Muirfield Not Hosting Any Future Opens

[corky]

Their cLub, their rules, their loss of prestige,revenue,status.......would love to see the membership demographics published........bet at least 75% of them are over 55.......

 

 

[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?

Where the he** do you play.......I think you need to be worried about your course and leave Muirfield alone.

 

Obviously people are missing the point here and have mistaken what I have said somehow out of context. Let me make it clearer for you and the others that have made the same point. My daughter perception of golf is of miserable men dominating the environment. That feeling alone is obviously going to intimidate some people, and that alone, then effects their perception of the game. It's not just at my Club it's at every Club she has visited with me in the past, to the point now, where she simply will not come. It's about her perception. To you and many others that 'perception' may be mistaken of course, but to her it is, and it's that empathy to other peoples feelings that some people are missing.

 

This perception of the game of being an old mans' pastime, and full of angry men is there, people can stick their head in the sand as much as they want but those perceptions sadly exist. I would like those perceptions to change, but sadly it seems that by some of the comments on here, bigotry in the game still exist in spades, and those angry intimidating men that proliferate in the game are still there, and my daughters perceptions are well founded.

[elwhippy]

My City has women only gyms and fitness classes. Sometimes you want away from the opposite sex for a break, some decent lower decks type banter and a bit of old fashioned tradition. Muirfield is a oddity, like Augusta, Pine Valley and no doubt countless other courses across the planet.

 

Now as a Brit, half Scottish and at some time future visitor to the USA..........why can't I even get through the front gate at a lot of your private clubs? You can pay a green fee at Troon and Muirfeld and have lunch, drink a beer and have a look around....try that at Augusta, Quail Hollow etc.......what's that you drive a taxi? Don't want your type here matey? You play off plus 2? So what? Now here is Mr High Roller, off 28.....welcome sir, slurp, grovel, slurp etc ad nauseum.

I know the USGA are doing a great job using genuine public courses like Bethpage but the Tour should look at how many of their courses welcome un signed in guests and the less affluent....

[Tasals]

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... YOU!

 

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

 

Eh well the PGA allows female players who can qualify/get sponsors exemptions.

 

LPGA actively has rules barring male players...

[imakaveli]

I now expect Lundin Ladies Golf Club to allow man immediatly.

 

Anyway, if they really want the Open they should just admin the Queen and JK Rowling and they should be fine

[Langlands]

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (Muirfield is the name of the course they moved to in the late 19th century, not the club) was founded in 1744. The R&A was formed in 1754.

 

I'm not so sure that the decision taken by those members who objected to this change in their constitution (about 36%) was based around a desire to discriminate against women, rather than be told what to do or bow to pressure by the politicians of the day and/or organisation that hasn't been around for as long as they have. Not condoning their actions, just trying to suggest a different motive.

 

This is one of the oldest golf clubs in the world, and they are fiercely proud of the traditions & history they have. This is just an idea, I may be wrong. Don't shoot me for it.

[Lodestone]

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?

Where the he** do you play.......I think you need to be worried about your course and leave Muirfield alone.

 

Obviously people are missing the point here and have mistaken what I have said somehow out of context. Let me make it clearer for you and the others that have made the same point. My daughter perception of golf is of miserable men dominating the environment. That feeling alone is obviously going to intimidate some people, and that alone, then effects their perception of the game. It's not just at my Club it's at every Club she has visited with me in the past, to the point now, where she simply will not come. It's about her perception. To you and many others that 'perception' may be mistaken of course, but to her it is, and it's that empathy to other peoples feelings that some people are missing.

 

This perception of the game of being an old mans' pastime, and full of angry men is there, people can stick their head in the sand as much as they want but those perceptions sadly exist. I would like those perceptions to change, but sadly it seems that by some of the comments on here, bigotry in the game still exist in spades, and those angry intimidating men that proliferate in the game are still there, and my daughters perceptions are well founded.

 

Well, she is welcome to come to the munie where I play and be surrounded by a bunch of miserable younger men. And miserable younger women.

 

And she can learn, as I have, that golf is misery.

[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?

Where the he** do you play.......I think you need to be worried about your course and leave Muirfield alone.

