I am really starting to hate this woman.

[Tarkus]

"(Augusta National) should not be shocked by the KKK's endorsement," Burk told the newspaper. "They have behaved in a manner that attracts this type of support. They are going to have a real circus if this goes on.

"If I was Augusta National, I would spare my golfers, my members, my patrons, the city and citizens of Augusta, and the tournament all the trouble by simply opening membership immediately to women or announcing a plan to do so in a reasonable amount of time."

Stupid bitch. Now, because Augusta wants to keep their mens only club they are attractive to the KKK. What an idiot.

Tarkus

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Tarkus


Stupid bitch. Now, because Augusta wants to keep their mens only club they are attractive to the KKK. What an idiot.

Tarkus

Uh... Yeah. That seems to be what the KKK is saying:

A Ku Klux Klan group has asked for a permit to demonstrate in support of Augusta National Golf Club's right to an all-male membership, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Friday.

"We intend on making speeches and picketing for the right of the Augusta National Club to include only members of their choice regardless of race, religion, sex or creed,'' said J.J. Harper, identified by the newspaper as the imperial wizard of the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

[sachmo71]

Don't hold back now, Tarkus! :D

Who said this and what were they talking about? Could you post a link to the article or post it so I can read the whole thing?

[Bishop]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Don't hold back now, Tarkus! :D

Who said this and what were they talking about? Could you post a link to the article or post it so I can read the whole thing?



http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1515675

[RendeR]

I have to admit, I'm very angry about this as well. This is a private establishment, and as far as I've seen a private business has always retained the right to refuse service to whomever they choose.

The club was created, maintained and flourished for this many years as a male only country club. Why the hell should they be forced to accept female members? They aren't saying you can't join a country club at all, they are simply saying you can't join that one.

I don't give a rats ass about the KKK, they are honestly groping at anything to get their name in the paper. They've become a laughingstock and one I hope will soon fade away into antiquity.

Augusta has every right to maintain their male only membership. Now if they accepted tax money to maintain the place I might change my mind, but I shudder to think that anyone with enough money to be a member would allow the club to fall into that trap.

Private means private, they don't have to share if they don't want to share. period. When this woman builds her own golf course and country club, I encourage her to accept only female members. Or whomever she feels she wants as members.

Until then she should shut the hell up about it and get a life.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by Tarkus
"(Augusta National) should not be shocked by the KKK's endorsement," Burk told the newspaper. "They have behaved in a manner that attracts this type of support. They are going to have a real circus if this goes on.

"If I was Augusta National, I would spare my golfers, my members, my patrons, the city and citizens of Augusta, and the tournament all the trouble by simply opening membership immediately to women or announcing a plan to do so in a reasonable amount of time."

Stupid bitch. Now, because Augusta wants to keep their mens only club they are attractive to the KKK. What an idiot.

Tarkus

No offense meant by this at all. I am legitametly curious as to why this seems to be such an emotional issue with people. I don't give a rat's ass about golf, so I really don't care. I understand and agree with the "it's a private club" argument, but is that argument the root of all the hostility?

I guess I want to know why this is SUCH a hotbutton issue.

[RendeR]

OMG, I'm not the only person who uses "I don't give a rat's Ass"???


thanks man ! =)

[John Galt]

Yeah, this is just freakin ridiculous.

I mean this is a PRIVATE club. If I want to get together with my other white, male, heterosexual friends, then I should be able to without those "bitches" "darkies" and "fags" around. I mean there is no harm in me getting together with those like me and excluding those that aren't. When will this political correctness stop?

Sure, I may talk about business at the club and make connections that allow me to get a leg up on the competition. Yeah, this "private" club isn't that different from the "private" company I work it. Come to think of it, why don't we stop hiring women? Who needs them anyway?

Now that I think about it, let's change all our "private" organizations to exclude women. I mean, they are "private" after all. Women can form their own "private" clubs. Why wouldn't that work? Sure, the fact that men run most of the businesses in the U.S. and own most of the wealth means women may not have access to them, but that just means they have to try harder. After all I earned all my wealth, didn't I?

