Muirfield Not Hosting Any Future Opens

[jmck]

Muirfield is a great course. Sad we won't see the Open there for at least a little while. Their choice though.

 

1000 apologies for even obliquely mentioning He Who Must Not Be Named, but does anyone have any sense of what in the world they're going to do about Turnberry? It's ownership situation is much more of a grey area than allowing women or not.

 

Why is that?

 

The PGA cancelled an LA tournament because of his course ownership, and there's talk of moving away from Doral too. The R&A has a sticky situation w/r/t awarding Turnberry another Open. I love Turnberry too. IMO it'd be a greater shame to bail on Turnberry on account of a toxic owner than it is to bail on Muirfield on account of the ladies.

[mark m]

Well, the Women's British Open is organized by the Ladies' Golf Union. LOL

[JaNelson38]

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

False equivalencies are false.

 

How are they false equivalencies? This is the favorite line of defense for someone who really cant defend what I asked when things like discrimination of sex is discussed.

 

What is the difference in "discrimination" from men not being allowed to play in sanctioned women's golf tournaments to women not being allowed to become members at a private golf club?

[jmck]

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

False equivalencies are false.

 

How are they false equivalencies? This is the favorite line of defense for someone who really cant defend what I asked when things like discrimination of sex is discussed.

 

What is the difference in "discrimination" from men not being allowed to play in sanctioned women's golf tournaments to women not being allowed to become members at a private golf club?

 

It's a free country. You can be as obstinate as you want.

[JaNelson38]

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

False equivalencies are false.

 

How are they false equivalencies? This is the favorite line of defense for someone who really cant defend what I asked when things like discrimination of sex is discussed.

 

What is the difference in "discrimination" from men not being allowed to play in sanctioned women's golf tournaments to women not being allowed to become members at a private golf club?

 

It's a free country. You can be as obstinate as you want.

 

I asked you a simple, legitimate question to the topic at hand based on your statement. You call me obstinate. Makes perfect sense.

[BMC]

Well, there's always the one in Ohio.

[cardoustie]

One of the saddest days in my life was getting winded out of Muirfield in 2012.

 

One of the bridges was closed due to high winds and it took a while to get there in a wobbly van ... for 8 hungover Canucks

 

It was gusting 80-100mph and 30 foot seas

 

I did get to hang out in the clubhouse and have a scotch in the starter's house, so I had that going for me

 

If they want to stay private for a few more years .. let them

 

Course looked magnificent !

[jmck]

 

I asked you a simple, legitimate question to the topic at hand based on your statement. You call me obstinate. Makes perfect sense.

 

Dude if you need it explained to you why men not being allowed in LPGA events is not equivalent to women being forbidden to join Muirfield.....well you have absolutely no interest in hearing an answer because your mind is already closed. Keep on with the righteous indignation though--it's a good look.

[jay65]

Private clubs should be able to allow who they want. Period.

 

Good on Muirfield for standing up for what they want in their club, and for not relenting to the R&A pressure of taking a tournament away from them if they didnt change to the way the R&A wanted.

 

I cant wait for the R&A reaction when a journalist gets by the faux outrage to ask why they didnt do the same to Royal Troon, which is an all male golf club.

 

The problems with that statement are that i) Muirfield did not actually vote for the status quo though. 65% of them actually voted for women to be allowed. Their form of Democracy of course, but odd to anyone else with more than one brain cell nonetheless. and ii) If it's seen as cutting your nose off to spite your face as being a positive, then the fact still remains that the only losers from this is the Honourable company of Edinburgh Golfers, not the R&A or The Open Championship.

 

Personally, if people want to live in the Victorian past, then that is their right, but it may come with consequences, and if they are able to suck it up, then fine. But in the end, when all is said and done, these 'fossils' will not win. Ladies will become member at Muirfield. maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but it will happen eventually. So what the 35% of members that did vote against women members are scared of..................I suppose only they can tell us.

