Muirfield Not Hosting Any Future Opens

[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?

 

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?

 

I don't give a rats a** how many miserable old men play the game, what I care about is why any man, woman, child, regardless of age colour or social standing is not allowed to join a Club for any of those reasons. Would any member of the HCEG who voted against women members be good enough to explain why exactly they voted in that manner, or are they too embarrassed? The answer 'because 35% of us can' withstanding of course?

[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.

 

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.

 

Is that true, the UK golf clubs are overrun with crotchety old men scaring little girls? Wow, not here. Junior programs have as many female participants as male and the number is large.

[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?

 

I don't give a rats a** how many miserable old men play the game, what I care about is why any man, woman, child, regardless of age colour or social standing is not allowed to join a Club for any of those reasons. Would any member of the HCEG who voted against women members be good enough to explain why exactly they voted in that manner, or are they too embarrassed? The answer 'because 35% of us can' withstanding of course?

 

If you don't give a rats a** about how many old men play the game then why bring your daughters disdain of their abundance?

 

If it were a public club, I'd be right there with you, but it's a private organization, so I couldn't care less how they run things. It isn't any of our business to even attempt to surmise as to why the members would vote a certain way.

 

Do you believe that all clubs should be public? That would make sense for your argument. It wouldn't be one I agree with, but I could at least understand your viewpoint in that case.

[jay65]

I think I will leave this debate now with a simple personal notion. I love women, and I have never felt threatened by them or felt that I had to choose my level of social comfort by gender. I find it very sad that so many men still feel so threatened and have to use weak excuses of 'social comfort', when the very women those men are married to presumably are at the same social comfort level one would assume. Otherwise they wouldn't have married them.

 

Sure women are allowed to be good loyal wives, who cook clean, iron and behave impeccably in public. They go through immeasurable pain to have our children. They're also allowed to clean the dirty toilets of men who can't aim with any skill in the Clubhouse toilets, but woe betide that they should be members of our Golf Club, that would be just too much. Jeeez!

 

As I have said in a previous post, and FWIW any form of discrimination is abhorrent to me, and why I think I will leave this thread for you guys to thrash it out and change the world. Good luck guys.

[sjt4718]

Good on them. 99 percent of the women I have played with were horrible the other 1 percent were two trannies who were awesome.

[jmck]

 

If you don't give a rats a** about how many old men play the game then why bring your daughters disdain of their abundance?

 

If it were a public club, I'd be right there with you, but it's a private organization, so I couldn't care less how they run things. It isn't any of our business to even attempt to surmise as to why the members would vote a certain way.

 

Do you believe that all clubs should be public? That would make sense for your argument. It wouldn't be one I agree with, but I could at least understand your viewpoint in that case.

 

The R&A is a private club too. They get to make their own decisions, just like Muirfield does. And as old as Muirfield is the R&A predates Muirfield by at least 100 years.

 

Muirfield made their decision. The R&A made their decision. If you don't like it take it up with the R&A. No one is forcing Muirfield to admit women. No one is forcing the R&A to hold Opens at clubs that don't admit women. The R&A made that choice on their own, and the amount of complaining about it in this thread--directed at all the wrong places--is truly spectacular.

[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?

 

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?

 

I don't give a rats a** how many miserable old men play the game, what I care about is why any man, woman, child, regardless of age colour or social standing is not allowed to join a Club for any of those reasons. Would any member of the HCEG who voted against women members be good enough to explain why exactly they voted in that manner, or are they too embarrassed? The answer 'because 35% of us can' withstanding of course?

 

If you don't give a rats a** about how many old men play the game then why bring your daughters disdain of their abundance?

 

If it were a public club, I'd be right there with you, but it's a private organization, so I couldn't care less how they run things. It isn't any of our business to even attempt to surmise as to why the members would vote a certain way.

 

Do you believe that all clubs should be public? That would make sense for your argument. It wouldn't be one I agree with, but I could at least understand your viewpoint in that case.

