Muirfield Not Hosting Any Future Opens

[Shilgy]

Wow... Folks are actually upset with the R&A because they (R&A) banned discriminatory clubs from hosting tournaments that are said to promote the participation of all interested in the game???? I say good for the R&A. Nobody is forcing MV to change their discriminatory membership policy but nobody is going to force a non-discriminate golf association to host events at such a club.

I may have missed one but I do not believe there have been any posts blasting the R & A for their decision. But many on here have been blasting Muirfield for a decision that in no way affects them.

 

I'm of the opinion that people are upset with the R&A... Calling the organization a hypocrite stemming from the fact they had their own discriminatory practices until recent years implies that folks are upset with the R&A.

I will grant that in the last few posts there has been some of that. Prior it was strictly based on whether Muirfield had the right to allow or not allow who they wish into their PRIVATE club. The last few posts have been blasting the R & A and Player and Jack etc for playing the Open and at Augusta in years prior.

[bscinstnct]

Is Muirfield a private club?

[hdr_ric]

Wow... Folks are actually upset with the R&A because they (R&A) banned discriminatory clubs from hosting tournaments that are said to promote the participation of all interested in the game???? I say good for the R&A. Nobody is forcing MV to change their discriminatory membership policy but nobody is going to force a non-discriminate golf association to host events at such a club.

 

I don't think anyone is upset with the R&A.

 

People are upset for two reasons

1) A bunch of people think that the members of Muirfield should be forced or shamed into capitulating to public opinion to allow women members. These folks are pissed that Muirfield didn't capitulate (yet), and also probably pissed that at least 36% of the Muirfield members didn't give a rip that they were going to lose future Opens.

2) Other people are pissed that that is even a story. Muirfield, a private organization made a decision. The R&A, another private organization made another. They both seem fine with the outcomes. Why is it even a big deal?

 

If I "owned" Muirfield, I certainly would change the policy and allow women to hold memberships. But I don't. To those who fall into bucket #1 above, join Muirfield (good luck) and feel free to vote your conscience. Otherwise, wait a bit and enough of the oldsters will die off, and they will change their policy on their own time, without being bullied into it (see Augusta National and that idiot woman Martha Burke).

[Shilgy]

Is Muirfield a private club?

Evidently not.

[bscinstnct]

Is Muirfield a private club?

Evidently not.

 

Wonder what they got for lunch?

 

Gyros are good.

 

Hey, what do you think the feeling is around who is in this club? Are most of them lords and what not? Maybe some people think they got all their money by doing nothing so they should have to make up for it by letting everyone in now.

[tbowles411]

Is Muirfield a private club?

Evidently not.

 

Wonder what they got for lunch?

 

Gyros are good.

 

Hey, what do you think the feeling is around who is in this club? Are most of them lords and what not? Maybe some people think they got all their money by doing nothing so they should have to make up for it by letting everyone in now.

...and their chicks for free... Sorry. It was there. :cheesy:

[Shilgy]

Is Muirfield a private club?

Evidently not.

 

Wonder what they got for lunch?

 

Gyros are good.

 

Hey, what do you think the feeling is around who is in this club? Are most of them lords and what not? Maybe some people think they got all their money by doing nothing so they should have to make up for it by letting everyone in now.

I am guessing they are mostly sons, grandsons, greatgrandsons etc of previous members. It is probably much like Augusta in that for the members it is not real expensive, or snobbish. Just a group of like minded people, ya know the definition of a "club", that would like to preserve the traditions of their club and see no reason why those on the other side of the pond should have any say in what they do.

[Langlands]

Wow... Folks are actually upset with the R&A because they (R&A) banned discriminatory clubs from hosting tournaments that are said to promote the participation of all interested in the game???? I say good for the R&A. Nobody is forcing MV to change their discriminatory membership policy but nobody is going to force a non-discriminate golf association to host events at such a club.

I may have missed one but I do not believe there have been any posts blasting the R & A for their decision. But many on here have been blasting Muirfield for a decision that in no way affects them.

 

I'm of the opinion that people are upset with the R&A... Calling the organization a hypocrite stemming from the fact they had their own discriminatory practices until recent years implies that folks are upset with the R&A.

I will grant that in the last few posts there has been some of that. Prior it was strictly based on whether Muirfield had the right to allow or not allow who they wish into their PRIVATE club. The last few posts have been blasting the R & A and Player and Jack etc for playing the Open and at Augusta in years prior.