 

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

If you don't understand or did not read the full post that I made, then I respectfully refer you to the extract that refers to 65% willing to accept women members. If you are still confused then let me put it this way, with only 35% voting to keep women out, their days are clearly numbered. And notion that because 35% of members vote against women members in some way means that the HCEG have categorically verfified a wish of the 'Club, is laughable at best, I hope that's simple enough for you?

 

 

Secondly the comparison between the LPGA's tour not allowing men to compete on it's Tour. Is that true? I, personally have not seen their directives on that issue.

 

Thirdly, I'm sure you are right by saying that many men have also been discriminated against for many different reasons as you rightly say. But. that doesn't make that right either. Any form of discrimination is abhorrent. But one thing I do know is that in spite of all those other discriminatory reasons why any man could be turned away, one thing is for sure, no man has ever been turned way from a HCEG membership purely because he is a man. In the 21st century any form of gender discrimination is distasteful to me, and makes me feel very uncomfortable, especially as a father with a young daughter. But as I said, I'm very much anti discrimination at any level. Whether it be because of their gender, age, colour, disability or social standing. As my father always said 'they're sh** stinks just as much as yours son'. Lol.

[rushwl]

Such a shame the British Open has now lost Turberry and Muirfield from the ROTA, based on PC decisions by the R&A. The PGA tour and USGA are also considering removing events from DJ Trumps courses based on political reasons. It seems that as every facet of our lives now is based on which way you lean politically. It truly is a shame when the governing bodies of a sport get politically involved by picking a side. Muirfield is a private club and can admit whomever they see fit. Why have a womens tour and a mens tour if we want to make this about "fairness".

[JimFishIII]

They've been in the ROTA for how many years and suddenly need a woman to stay? Why?

 

Fire away.... :ninja:

[Shilgy]

Private clubs should be able to allow who they want. Period.

 

Good on Muirfield for standing up for what they want in their club, and for not relenting to the R&A pressure of taking a tournament away from them if they didnt change to the way the R&A wanted.

 

I cant wait for the R&A reaction when a journalist gets by the faux outrage to ask why they didnt do the same to Royal Troon, which is an all male golf club.

 

The problems with that statement are that i) Muirfield did not actually vote for the status quo though. 65% of them actually voted for women to be allowed. Their form of Democracy of course, but odd to anyone else with more than one brain cell nonetheless. and ii) If it's seen as cutting your nose off to spite your face as being a positive, then the fact still remains that the only losers from this is the Honourable company of Edinburgh Golfers, not the R&A or The Open Championship.

 

Personally, if people want to live in the Victorian past, then that is their right, but it may come with consequences, and if they are able to suck it up, then fine. But in the end, when all is said and done, these 'fossils' will not win. Ladies will become member at Muirfield. maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but it will happen eventually. So what the 35% of members that did vote against women members are scared of..................I suppose only they can tell us.

 

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

If you don't understand or did not read the full post that I made, then I respectfully refer you to the extract that refers to 65% willing to accept women members. If you are still confused then let me put it this way, with only 35% voting to keep women out, their days are clearly numbered. And notion that because 35% of members vote against women members in some way means that the HCEG have categorically verfified a wish of the 'Club, is laughable at best, I hope that's simple enough for you?

 

 

Secondly the comparison between the LPGA's tour not allowing men to compete on it's Tour. Is that true? I, personally have not seen their directives on that issue.

 

Thirdly, I'm sure you are right by saying that many men have also been discriminated against for many different reasons as you rightly say. But. that doesn't make that right either. Any form of discrimination is abhorrent. But one thing I do know is that in spite of all those other discriminatory reasons why any man could be turned away, one thing is for sure, no man has ever been turned way from a HCEG membership purely because he is a man. In the 21st century any form of gender discrimination is distasteful to me, and makes me feel very uncomfortable, especially as a father with a young daughter. But as I said, I'm very much anti discrimination at any level. Whether it be because of their gender, age, colour, disability or social standing. As my father always said 'they're sh** stinks just as much as yours son'. Lol.