 

 

I bring up my daughters disdain because that is her only perception she has. Crotchety men control the Clubs and proliferate and make themselves known to a larger extent than any other group of Golfers, so its obvious she will be influenced by that and let it influence her judgement.

 

And to quickly answer your question re all clubs being public. No, private Clubs are fine by me, but not ones who discriminate their membership by age, race, gender or social standing.

 

As I said, I have very little else to add to the thread that I haven't already said, but valued the cordiality in the discussion. Thank you to you all, regardless of what side of the fence you're on re this topic.

[RH82]

Good. Long over due.

[Shilgy]

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?

Then find a club that is more children friendly. Our club is. Do not force your beliefs or needs on others.

[Shilgy]

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.

I do not believe so. Could be wrong. Just the at birth was removed.

 

http://espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=5869693

 

https://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/29/playing-it-straight-lpgas-female-by-birth-rule-challenged/

[Shilgy]

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?

 

I don't give a rats a** how many miserable old men play the game, what I care about is why any man, woman, child, regardless of age colour or social standing is not allowed to join a Club for any of those reasons. Would any member of the HCEG who voted against women members be good enough to explain why exactly they voted in that manner, or are they too embarrassed? The answer 'because 35% of us can' withstanding of course?

I guess you could get her a membership at one of the womens clubs.

 

And yes that is a bit sarcastic but I am sure you can find a club near you that you daughter will grow to love the game. How close are you to Muirfield? Must be nice living there. We visited last summer for the Open and really enjoyed it.

[HighSpeedScene]

BTW, isn't arpeggi overdue for a presence in this thread?

[legitimategolf]

This news actually makes me a little sad for Phil. Muirfield was arguably the most sensational win of his career. Now he'll never get to contend for another jug there.

[Sira]

Meh, private org (Muirfield) v. private org (R&A), both are free to choose whatever they want to do.

Growing up playing with my mom and sister (and dad and bro), I tend to support an all-inclusive clubs more.

 

I almost wish August reverts back to their non-black, non-female policy though, just to see how wrx would explode lol.

[carn9698]

It's exclusive attitude has always turned me off. I know it's rated highly as probably the top open venue, but from the TV it has never excited me. When they grow the rough up high I believe it's tough. For me Carnoustie, Birkdale, St Andrews and Turnberry are the best open courses.

[carn9698]

This news actually makes me a little sad for Phil. Muirfield was arguably the most sensational win of his career. Now he'll never get to contend for another jug there.

his back 9 was outrageously good that last day.

[MMB1500]

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.

 

Is that true, the UK golf clubs are overrun with crotchety old men scaring little girls? Wow, not here. Junior programs have as many female participants as male and the number is large.

 

It used to be. It's getting better. I played a lot of junior golf at my club (I was actually Junior Captain, though not because of my playing ability). I was only ever treated like dirt by the Seniors (i.e. old white men), who seemed to be very angry that anyone young or female would dare to be on a golf course.

 

Like I say, things are changing, but unfortunately that attitude still prevails amongst a lot of older members.

[elwhippy]

Muirfield is our Augusta. The world we know stops at their gates. Old fashioned Scottish snobbery at its finest. The sad thing is Muirfield is a masterpiece and Portrush is not fit to replace it even with the R&A throwing money at it to build new holes etc. The thoughts in our club house this evening were all supportive of them BTW.

[Vindog]

It is no secret that the game of golf suffers an image problem. This issue is a polarizing one, and people are free to feel as they wish, but what i find starkly troubling is that many of the people who feel compelled to take up the fight for Muirfield have a) no chance of being a member there and; b) don't really stand much chance of being discriminated against, luckily for them.

 

And if you somehow feel like Muirfied shouldn't be penalized for exercising its rights as a private entity, how do you feel about women being penalized for how they are born? Just food for thought.

[Frankensteins Monster]

Looks like the R&A went full SJW. I fully expect the LPGA to allow men, effective immediately.

