So Augusta National Golf Club refuses to have women members (women may play the course as guests). Women’s groups complain to them. Augusta says “Sorry you feel that way. Run along, now.” Women’s groups then say, "We’ll send nasty letters and boycott your sponsors. Augusta says, “That’s ok, we don’t really need sponsors. We’ll put the Masters on TV out of our own pockets.”
I have two points: (1), I think it’s badass of them to go commercial-free. The Masters charges a mere $100 (IIRC) for a four-day pass, assuming you can even get one. They have had next-to-no commercials previously. They are pretentious to the point of being assholes (see how they handled Gary McCord and his “bikini wax” joke), but if nothing they are not greedy. They could easily charge thousands for tickets and make a ton of money from TV rights, but they don’t. It’ll be great to see a sporting event sponsor and commercial free.
(2). Where do these women’s groups get off thinking they can tell a bunch of people what they can and cannot do at a private club on private property? It’s not like, say, The Citadel, where women were until recently forbidden, and tax dollars helped fund the institution. If a bunch of rich old white guys want to decide who can and cannot hang out at their place, why isn’t that up to them? You wouldn’t tell your neighbor that he has to allow you to come over to his house even if he/she doesn’t want you there, would you?
I agree that as a private club, they can do what they like. But I’ll be very surprised to see if they don’t eventually cave. It may take years, but I think the writing’s on the wall, Bubba.
Link for anybody who’s not au courant with the American golf scene. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/golfonline/news/2002/08/31/masters_burk_ap/
They did eventually allow blacks in, so I think the wimminfolks has just got to be a little bit patient.
The chronology of this one is a bit weird. The National Council of Women’s Organizations, an umbrella group, sent a private letter to Augusta, urging them, relatively politely I thought, to reconsider their “men only” policy. The management of Augusta went public with a rude rebuttal.
It’s not the women’s groups who are spoiling for a fight here, though perhaps Augusta went public pre-emptively, figuring that any negative response of theirs would be aired sooner or later.
Regarding the “who the hell do these women think they are?” point in the OP, why shouldn’t they send a letter to whoever they want to, asking for a review of policy?
I’ll take that bet. It won’t be open to all. Sure, they will probably extend a membership invitation to a token female. And that will be it.
They won’t due it until they feel that it was on “their” terms (which pretty much means after the next Masters tournament). They don’t release their membership list, so they won’t have much more pressure than a token appointment.
I fail to see how this “fight” is worthwhile for the women’s group. Besides publicity, and a feather in their cap, it really won’t do much to advance women’s causes, IMHO.
Why is it that some women feel the need to play with men who don’t want to play back? I have never heard of a men organization campaigning to get into a women’s club.
I think the obvious flipside to a man (any man) exercising his right to be a boor is that a woman has the right to tell the world she thinks he’s being a boor. He has a property right, but she has a right to free speech, and his right doesn’t buy her silence.
Some people think it’s shabby the old boys won’t let the women be members. I tend to agree. I don’t find the usual reasons or excuses for having men-only golf clubs to be particularly persuasive. The women want to belong, and I am not very impressed by the reasons given for continuing to exclude them.
So I guess the women “get off” where they came in – on the outside, looking in, unless or until they can convince or shame the men into stop being such exclusionary lil’ pigs.
“Those stupid idiots won’t let me in their crappy club for jerks!”
I do have a couple questions, though. First, is there a written policy that says “no women members” or are there just no women members? And second, don’t real fancy country clubs like this have huge waiting lists? I seem to recall Alex Rodriguez and his $252 million being annoyed because the exclusive Dallas country club he wanted to join had an approximate 10-year waiting list. Even if they let a woman apply tomorrow, might there be a wait beofre she could become a member as with any other applicant?
But for the right to discriminate, there would be no LPGA. It would be dominated by male Buy.com Tour players in about a week. A lack of discrimination would end women’s professional sports. Bye bye WNBA. See ya women’s tennis. Nobody wants to end women’s tennis, do you? Do you?
Their “reasons or excuses” do not need to be persuasive because they’re a private organization with private rules and policies; they can choose to accept or reject membership to anyone they please. It’s not fair but neither is life! Some women should just accept it and move on.
They don’t seem to have a problem playing with women, as they allow women as guests. They just won’t allow women to be members, a position that to me, makes less sense than not allowing women at all.
Regardless of what you think of the Hootie and his Augusta Blowfish, can we agree on one thing: the particular women choosing to pick this particular fight are idiots!
I mean, you can (and probably SHOULD) agree with their basic principle, but you should hope and pray that smarter, more articulate spokeswomen for the cause show up, because the present bunch are clueless.
I say this because I’ve heard AND read statements from their leadership stating that “a great event like the MAsters is bigger than any one club. THey could easily move the Masters to a more progressive location.”
Helloooooo? This isn’t the U.S. Open or the PGA! The Masters DOES belong to Augusta! Golf’s powers-that-be COULD refuse to hold the U.S. Open or the PGA at clubs that run afoul of public opinion, but that’s NOT an option with the Masters.
People who want to lead a crusade have a small obligation to have some clue of what they’re talking about.