 

Obviously people are missing the point here and have mistaken what I have said somehow out of context. Let me make it clearer for you and the others that have made the same point. My daughter perception of golf is of miserable men dominating the environment. That feeling alone is obviously going to intimidate some people, and that alone, then effects their perception of the game. It's not just at my Club it's at every Club she has visited with me in the past, to the point now, where she simply will not come. It's about her perception. To you and many others that 'perception' may be mistaken of course, but to her it is, and it's that empathy to other peoples feelings that some people are missing.

 

This perception of the game of being an old mans' pastime, and full of angry men is there, people can stick their head in the sand as much as they want but those perceptions sadly exist. I would like those perceptions to change, but sadly it seems that by some of the comments on here, bigotry in the game still exist in spades, and those angry intimidating men that proliferate in the game are still there, and my daughters perceptions are well founded.

 

Well, she is welcome to come to the munie where I play and be surrounded by a bunch of miserable younger men. And miserable younger women.

 

And she can learn, as I have, that golf is misery.

 

Very true. Perhaps that's why miserable people are so drawn to it in the first place and why some guard that misery with such vigor. Hey, maybe we have found the whole crux of this argument?? Lol. So it's no wonder that a bunch of insecure miserable men would be supporting 35% of the membership of a Club of a bunch of other insecure miserable men. Yeah, I get it now! Haha.

[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... YOU!

 

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

 

Eh well the PGA allows female players who can qualify/get sponsors exemptions.

 

LPGA actively has rules barring male players...

 

The LPGA and Murfield have absolutely nothing in common. Trying to draw similarities between these to entities is a false equivalency. They couldn't be more different. They share nothing in common.

[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?

 

Apparently better than you

 

I can agree with that since you used it so well. I'm going to use it in class as a text book example of a common fallacy.

[Vindog]

Not sure what the big deal is here..

 

When they voted not to let women join the club. The vote also included the US open. They weren't penalized, they voted not to have US open at their course..

 

You're right that in the grand scheme of golf, it is not a big deal; but it is being made a big deal by the media. The issue I often see with SJWs is that they will not stop until the private entity (Muirfield, in this case) has been prevented from exercising their will. Muirfield merely suffering the consequences for their actions, i.e., losing the Open, is not enough for SJWs. Instead, they want to see Muirfield succumb to the social pressures against their will by allowing women to join the club. "Victory" for SJWs is the oppression of those with whom they disagree.

 

Actually a pretty big deal if you ask me.

 

This directly affects such a minuscule percentage of the golfing population that it's hard to quantify just how little this should matter. I just asked my wife, who has no idea of his recent news, if she wanted to join Muirfield. She said no.

 

Is it now my job to feel oppressed for her...? :dntknw:

 

Who said that? It appears that The Golf Channel isn't the only one who is making a big deal out of what you think isn't a big deal. Just like nobody can force Muirfield to take female members, nobody is forcing you to watch the programming or even care.

[Chartridge82]

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.

 

Are you out of your mind? In this day in age a group of elite men have actively discriminated against 50% of the population and your response is 'good on Muirfield'. The majority of the British population is embarrassed that this is happening in our country. But hey, more power to them.

[tsecor]

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.

 

Are you out of your mind? In this day in age a group of elite men have actively discriminated against 50% of the population and your response is 'good on Muirfield'. The majority of the British population is embarrassed that this is happening in our country. But hey, more power to them.

 

its a straight embarrassment in todays world....anyone who thinks like the small minority of membership who voted NOT to allow women at Muirfield needs to look in their own mirror and progress into this century. The level of sexism engrained into the DNA of people is whats truly disturbing

[Chartridge82]

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.

[Chartridge82]

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (Muirfield is the name of the course they moved to in the late 19th century, not the club) was founded in 1744. The R&A was formed in 1754.

 

I'm not so sure that the decision taken by those members who objected to this change in their constitution (about 36%) was based around a desire to discriminate against women, rather than be told what to do or bow to pressure by the politicians of the day and/or organisation that hasn't been around for as long as they have. Not condoning their actions, just trying to suggest a different motive.

 

This is one of the oldest golf clubs in the world, and they are fiercely proud of the traditions & history they have. This is just an idea, I may be wrong. Don't shoot me for it.