And who cares that this is the most famous "private" golf club in America and that it is broadcast into every TV across the land. I'm not responsible for the messages that are sent by my "private" club.

It's mine - and I don't want "bitches" in it. So just leave me alone. I'm going to my club to hang with the KKK.

[DeToxRox]

Rick Reily, a writer I don't always agree with, tried getting membership into an all female club in Toronto, and was denined. Where was Martha Burke there?

Martha Burke is a hypocritical, Lifetime Movie of the Week bitch.

[CamEdwards]

John, you poor misguided piece of flesh.

First of all, let's note who's using the word bitches, darkies, and fags.

It's not Hootie Johnson, my friend... it's you.

Second of all, who does care that this is most famous private golf club in America? I mean, good lord, I guess if they're going to let women in, they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of socio-economic level either, right? I've got five bucks, let me join Augusta.

There is a HUGE difference between a private golf club and a company, not the least of which is that there are laws governing discrimination in the workplace, whereas the Supreme Court has already determined private clubs have a right to allow whomever they want.

[Kodos]

Originally posted by John Galt
Yeah, this is just freakin ridiculous.

I mean this is a PRIVATE club. If I want to get together with my other white, male, heterosexual friends, then I should be able to without those "bitches" "darkies" and "fags" around. I mean there is no harm in me getting together with those like me and excluding those that aren't. When will this political correctness stop?

Sure, I may talk about business at the club and make connections that allow me to get a leg up on the competition. Yeah, this "private" club isn't that different from the "private" company I work it. Come to think of it, why don't we stop hiring women? Who needs them anyway?

Now that I think about it, let's change all our "private" organizations to exclude women. I mean, they are "private" after all. Women can form their own "private" clubs. Why wouldn't that work? Sure, the fact that men run most of the businesses in the U.S. and own most of the wealth means women may not have access to them, but that just means they have to try harder. After all I earned all my wealth, didn't I?

And who cares that this is the most famous "private" golf club in America and that it is broadcast into every TV across the land. I'm not responsible for the messages that are sent by my "private" club.

It's mine - and I don't want "bitches" in it. So just leave me alone. I'm going to my club to hang with the KKK.

RonnieDobbs:

I think it is people throwing hissy fits like this that annoys most of the people who otherwise wouldn't give a rat's ass about this entire issue. Like myself, for instance. I don't care about golf or Augusta, but I do get annoyed with the people who are making such a big deal out of something that really isn't. Surely there are more important things to worry about at the moment than whether a bunch of rich white male snobs want to play with themselves all alone. Hey, they would never want me in their club either, but the thing is: I just don't give a rat's ass. (I use that phrase a lot too!)

[rkmsuf]

Part of the issue of making it annoying is that it has gotten to a point of being a pissing match. I don't even think Martha Burke really cares about the issue anymore...she just wants to win. So does Hoottie. Whether there are or aren't women is secondary to the fight itself since at this point any women member would be just a token gesture...

[Qwikshot]

I can't wait...I wish I could go back to college, I'd go to an all girls school...I wish I was talented enough I'd play in the LPGA, on the WNBA...I have no problem if women want equality but then it's gotta be completely equal...while were at it, get some of those women on the front lines when the shit goes down in Iraq...

The KKK are a joke, but they've effectively forced the hand of the Augusta people, it was only a matter of time before the KKK would join in and put their two cents in...now Augusta has to consider whether or not to be considered sexist and racist, or neither.

[Bonegavel]

I agree with Cam.

John, I am slowly understanding why you occasionally post the powder-keg-threads that you do. This is seriously what you think about people that disagree with your leftist ideology?

[RendeR]

John,

the difference being argued here between private club membership and a company HIRING policy would seem to be obvious to most people. Perhaps I am mistaken. its happened before. So let me clarify this.

The Government has mandated that you cannot discriminate during the hiring process because that directly limits a persons ability to strive for life liberty adn the persuit of a mid day meal.