 

I believe that the HCEG have the right to vote not to allow women to be become members of their private club.

 

I just find it a bit odd that pro golfers who for years have been happy enough to play in an event organised by the R&A, who until a couple of years ago did not allow women members, and on golf courses whose clubs had the same membership policies suddenly feel the need to publicly criticise these clubs yet applaud the R&A for removing these clubs from the Open rota.

[wobgon]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/36338306

 

Even the worlds # 3 thinks its idiotic

 

"It's more of a loss to Muirfield than it is to us," said McIlroy, 27.

"It's not right to host the world's biggest tournament at a place that does not allow women to be members. Hopefully Muirfield can see some sense and we can get it back on The Open rota."

 

McIlroy's view was echoed by Gary Player, who has won nine majors, including The Open at Muirfield in 1959.

"As much as I love and respect Muirfield as a club where I won The Open, I totally agree with the R&A," said the South African. "Staging the championship at any venue that does not admit women is simply unacceptable."

 

 

In announcing the club's decision, Muirfield captain Henry Fairweather stressed that women will continue to be welcome at the East Lothian club as guests and visitors, "as they have been for many years".

Veteran BBC golf commentator Peter Alliss said women who want to play at Muirfield should "marry a member" in order to play.

He also said he had spoken to the wives of Muirfield members and claimed there was "a look of horror" on their faces when he suggested they might be able to become members in their own right.

He reckoned they did not want to become members because they would have to start paying for something they currently got for free

 

"The women who are there as wives of husbands, they get all the facilities," he told BBC Radio 5 live. "If somebody wants to join, well you'd better get married to somebody who's a member."

 

AND THE SEXISM CONTINUES......Muirfield just keeps digging and digging that hole deeper and deeper.....SAD

 

Muirfield Golf Club Picks Discrimination Over the British Open

http://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/36338306

 

Even the worlds # 3 thinks its idiotic

 

"It's more of a loss to Muirfield than it is to us," said McIlroy, 27.

"It's not right to host the world's biggest tournament at a place that does not allow women to be members. Hopefully Muirfield can see some sense and we can get it back on The Open rota."

 

McIlroy's view was echoed by Gary Player, who has won nine majors, including The Open at Muirfield in 1959.

"As much as I love and respect Muirfield as a club where I won The Open, I totally agree with the R&A," said the South African. "Staging the championship at any venue that does not admit women is simply unacceptable."

 

 

In announcing the club's decision, Muirfield captain Henry Fairweather stressed that women will continue to be welcome at the East Lothian club as guests and visitors, "as they have been for many years".

Veteran BBC golf commentator Peter Alliss said women who want to play at Muirfield should "marry a member" in order to play.

He also said he had spoken to the wives of Muirfield members and claimed there was "a look of horror" on their faces when he suggested they might be able to become members in their own right.

He reckoned they did not want to become members because they would have to start paying for something they currently got for free

 

"The women who are there as wives of husbands, they get all the facilities," he told BBC Radio 5 live. "If somebody wants to join, well you'd better get married to somebody who's a member."

 

AND THE SEXISM CONTINUES......Muirfield just keeps digging and digging that hole deeper and deeper.....SAD

 

Muirfield Golf Club Picks Discrimination Over the British Open

 

I hate to tell you, but you have no idea what discrimination or sexism is. This has nothing to do with either.

 

There are private all Jewish Golf Clubs in this world, are they racist?

 

There are private all women golf clubs in this world, two are at St. Andrews. Are they sexist?

 

There are private female only gyms all over the world, are they sexist?

 

They want to be with and around like people. I am not kicking and screaming because I can't be a member.

 

Muirfield members want to be around like minded people. Doesn't make them sexist or racist.

 

People like you honestly aren't very smart at all. It is called common sense and you have none.

And we can be sure that he will not answer your your points directly........

[J-Blade]

Is Muirfield a private club?

Evidently not.

 

Wonder what they got for lunch?

 

Gyros are good.

 

Hey, what do you think the feeling is around who is in this club? Are most of them lords and what not? Maybe some people think they got all their money by doing nothing so they should have to make up for it by letting everyone in now.

...and their chicks for free... Sorry. It was there. :cheesy:

 

Well played :)

[knock it close]

Wait did Rory actually say that Muirfield needs the open?