 

While I respect the fact you are not defending them, jut playing devils advocate, I cant tell you how cross I am about this. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be prevented from doing something on the basis of gender, religion, race or anything else that people choose to differentiate about. I don't give a toss if they are protecting a tradition. Traditions fade out. We used to burn 'witches', it wasnt our greatest of moments in history, or our greatest tradition.

[SurfDuffer]

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.

 

Are you out of your mind? In this day in age a group of elite men have actively discriminated against 50% of the population and your response is 'good on Muirfield'. The majority of the British population is embarrassed that this is happening in our country. But hey, more power to them.

 

its a straight embarrassment in todays world....anyone who thinks like the small minority of membership who voted NOT to allow women at Muirfield needs to look in their own mirror and progress into this century. The level of sexism engrained into the DNA of people is whats truly disturbing

 

Oh Brother.

 

Tsecor: I respect your right to have a club of your own and only allow in those who you and your members wish and to keep out anyone you desire. That's not sexism or any other "ism". That's called FREEDOM!!!!!!!!

[SurfDuffer]

I play at a club that used to host tour events. I would say that there would be a good percentage of members who would vote no to bringing a tour event back due simply to the disruption to member's routines and the loss of a two weeks of the golf season and the damage to the course that goes with the equipment, stands and galleries trampling the place. I wonder if in the background this played a big role in the voting?

[SurfDuffer]

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.

 

On the flip side there is a club near me that traditionally catered to Jewish folks. Gentiles not likely to get in. That's their right. Its called freedom. I'm not going to cry that the only way for me to get on this course is to play in a charity event that a member there supports.

[Lodestone]

I don't see why anyone should care what private people do in their own private clubs. I can see why other entities such as the R&A, the USGA or the PGA would wish to distance themselves from certain practices based upon racial or gender discrimination, but as long as they aren't asking for public money, why should we care?

 

It's their club. Theirs. Not ours. Not my business, not my problem, not my decision how they want to run it.

[Frankensteins Monster]

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (Muirfield is the name of the course they moved to in the late 19th century, not the club) was founded in 1744. The R&A was formed in 1754.

 

I'm not so sure that the decision taken by those members who objected to this change in their constitution (about 36%) was based around a desire to discriminate against women, rather than be told what to do or bow to pressure by the politicians of the day and/or organisation that hasn't been around for as long as they have. Not condoning their actions, just trying to suggest a different motive.

 

This is one of the oldest golf clubs in the world, and they are fiercely proud of the traditions & history they have. This is just an idea, I may be wrong. Don't shoot me for it.

 

While I respect the fact you are not defending them, jut playing devils advocate, I cant tell you how cross I am about this. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be prevented from doing something on the basis of gender, religion, race or anything else that people choose to differentiate about. I don't give a toss if they are protecting a tradition. Traditions fade out. We used to burn 'witches', it wasnt our greatest of moments in history, or our greatest tradition.

 

On public land, sure. This isn't public land. This is a private club. There are numerous female only, private organizations in the United States that men cannot be a part of. They shouldn't be forced to allow men into them. That's their right.

 

Why can't men have their own organization to get away sometimes? Why can't women have their own organization to get away sometimes? Why is this a bad thing?

[MattTheTaff]

Good

 

At least someone has the balls not get on their knees and bow down to the Mighty Clam.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

Should really open up to women. It quickly becomes a sausage fest otherwise.

[HighSpeedScene]

It would not surprise me a great deal if the membership did not want the hassle of hosting the Open every 7 years or so and this was the easy way to tell the R&A no more.

that's intelligent......not

 

My post gets deleted and this stays? At least mine was funny and a joke.

 

Cripes

[Roadking2003]

Private club, they set their own rules and should not be penalized for that. The expected over reaction by media (GC) is starting. "Terrible day for golf." Really? The club has operated for over (500?) years. Without this club, we may not have golf.

 

If it were my club, I would allow women members. However, I also respect their right to choose who they want in their club. And I always like to see clubs thumb their noses at the establishment and the elites who want to tell others how to live their lives.

[tsecor]

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

[cxx]

The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers (Muirfield is the name of the course they moved to in the late 19th century, not the club) was founded in 1744. The R&A was formed in 1754.