Purchasing a membership to a country club does NOT, in any way, limit or damage your ability to live, persue, and gain a lierated Free lifestyle. A membership to a country club is a commodity, its an item you purchase. its a thing. It is not a requirement for livelihood. This woman will still be able to live her pampered life, do whatever employment or social functions she desires, with or without a country club membership.

She does not have a RIGHT to a membership to any specific location. This is why I emphasize the "Private" part of that statement. this is not a corporation which is hiring this women. This is a candy store saying, "Hey, I'm only selling my candy to men" this is completely within the candy stores rights, and if the candy store can stay in business this way, they have every right to continue doing business the way they see fit.

I have not at this point, heard anything about Augusta National's hiring practices, do they have female employees? if not, then perhaps this women should apply for a JOB. Because that, IMHO, will be the only way she can claim a RIGHT to be considered.

[John Galt]

John, you poor misguided piece of flesh.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but it sounds pretty rude. I've said nothing personal about you, can you return the favor.

First of all, let's note who's using the word bitches, darkies, and fags.

Actually, "bitch" has been used by a couple people in this thread before me. Or is just ok to call women who argue for a cause a "bitch?"

I wrote a satirical post that argues that calling women "bitches" to dismiss them is the same as other slurs. In order to that, I have to use the slurs. I use scare quotes to show they are not words I endorse and find offensive.

Second of all, who does care that this is most famous private golf club in America? I mean, good lord, I guess if they're going to let women in, they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of socio-economic level either, right? I've got five bucks, let me join Augusta.

No, they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of socio-economic class, but the nature of business means they have to charge for admittance. If people can't afford it, then that is sad, but not discrimination. Excluding women from the club is not based on a good "economic" reason (just the same argument that keeps white men as news anchors on TV - because a portion of the public wants it that way).

There is a HUGE difference between a private golf club and a company, not the least of which is that there are laws governing discrimination in the workplace, whereas the Supreme Court has already determined private clubs have a right to allow whomever they want.

And the Supreme Court is never wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson was right on target when it said separate was equal!?!? And to deny that clubs are a major part of business life for men is nonsense. Most memberships at top clubs are paid by companies for their executives to make connections with others in the industy. As someone in the law, I know how screwed lawyers would be if they didn't make connections at exclusive social events like golf outings and cocktail parties. Women lose out on those connections when they can't join the rich boys clubs.

[John Galt]

This is seriously what you think about people that disagree with your leftist ideology?

I just want to state again, for the record, that I am not a leftist and am certainly a democrat. I just happen to believe that diversity and tolerance have a lot of value and that privilege and discrimination are a sad part of Moden America. I know lots of people on this board like to use "leftist" and "politically correct" as though they were swear words. I am neither politically correct nor leftist - I just happen to be someone who argues against discrimination.

And my post was just taking a satirical tact - it wasn't meant to be a powderkeg. I'm just following in the tradition of Swift with my own modest proposal.

[rkmsuf]

No, they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of socio-economic class, but the nature of business means they have to charge for admittance. If people can't afford it, then that is sad, but not discrimination. Excluding women from the club is not based on a good "economic" reason (just the same argument that keeps white men as news anchors on TV - because a portion of the public wants it that way).

Do you really believe the reason they charge extremely high entrance fees is because they have to mow the grass and clean the pool?

[Kodos]

John: I think that once again your condescending manner of communication is hampering your ability to get your point across. You may even have some valid points, but the way you argue them only serves to alienate the people you are trying to reach.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Lordy John, what in heaven's name possessed you to use the moniker John Galt? Sometimes I just shake my head, he is about 178 degrees the other way. :)

You keep on truckin though.

[John Galt]

RendeR, I think the above post answered your argument and I couldn't seem to get yours to Quote right. Anyway, I think clubs are both a commodity and a business area. Executives, lawyers, and other professionals rely heavily (almost exclusively) on social events and clubs to find clients and make contacts. Denying women those opportunities has the same effect as denying them advancement at their jobs.

[John Galt]

Do you really believe the reason they charge extremely high entrance fees is because they have to mow the grass and clean the pool?

No, but "prestige" and "name" factor into economic value. Otherwise Ralph Lauren would be out of business. Our economy isn't really composed of people making "rational" choices.