IIRC their bylaws read "female at birth" which has been challenged a few times. Could not find definitive wording though.

 

Guys this whole thing will be gone in a few more years. The age of PC has taken over and anything that threatens the minority must not be allowed. :(

This is from 24 years ago-guessing Oakmont has changed since as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/26/sports/golf-open-isn-t-word-for-oakmont-say-some.html

[fvhowler]

Okay. In 2016, I'm good with women starting their own golf club and not allowing men to become members. Here's to equality. All is fair now...that was easy.

[jay65]

Private clubs should be able to allow who they want. Period.

 

Good on Muirfield for standing up for what they want in their club, and for not relenting to the R&A pressure of taking a tournament away from them if they didnt change to the way the R&A wanted.

 

I cant wait for the R&A reaction when a journalist gets by the faux outrage to ask why they didnt do the same to Royal Troon, which is an all male golf club.

 

The problems with that statement are that i) Muirfield did not actually vote for the status quo though. 65% of them actually voted for women to be allowed. Their form of Democracy of course, but odd to anyone else with more than one brain cell nonetheless. and ii) If it's seen as cutting your nose off to spite your face as being a positive, then the fact still remains that the only losers from this is the Honourable company of Edinburgh Golfers, not the R&A or The Open Championship.

 

Personally, if people want to live in the Victorian past, then that is their right, but it may come with consequences, and if they are able to suck it up, then fine. But in the end, when all is said and done, these 'fossils' will not win. Ladies will become member at Muirfield. maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but it will happen eventually. So what the 35% of members that did vote against women members are scared of..................I suppose only they can tell us.

 

"The fossils will not win"? What the heck does that mean? That Muirfield wants to keep their private club structured the way they like means they are "fossils"? Its a private club for reason: BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DECIDE WHO CAN AND CANT BE A MEMBER.

 

If thats the case, I'll pose to you the same question I did to someone else in another post: why arent men allowed in LPGA Tour events? How is that any less "discriminatory" than a private club only admitting who they want to their club?

 

Being denied a membership to a golf club isnt discriminatory. Im sure many men who have wanted to become members at Muirfield have been denied for any number of reasons.

 

If you don't understand or did not read the full post that I made, then I respectfully refer you to the extract that refers to 65% willing to accept women members. If you are still confused then let me put it this way, with only 35% voting to keep women out, their days are clearly numbered. And notion that because 35% of members vote against women members in some way means that the HCEG have categorically verfified a wish of the 'Club, is laughable at best, I hope that's simple enough for you?

 

 

Secondly the comparison between the LPGA's tour not allowing men to compete on it's Tour. Is that true? I, personally have not seen their directives on that issue.

 

Thirdly, I'm sure you are right by saying that many men have also been discriminated against for many different reasons as you rightly say. But. that doesn't make that right either. Any form of discrimination is abhorrent. But one thing I do know is that in spite of all those other discriminatory reasons why any man could be turned away, one thing is for sure, no man has ever been turned way from a HCEG membership purely because he is a man. In the 21st century any form of gender discrimination is distasteful to me, and makes me feel very uncomfortable, especially as a father with a young daughter. But as I said, I'm very much anti discrimination at any level. Whether it be because of their gender, age, colour, disability or social standing. As my father always said 'they're sh** stinks just as much as yours son'. Lol.

IIRC their bylaws read "female at birth" which has been challenged a few times. Could not find definitive wording though.

 

Guys this whole thing will be gone in a few more years. The age of PC has taken over and anything that threatens the minority must not be allowed. :(

This is from 24 years ago-guessing Oakmont has changed since as well.

http://www.nytimes.c...t-say-some.html

 

It's not Politically Correct, it's just correct. I really find the whole reason why some men appear to be threatened by women to be unfathomable. After all, this all about men. Why we can't just all think about each other as human beings instead of gender, I do not know. Politically correct or not, I challenge anyone to answer why that is so frightening to so many men.

