll change their opinions of black people?
Shouldn’t groups be able to remain homogenous or exclusive if they want to?
There are agencies that SHOULD be open and accessible to all…and there are agencies that can remain exclusive.
How about pushing for women to play in the NBA or the MLB…? Wouldn’t that make more sense?
Shouldn’t the NBA have female players by now? Someone from the WNBA? Remember Lisa Leslie -retired Los Angeles Sparks (1997-2006, 2008-2009). How about pushing for THAT, hmn?
Instead of whining that: a group of white males won’t allow me to play with them…!!! SO WHAT? FORM YOUR OWN CLUB…
Come here to Massachusetts. We have lots of land where you IBM can set up an exclusive club, a GOLF club even, for female executives. One where we (well not “we”…I’d not be accepted, ever. DO YOU SEE THESE HOT SHOT FEMALE EXECS INVITING A WOMAN FROM THE PROJECTS TO JOIN THEIR CLUB? But I’ll whine about THAT later.)
Open a Club where these “female execs” can sit around, put their legs up and not worry too much if there is a glimpse of underwear. (It happens.) And when they bend over, then no big deal either over the view from either the front or the back. But more importantly, where females can mouth off with no restraint about how men really, really are pigs! Sorry boys…
(No. You do NOT need to talk about female issues at all! Talk about kicking male a–! Talk about kicking other female a–! Talk about breaking into the market in China.
Talk about setting up a scholarship fund for the kids of poor, clueless female bloggers like me! (What about MALE bloggers, you ask ? Yes, what about them…?)
Wouldn’t take long before it was MEN whining about joining YOUR club!!!
Now while I can run my mouth as much as I want, NOT being a lawyer, I can only make the case with a quote from the link above, titled:
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AFTER ROBERTS V. UNITED STATES JAYCEES.
“National associations with restrictive membership policies are faced with a choice. They may continue their discriminatory membership policies in the hope that either states will refrain from applying public accommodation statutes against them or, if enforcement is attempted, that they will be able to defend themselves successfully in court.
Immediately after the decision in U.S. Jaycees was announced, spokespersons for at least two national associations with all-male membership policies expressed confidence that their policies would receive the constitutional protection withheld from the Jaycees.n98 Although it is probably too early to say for certain, this may suggest that U.S. Jaycees will not result in a large number of associations voluntarily abandoning discriminatory membership policies.
The other option associations have is to do just that: to seize U.S. Jaycess as an opportunity to reconsider the purpose and value of a policy of excluding a particular class of persons, and then move to open up membership. At least with respect to sex classifications, one might guess — in view of the rapid rise in the public’s sensitivity to the consequences of gender-based discrimination — that many associations will choose that course.
Still, it is interesting to note that after women were admitted as members by its Minneapolis and St. Paul chapters, the national membership of the Jaycees continued to vote overwhelmingly to retain its all-male membership policy. In 1975, members voted down a proposal to open membership to women by a margin of about ninety percent to ten percent. However, the vote was dramatically different six weeks after the decision in U.S Jaycees was announced, when the Jaycees finally amended their bylaws to allow the admission of women as full members…”
And by the way, President Obama, you don’t always NEED to comment on everything…like Trayvon Martin or club memberships or race relations…