John: I think that once again your condescending manner of communication is hampering your ability to get your point across. You may even have some valid points, but the way you argue them only serves to alienate the people you are trying to reach.

Kodos, I appreciate you saying this, but I've run out of ideas about what to do. I can't seem to write without people thinking I'm being an ass or condescending. Believe me, I've tried. Maybe it is as someone has said on this board that lawyers just learn to write a certain way and they can't get out of it. I actually wrote my original post as satire hoping a different technique would prevent me from coming off the wrong way. I guess I failed again. And one other related point - I get called many things in the political threads I get involved in, yet I don't ever make it personal (except maybe once with Skippy). It just seems strange that people worry about my "condescending tone" when I get slurred and attack (what the hell is a "piece of flesh" supposed to mean anyway?). I do appreciate your comments and would welcome any advice.

[RonnieDobbs]

John: Do you also feel that all fraternities should become coeducational? It seems to be a pretty legit comparison, with the arguments about making connections and future financial gain.

[Marmel]

We are all just pieces of flesh (and bone, and blood, and...)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
John: Do you also feel that all fraternities should become coeducational? It seems to be a pretty legit comparison, with the arguments about making connections and future financial gain.

Yes (or eliminated altogether).

[rkmsuf]

FWIW

I'd submit that "piece of flesh" is someone else's form of satire. I've never known Cam to be mean spirited. Maybe aggressive disagreement with your point isn't necessarily attacking you.

To the issue

Maybe someday we'll all be wearing unisex jumpsuits and using phrases like "Be well John Spartan" but for now it's just not like that.

Reality is that men and women are not the same. We don't have A Club. We have a Boys Club and a Girls Club. We have Scouts and we have Brownies. We have men's bathrooms and women's bathrooms...

If the concern is that corporate america is preventing women from succeeding then that is where the focus should go. We should be critical of the corporations choosing to exclude women be it overtly or covertly through exclusive social circles.

[RendeR]

But you must realize also john, that the club is not a requirement for any of that. if these clubs never existed, those jobs and contacts and backside trades would still continue.

I honestly do agree with you that those things do go on and are a large part of business for some people. I do not agree that they make or break anyone's career. So this particular woman is not allowed to be a member of the club, so what? if she has male friends who are members she can enjoy the club as often as she and her friend wish, thereby gaining access to those very same contacts.

What she is demanding is full membership. I simply cannot agree that she has any right to such a thing. I would love a country club membership, I am male. I will never see such a membership for any number of reasons, from socio-economic, to political attitude, to the fact that I hate suits and wouldn't wear them jsut because some fancy ass said I had to. my life will not be damaged for not having that membership, nor will I go without the ability to schmooze at that club because I have no way to get inside, I can always call a friend who is a member or contact the club for open visitation dates (which I believe Augusta does offer).

If I decide to open a football fan club, I pay to build a facility, hire staff and maintain the place. Why can I then not make policy for who should be allowed to use MY facility? Its no different for Augusta national, they have a board of directors, the club is not publicly funded in any way, they have every right in the world to say "NO" to female memberships. I'm sorry you feel that this is somehow putting women down, or making them less of a human being, but its not. Its a place created by a small group, to cater to that group and maintained by that group. She doesn't have a case.

By this same token the KKK does not allow blacks to be members. Would you argue that they must be forced to accept non-whites into their group? Its a privately funded organization. They have the right to delineate their membership, just as Augusta national does.

I personally think the KKK is laughable and that it really will die someday. I can hope at least. I try my best to be as open minded as possible about almost everything around me. Things may annoy me and piss me off, however, as long as they are doing what is legally their right to do. I can't say that they're wrong. I can always disagree with them. But I can't step out and sue them to try and force them to conform to what *I* believe is right.