 

*insert gif of individual laughing hysterically*

[hdr_ric]

Wow... Folks are actually upset with the R&A because they (R&A) banned discriminatory clubs from hosting tournaments that are said to promote the participation of all interested in the game???? I say good for the R&A. Nobody is forcing MV to change their discriminatory membership policy but nobody is going to force a non-discriminate golf association to host events at such a club.

I may have missed one but I do not believe there have been any posts blasting the R & A for their decision. But many on here have been blasting Muirfield for a decision that in no way affects them.

 

I'm of the opinion that people are upset with the R&A... Calling the organization a hypocrite stemming from the fact they had their own discriminatory practices until recent years implies that folks are upset with the R&A.

I will grant that in the last few posts there has been some of that. Prior it was strictly based on whether Muirfield had the right to allow or not allow who they wish into their PRIVATE club. The last few posts have been blasting the R & A and Player and Jack etc for playing the Open and at Augusta in years prior.

 

I believe that the HCEG have the right to vote not to allow women to be become members of their private club.

 

I just find it a bit odd that pro golfers who for years have been happy enough to play in an event organised by the R&A, who until a couple of years ago did not allow women members, and on golf courses whose clubs had the same membership policies suddenly feel the need to publicly criticise these clubs yet applaud the R&A for removing these clubs from the Open rota.

 

It is not odd. The PR hit these guys would take if they didn't condemn Muirfield is incalculably high.

 

This is a 10 page thread. Can you imagine the hue and cry from the busybodies against Nike if Rory didn't tow the PC line here? Rory probably would vote to allow women in as well, but I suspect he doesn't really care that much one way or another. However, he does care about his $$ and his sponsors.

[duffer987]

Wonder what they got for lunch?

 

Gyros are good.

 

Hey, what do you think the feeling is around who is in this club? Are most of them lords and what not? Maybe some people think they got all their money by doing nothing so they should have to make up for it by letting everyone in now.

...and their chicks for free... Sorry. It was there. :cheesy:

 

Sexist basturd! What number locker do you have at Muirfield? ;-)

[Shilgy]

Wow... Folks are actually upset with the R&A because they (R&A) banned discriminatory clubs from hosting tournaments that are said to promote the participation of all interested in the game???? I say good for the R&A. Nobody is forcing MV to change their discriminatory membership policy but nobody is going to force a non-discriminate golf association to host events at such a club.

I may have missed one but I do not believe there have been any posts blasting the R & A for their decision. But many on here have been blasting Muirfield for a decision that in no way affects them.

 

I'm of the opinion that people are upset with the R&A... Calling the organization a hypocrite stemming from the fact they had their own discriminatory practices until recent years implies that folks are upset with the R&A.

I will grant that in the last few posts there has been some of that. Prior it was strictly based on whether Muirfield had the right to allow or not allow who they wish into their PRIVATE club. The last few posts have been blasting the R & A and Player and Jack etc for playing the Open and at Augusta in years prior.

 

I believe that the HCEG have the right to vote not to allow women to be become members of their private club.

 

I just find it a bit odd that pro golfers who for years have been happy enough to play in an event organised by the R&A, who until a couple of years ago did not allow women members, and on golf courses whose clubs had the same membership policies suddenly feel the need to publicly criticise these clubs yet applaud the R&A for removing these clubs from the Open rota.

The comments I read were somewhat carefully worded to applaud the R&A but did not criticize Muirfield.

[vleisman]

This is one of the rare subjects of my independent type of nature leans toward conservative.

 

Everyone on the inclusion side of the argument likes to yell that is wrong for a private club (golf, or otherwise) to disallow membership based on gender, race, religion, etc., but they have never once provided a sufficient argument as to why.

 

If a private golf course wants to allow its membership to be only men, so what? Let them have it.

If a private car club wants to be all female, so what? Let them have it.

If a private art club wants to be all African American, so what? Let them have it.

If a private video game club wants to be all white, so what? Let them have it.

 

I fail to see how any of these things are cause for the members being considered either immoral, or antiquated. People demanding inclusion often seem to believe they are busting down the doors of discrimination when what they're really accomplishing is the redefinition of what it means to be private which, in my mind, is far more terrifying than allowing the same gender/race/religion of people to have their homogenous associations.

 

Forced inclusion is as impotent as it is a dangerous concept in the way it pertains to private organization which is the lifeblood of pretty much any civilization which claims capitalism in any sense.

 

There is nothing wrong with Muirfield remaining a Men's only club just as there is nothing wrong with The Open not being played there because of it.