[homeontherange]

 

I asked you a simple, legitimate question to the topic at hand based on your statement. You call me obstinate. Makes perfect sense.

 

Dude if you need it explained to you why men not being allowed in LPGA events is not equivalent to women being forbidden to join Muirfield.....well you have absolutely no interest in hearing an answer because your mind is already closed. Keep on with the righteous indignation though--it's a good look.

 

You can't answer the question, because there is no logical, rational explanation.

 

Also, I'd love to hear your explanation as to why men are not allowed to play in LPGA events, yet women are allowed to play in PGA events.

 

You have an entire golf association that refuses membership solely based on gender. Another does not.

 

This has ZERO to do with true equality, fairness, and inclusion. But keep telling yourself that...

 

[jmck]

IIRC their bylaws read "female at birth" which has been challenged a few times. Could not find definitive wording though.

 

Guys this whole thing will be gone in a few more years. The age of PC has taken over and anything that threatens the minority must not be allowed. :(

This is from 24 years ago-guessing Oakmont has changed since as well.

http://www.nytimes.c...t-say-some.html

 

Shilgy, you recall correctly--the "female by birth" thing is how it's worded and it has been challenged and upheld.

 

Very interesting link w/r/t Oakmont in 1992. I read that and IMO things have changed for the better. Folks bemoan the PC boogieman, but I read that article and think, 'man if I was a women I'd be pissed that I paid $30k to join and they'll only let me play on certain days at certain times.' I'm glad that's a thing of the past at Oakmont.

 

Females make up approximately 50% of earth's population. If us old white men want to have courses for our grandchildren to play, we should be doing our best to expand the game and increase the number of golfers, regardless of natural born plumbing.

 

Muirfield can do whatever they want, but I'll just say this: Augusta admitted women and--somehow!--the world didn't stop spinning.

[peachfuzz]

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.

[blink3665]

Any of you played behind a group of ladies? I see why they won't let them play. Before you think I'm being sexist......my girlfriend is a female woman with a v*****

 

Is that one of those passive brag things I've heard about? (BTW, you're a lucky man)(you are man, right?)

 

Just checked and I do have male genitalia. Women shouldn't be allowed to play golf. So f*****g slow. Unless they look like models then that would be great. But since most of them look like Laura Davis they should be banned

 

 

Ha. Thanks for the last comment. I thought you were serious after the first comment. Then I realized that you were just trolling us with the second comment.

 

It's like the people that say, "I can say the N word because I have a friend who is black."

[spbrooks]

I'll never understand why this is an issue. There are woman only private golf clubs, colleges, and prep schools all around the globe. It's a private club! Hence the word PRIVATE! They can do what they want. Why does society have to bash them because they are keeping with their tradition. Would I like to see it integrated? Of course, but I won't sit here and say "shame on you" because you won't let woman in. Why doesn't society shame the woman clubs in the same way?

amen brother

[ripper911]

 

The choice for the Open should be solely on the strength of the courses available ond not for any political reason.

 

Bingo.

 

Indeed! Everything doesn't have to be turned a political argument.

 

Let them do as they will. Just because some people don't agree with an idea doesn't mean that it is wrong.

 

Morality is subjective.

[jay65]

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?

[heavy_hitter]

It honestly blows my mind that anyone would think there is something wrong with this. This isn't sexism or discrimination. People are entitled to have a private club that allows a certain race, sex or religion in it. It doesn't make them racist or sexist. It is called wanting to socialize with people you relate to. Women can still play at this club.

 

My kids can't apply for certain scholarships geared to African Americans, is this racist?

 

I can't go into a women's only gym, is this sexism?

 

I can never be a member at certain golf clubs because I can't afford it, is the discrimination against my social status?

 

People need to stop complaining and move on. Muirfield has my respect. They can do what they want.

 

This world is going to war against the white male and I am sick of it. Other groups can have their private memberships, but not rich white males. It is laughable. Shame on the Golf Channel this morning and other liberal media outlets making this non story a story.