And the winner of false equivalency of the day today is...

I agree with Murfiled. They're a private club and can handle their membership as they please.

 

Well congrats winning of idiot of the day, I agree with Murfield's decision too, jackass.

 

And regardless, there's no false equivalence there brainchild.

 

I know you support Murfield's decision. That has absolutely nothing to do with your false equivalence. Do you know the definition of false equivalence?

[Dave230]

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.

[HighSpeedScene]

Thinking about changing my handle to FalseEquivalence after this thread

[Vindog]

Thinking about changing my handle to FalseEquivalence after this thread

 

That's already my band's name, brah.

[MadGolfer76]

Haha...what a thread this is. I get the feeling there are a whole lot of people in this thread still carrying a grudge against their parents for making them finish their vegetables.

 

"I don't wanna, but I don't have a good enough reason..!" :aggressive:

[homeontherange]

Looks like the R&A went full SJW. I fully expect the LPGA to allow men, effective immediately.

And the winner of false equivalency of the day today is...

I agree with Murfiled. They're a private club and can handle their membership as they please.

 

Well congrats winning of idiot of the day, I agree with Murfield's decision too, jackass.

 

And regardless, there's no false equivalence there brainchild.

 

I know you support Murfield's decision. That has absolutely nothing to do with your false equivalence. Do you know the definition of false equivalence?

 

Apparently better than you

[shortgame85]

Who really cares when the UK will be ruled by sharia law in the near future perpetuated by the fear of possibly offending someone.

 

What the hell kind of comment is that?

 

Village idiot's lose.

 

I really hate being a grammar nazi but this one I can't help.

 

*loose

This made me really laugh!!!! Wonderful!!!

[Lodestone]

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

 

Donald!!! I always knew you were a WRXer.

[Shilgy]

Who really cares when the UK will be ruled by sharia law in the near future perpetuated by the fear of possibly offending someone.

 

What the hell kind of comment is that?

 

Village idiot's lose.

 

I really hate being a grammar nazi but this one I can't help.

 

*loose

This made me really laugh!!!! Wonderful!!!

But in all fairness to the other poster village idiots do generally lose. They are not just let loose. :)

[hogans71]

Guess the masters should relocate as well...oh wait, they have a token black/female member so they're covered. What a crock.

 

Nobody is forcing anyone to play at Augusta- it's an invitational. No golf ruling body's have any say on the who, what, why and where of this event.

 

Muirfield should have every right to allow for their membership to consist of whomever they want. The R&A should be allowed to make the very decision they're making right now. I cannot believe people have an issue with either side...

 

 

My issue is we have lost a fantastic course from the rota with potentially Troon and Turnberry as well.

 

I am saddened that the R&A have been pressured into taking this stance.

I do think they had to make their own membership open to all but I strongly disagree they should take in to account how a private club decides to go about it's business.

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

 

Well said..

[PepsiDuck]

It is no secret that the game of golf suffers an image problem. This issue is a polarizing one, and people are free to feel as they wish, but what i find starkly troubling is that many of the people who feel compelled to take up the fight for Muirfield have a) no chance of being a member there and; b) don't really stand much chance of being discriminated against, luckily for them.

 

And if you somehow feel like Muirfied shouldn't be penalized for exercising its rights as a private entity, how do you feel about women being penalized for how they are born? Just food for thought.

 

....or c) have absolutely no vested interest in golf. This is just the flavor of the week for SJWs who have no personal tie or interest in the "activism" they purport to support. Although not a perfect analogy, this is similar to the Washington Redskins fiasco that I was reminded of today after a new poll was released reporting that 90% of Native Americans surveyed were not offended by the team name.

 

The population of golfers is likely to be considerably smaller than the population of non-golfers, so organizations like the USGA and R&A have more to lose by not bending to the will of modern PC culture. Better to upset the bonafide golfers than upset the more vocal and vitriolic SJW population.