 

All that said, the second that any of this touches (or attempts to influence) either public, or governmental domain, all bets are off. In that case, I would be the first in line with my sledgehammer in hand.

 

Author! Author!

[legitimategolf]

Haha, now people are going to have to label Rory a "SJW".

[tsecor]

Its sickening to see people applaud discrimination.

 

says a lot.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

This is one of the rare subjects of my independent type of nature leans toward conservative.

 

Everyone on the inclusion side of the argument likes to yell that is wrong for a private club (golf, or otherwise) to disallow membership based on gender, race, religion, etc., but they have never once provided a sufficient argument as to why.

 

If a private golf course wants to allow its membership to be only men, so what? Let them have it.

If a private car club wants to be all female, so what? Let them have it.

If a private art club wants to be all African American, so what? Let them have it.

If a private video game club wants to be all white, so what? Let them have it.

 

I fail to see how any of these things are cause for the members being considered either immoral, or antiquated. People demanding inclusion often seem to believe they are busting down the doors of discrimination when what they're really accomplishing is the redefinition of what it means to be private which, in my mind, is far more terrifying than allowing the same gender/race/religion of people to have their homogenous associations.

 

Forced inclusion is as impotent as it is a dangerous concept in the way it pertains to private organization which is the lifeblood of pretty much any civilization which claims capitalism in any sense.

 

There is nothing wrong with Muirfield remaining a Men's only club just as there is nothing wrong with The Open not being played there because of it.

 

All that said, the second that any of this touches (or attempts to influence) either public, or governmental domain, all bets are off. In that case, I would be the first in line with my sledgehammer in hand.

 

I can give you a very practical real world reason why sir.

 

My daughter has already said to me that she doesn't want to play golf because it scares her that there are so many miserable old men around my Club, and that it's the same at every Course I play. So you see, her impression of Golf is of miserable old men. Who knows, she could be good at the game, and we have lost that potential talent. I'm not going to push her into doing something that she is uncomfortable with, but is it healthy for the game to lose both numbers and talent regardless of gender purely because of the impressions and perceptions that are so rife?

 

maybe her perceptions and assumption are incorrect? at a young age what you think you know is rarely reality. maybe she'd actually find out there are a lot of very kind old men who would be more than willing to play a round with her. maybe she'd find there are other kids her age, or plenty of very pleasant people of either sex to play a round with. pushing your kid a little outside of their comfort zone to see things for themselves isn't a bad thing.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

It's worth noting (maybe already mentioned) that 64% of people voted to include female members. If they had different acceptance criteria then it passes because, it's clear that most members are actually open to the idea.

 

i wonder of those 64% how many will choose the leave the club... willing to bet very few.

[ExTrumpet]

What's Muirfield's view on transgenders? Restrooms?

[spbrooks]

Its sickening to see people applaud discrimination.

 

says a lot.

Agree, but how do you feel about Private clubs? ; )

[SheriffBooth]

Cleaned the thread up a bit, and may have some more janitorial work to do.

 

Two things. First, don't attack each other personally - that means no name calling or personal attacks (calling people "stupid" or "idiots" etc.). Second, don't go off topic - if you want to talk about Muirfield, fine, but don't veer off into other areas and in particular, don't ride off into politics or religion.

 

Carry on.

[duffer987]

It's worth noting (maybe already mentioned) that 64% of people voted to include female members. If they had different acceptance criteria then it passes because, it's clear that most members are actually open to the idea.

 

i wonder of those 64% how many will choose the leave the club... willing to bet very few.

 

I would assume none. They've been OK playing there this long with their current rules.

[Shilgy]

Two days a week anyone can play Muirfield. That is a lot more inclusive than any other private club I know of. We saw in a post earlier the women at Muirfield do not wish to be paying members. Why is this such an issue to those it in no way affects? Is it an archaic practice? Probably. Are they the only business entity that is single sex? Not even close. So please vent your outrage at all offenders rather than this one club that already welcomes all players 29% of the time.

[FairwaysToHeaven]

I agree that private clubs can set their own rules, as far as that goes, but how is barring any group, be it women, minorities, Jews, et al the right thing to do? How is it defensible?

 

I know here in Los Angeles, back in the early 1960's, my father was barred membership at several clubs because he was Jewish. One of the great singers of that era, Billy Ekstine, was declined membership in one of these clubs as well. He applied about the same time as my dad. How is this right? More importantly, how is that any different?

 

This. Exactly this.