 

I'm not so sure that the decision taken by those members who objected to this change in their constitution (about 36%) was based around a desire to discriminate against women, rather than be told what to do or bow to pressure by the politicians of the day and/or organisation that hasn't been around for as long as they have. Not condoning their actions, just trying to suggest a different motive.

 

This is one of the oldest golf clubs in the world, and they are fiercely proud of the traditions & history they have. This is just an idea, I may be wrong. Don't shoot me for it.

 

While I respect the fact you are not defending them, jut playing devils advocate, I cant tell you how cross I am about this. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be prevented from doing something on the basis of gender, religion, race or anything else that people choose to differentiate about. I don't give a toss if they are protecting a tradition. Traditions fade out. We used to burn 'witches', it wasnt our greatest of moments in history, or our greatest tradition.

 

Well how about rich or poor? Would the club have to invite candidates that can't afford it to join and subsidize them? How about crass or refined? Would they have to invite any foul mouthed person even though they offend the members? How about if the club was for reformed alcoholics. Would they be forced to accept drinking members and accommodate their habits?

 

How about person X who is a celebrity and is always pursued by the tabloids. Should they have to admit that person even though their presence would cause the club to be assaulted by snooping reporters day and night? Can you discriminate against famous celebrities?

[Roadking2003]

While I respect the fact you are not defending them, jut playing devils advocate, I cant tell you how cross I am about this. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be prevented from doing something on the basis of gender, religion, race or anything else that people choose to differentiate about. I don't give a toss if they are protecting a tradition. Traditions fade out. We used to burn 'witches', it wasnt our greatest of moments in history, or our greatest tradition.

 

I'll defend them. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be allowed to tell others how to live their lives. I should be allowed to choose whom I associate with for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all.

 

In my mind, it has nothing to do with tradition. It's about a person's individual rights.

[Roadking2003]

On public land, sure. This isn't public land. This is a private club. There are numerous female only, private organizations in the United States that men cannot be a part of. They shouldn't be forced to allow men into them. That's their right.

 

Why can't men have their own organization to get away sometimes? Why can't women have their own organization to get away sometimes? Why is this a bad thing?

 

It's not a bad thing. The "bad" part is the establishment trying to force people to associate with people they don't want in their club. Powerful people telling other people how to live their lives quite common and is nothing new.

[HighSpeedScene]

LOL at those that allege that any defense of muirfields right to make the decision means that they think it is "right" to discriminate against women.

 

Look, until you're a member, it's none of your business.

[Lodestone]

Good

 

At least someone has the balls not get on their knees and bow down to the Mighty Clam.

 

I kid, I kid.

 

Should really open up to women. It quickly becomes a sausage fest otherwise.

 

since we agree that such rules would "quickly" lead to a sausage fest, can you imagine what it's like after 3 or 4 centuries. I mean, I'm thinking an environment totally unsuited for the fairer sex. Foul language, off color jokes, passing gas at the table...all manner of disgustimundo. Like a 4 guy golf road trip that goes on for 400 years.....yech....

[sefus12]

While I respect the fact you are not defending them, jut playing devils advocate, I cant tell you how cross I am about this. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be prevented from doing something on the basis of gender, religion, race or anything else that people choose to differentiate about. I don't give a toss if they are protecting a tradition. Traditions fade out. We used to burn 'witches', it wasnt our greatest of moments in history, or our greatest tradition.

 

I'll defend them. I have a fundamental, unshakeable belief that no one individual should be allowed to tell others how to live their lives. I should be allowed to choose whom I associate with for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all.

 

In my mind, it has nothing to do with tradition. It's about a person's individual rights.

 

I agree with you. I understand why people are upset about Muirfield's decision, but it's no different than a gym (that you have to be accepted to/pay to be a member of) being only for women. Scream and cry about sexism all you want, but sometimes men just want to be around other men just like there are times women just want to be around other women. The club and its members, whether it be a private golf course or a private gym or whatever other private club we are referring to, has the right to make the rules about who can and can't join. If the policy is bad enough, they will lose members = losing money = making a decision whether to change the policy or staying the same and not being as successful.

 

I think in this day and age there's a certain part of the population who is simply looking for a reason to be "offended" and then moves to crush whatever offends them. That's at least part of what is going on here.