[klbrown514]

IIRC their bylaws read "female at birth" which has been challenged a few times. Could not find definitive wording though.

 

Guys this whole thing will be gone in a few more years. The age of PC has taken over and anything that threatens the minority must not be allowed. :(

This is from 24 years ago-guessing Oakmont has changed since as well.

http://www.nytimes.c...t-say-some.html

 

Shilgy, you recall correctly--the "female by birth" thing is how it's worded and it has been challenged and upheld.

 

 

This was removed from the LPGA bylaws in 2010. So technically men can play on the LPGA.

[cxx]

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?

 

What kind of club do you belong to? My guess would be she just doesn't like golf and her friends don't play.

[peachfuzz]

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?

 

And you believe that forcing inclusion on private clubs will change the fact that there are so many miserable old men who play the game?

[Shilgy]

 

It's not Politically Correct, it's just correct. I really find the whole reason why some men appear to be threatened by women to be unfathomable. After all, this all about men. Why we can't just all think about each other as human beings instead of gender, I do not know. Politically correct or not, I challenge anyone to answer why that is so frightening to so many men.

Frightening? Not at all. Some of my best friends.....I kid. Unlike some posters, perhaps, I have no problem with them in the same club as I am. Our club has an abundance of women players. And no, they are not slow and many of them are a joy to play with. What I am protesting is those outside Muirfield trying to dictate in any form what THEIR membership should look like. There are plenty of things I am against, a couple of which are verboten subjects on wrx. And understandable so considering how some of these threads on other subjects go. They lost their rights to hold the Open. Now they are the same as any other single gender UK club. So railing on against them only could be considered discrimination-on your part.

[jmck]

It honestly blows my mind that anyone would think there is something wrong with this. This isn't sexism or discrimination. People are entitled to have a private club that allows a certain race, sex or religion in it. It doesn't make them racist or sexist. It is called wanting to socialize with people you relate to. Women can still play at this club.

 

My kids can't apply for certain scholarships geared to African Americans, is this racist?

 

I can't go into a women's only gym, is this sexism?

 

I can never be a member at certain golf clubs because I can't afford it, is the discrimination against my social status?

 

People need to stop complaining and move on. Muirfield has my respect. They can do what they want.

 

This world is going to war against the white male and I am sick of it. Other groups can have their private memberships, but not rich white males. It is laughable. Shame on the Golf Channel this morning and other liberal media outlets making this non story a story.

 

You should stop complaining and move on.

[tigerstew]

Any of you played behind a group of ladies? I see why they won't let them play. Before you think I'm being sexist......my girlfriend is a female woman with a v*****

 

Is that one of those passive brag things I've heard about? (BTW, you're a lucky man)(you are man, right?)

 

Just checked and I do have male genitalia. Women shouldn't be allowed to play golf. So f*****g slow. Unless they look like models then that would be great. But since most of them look like Laura Davis they should be banned

 

Is this real?

 

It is real that I typed it

[jay65]

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?

 

What kind of club do you belong to? My guess would be she just doesn't like golf and her friends don't play.

 

You predispose knowing my daughter better than me sir! You don't, period. But even if that were true, which it's not, maybe you should ask yourself, why her friends may not want to play either. Yes, perception. And for your info, I play all over the UK and especially Scotland, and have played at more than 100 Links Courses alone all over the UK. so feel that both me and my daughter are well served to comment.

[cxx]

So where does it all stop? I understand the original arguments that certain private clubs provide access to people with power and wealth and business deals are done there and excluding someone deprives them of this access. I suppose that is the damage that is done to someone who isn't allowed entry.

 

I don't understand the notion that it is somehow immoral to associate with people of your choosing. All private clubs discriminate. They choose their members.

 

So how about employers are they allowed to discriminate in hiring people? That is discriminate in the general sense not the moralistic one. Can they look at your grades or performance? Are they allowed to use personal hygiene or the way you dress as a criteria? Can they use the fact that an applicant showed up a half hour late or is that biased against the temporally disabled?