 

i don't think the issue is right vs wrong. its whether sjw can pressure or force a private club to accept women. my opinion is why not allow women. is it the 'wrong' decision. this will be determined by whether the club can sustain into the future without losing membership. yet i also agree that a private club has the right to choose its membership. if there decisions are wrong, enough people will leave or refuse to join and membership decisons will change or the club will cease to exist.

 

i also don't think this has anything to do with a private club full of members who hate women or hold a grudge against ladies or women ( i forget which term we're supposed to use). I'm sure plenty of these men love their wives. they choose to have a private club where they enjoy company of men. private and exclusives clubs exists in all terms, whether its sex, race, social status and wealht, age, iq, etc etc. you can go on vacation and their are adult pools. this isn't because people hate kids, its that they want a place to relax and getaway without having screaming kids running around. are they discriminating against kids. i don't know, but its the owners right. and if enough disagree, they can choose to go elsewhere.

 

free markets have a way of working themselves out. R&A has a right to disagree and go elsewhere. the problem i see as another mention is the sjw not being satisfied until they force their beliefs and opinions on others until they get their preferred result. there is a difference between private and public. a public 'whatever' can not discriminate.

[bscinstnct]

Rest of the world ‘support’ Muirfield’s female ban

 

A BIZARRE Twitter map has shown a large percentage of social media users around the globe have backed Muirfield’s controversial ongoing ban for women.

 

 

Red areas – predominantly western Europe and North America – indicate strong opposition to the decision, which has been labelled “indefensible” by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Greener areas show where the most favourable tweets came from – mainly South and Central America, the Balkans, and parts of Asia, including Japan.

 

 

 

http://www.scotsman....8#ixzz49DcW8b5l

[MattTheTaff]

Rest of the world ‘support’ Muirfield’s female ban

 

A BIZARRE Twitter map has shown a large percentage of social media users around the globe have backed Muirfield’s controversial ongoing ban for women.

 

 

Red areas – predominantly western Europe and North America – indicate strong opposition to the decision, which has been labelled “indefensible” by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Greener areas show where the most favourable tweets came from – mainly South and Central America, the Balkans, and parts of Asia, including Japan.

 

 

 

http://www.scotsman....8#ixzz49DcW8b5l

 

Jeeez, look at that map.

 

Looks like a mass synchronisation of some sort.

[jmck]

Rest of the world 'support' Muirfield's female ban

 

A BIZARRE Twitter map has shown a large percentage of social media users around the globe have backed Muirfield's controversial ongoing ban for women.

 

 

Red areas – predominantly western Europe and North America – indicate strong opposition to the decision, which has been labelled "indefensible" by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Greener areas show where the most favourable tweets came from – mainly South and Central America, the Balkans, and parts of Asia, including Japan.

 

 

 

http://www.scotsman....8#ixzz49DcW8b5l

 

Jeeez, look at that map.

 

Looks like a mass synchronisation of some sort.

 

Yep. The overlap with colonization is close to 100%. Fascinating really.

[cdnglf]

Rest of the world 'support' Muirfield's female ban

 

A BIZARRE Twitter map has shown a large percentage of social media users around the globe have backed Muirfield's controversial ongoing ban for women.

 

 

Red areas – predominantly western Europe and North America – indicate strong opposition to the decision, which has been labelled "indefensible" by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Greener areas show where the most favourable tweets came from – mainly South and Central America, the Balkans, and parts of Asia, including Japan.

 

 

 

http://www.scotsman....8#ixzz49DcW8b5l

 

Jeeez, look at that map.

 

Looks like a mass synchronisation of some sort.

 

Yep. The overlap with colonization is close to 100%. Fascinating really.

 

This map discriminates against the west coast.

[MattTheTaff]

Rest of the world 'support' Muirfield's female ban

 

A BIZARRE Twitter map has shown a large percentage of social media users around the globe have backed Muirfield's controversial ongoing ban for women.

 

 

 

Red areas – predominantly western Europe and North America – indicate strong opposition to the decision, which has been labelled "indefensible" by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.

Greener areas show where the most favourable tweets came from – mainly South and Central America, the Balkans, and parts of Asia, including Japan.

 

 

 

http://www.scotsman....8#ixzz49DcW8b5l

 

Jeeez, look at that map.

 

Looks like a mass synchronisation of some sort.

 

Yep. The overlap with colonization is close to 100%. Fascinating really.

 

The sun never sets on the British Empire and that map proves it