If Augusta National is forced to allow female memberships a vital and very core freedom that this Nation and our society in general is based upon will begin to fail completely. Every person in the world has a right to decide who they will socialize with, play golf with, take a bath with, get drunk with or have dinner with. No-one, not you, not me, not the government should be allowed to step in and tell me, you or the groups of people we want to belong to, that we must tolerate something we choose NOT to tolerate in a social environment. Rules about discrimination are in place to protect peoples livelihoods, to create opportunities for people to advance in their chosen profession. It is not there to tell a bunch of old white redneck golfers that they have to allow a woman to sip gin in their club.

[Mustang]

Originally posted by John Galt
Anyway, I think clubs are both a commodity and a business area. Executives, lawyers, and other professionals rely heavily (almost exclusively) on social events and clubs to find clients and make contacts.

And women can't open their own golf club because....... ???

[digamma]

Don't be fooled, Hootie has had plenty to do with why this has gotten so much press.

[Samdari]

Here's the thing John, and please don' t think I endorse the ideology of exclusion, but every citizen has the right to think what they want and associate with who (whom? grammar help please) they want. If a bunch of crotchety old southern men want to think of women as a lesser sex, or other races, religions, sexual orientations, etc., as less than their own, it is their right to do so. As long as they are not operating a facility where the general public is welcome, the law gives them the right to exclude whoever they want. Hell, I'm a white protestant, and they're sure as hell going to spend eternity excluding me. I've decided to not let it bother me, and support these morons' right to be so very wrong.

[Tarkus]

I just have one more question, "Did we kick John Galt off the Island yet?" :p

Tarkus

[RonnieDobbs]

I guess I'm agreeing with Kodos. Why is this such a huge deal? It just seems to be attracting publicity hounds.

I happen to know of plenty of very successful men and women who have never been a member of Augusta.

[CamEdwards]

Piece of flesh wasn't meant to be mean, but I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Your argument is flawed, as far as the economics go. Obviously there is a huge demand to be a part of Augusta, which allows them to charge outrageous admittance fees. But if they were REQUIRED to admit women, admit blacks, admit gays, admit lesbians, admit one armed Venezuelan men named Jorge... well, all of a sudden the club becomes a heck of a lot bigger and they should be able to charge less money to be a member. Therefore, by your argument, they should open the doors to everyone and charge 5 bucks a head. It's discrimination, pure and simple, that keeps me out of Augusta.

You say your against discrimination, and that's a noble cause... but the last time I checked we in America don't force others to be friends with people we don't want to be friends with. This has nothing to do with hiring... again, it's a private club. I say this as someone who fights against discrimination every day for the sake of my kids.

Would I belong to Augusta? Nope. I don't like their discriminatory practices. Do I think people like Martha Burke should point out what members belong to Augusta? Yep.

But do I defend Augusta's right to be sexist? Absolutely.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Would I belong to Augusta? Nope. I don't like their discriminatory practices. Do I think people like Martha Burke should point out what members belong to Augusta? Yep.

But do I defend Augusta's right to be sexist? Absolutely. Well said Cam. VERY well said.

[Mountain]

And John, always remember, the Supreme Court is not final because they are right, they are right because they are final.

[Maple Leafs]

John Galt, I don't claim to have read everything you've posted here so I have no idea whether this is your typical style or you're just having a bad day. But allow me to vent for a minute...
Originally posted by John Galt
Yeah, this is just freakin ridiculous... (etc., etc.)
What is it about the Internet and this type of argument? It seems like people think it's really clever to do the old "pretend to agree, then go off on an over-the-top tangent" routine?

Person 1: I like vanilla ice cream.
Person 2: I like vanilla ice cream too. In fact, why don't we all eat vanilla ice cream and then skin some puppies? After all, that way there would be more vanilla ice cream for us... etc.

Are the rest of us supposed to sit there going "wow, his clever satire really held up a mirror in front of us, causing us to re-examine the evil views we didn't even know we had"?

Take any discussion on any issue, and someone will pull this one out of their bag of tricks. The only thing that unites them is that they'll inevitably defend their "satire" by comparing themselves to Jonathan Swift.

[Tarkus]

What I wonder is why Martha is so focused on Augusta. Could it be for self advancement and notoriety? Maybe she figures that will provide her the most limelight. I wonder if she realizes there are many other men's golf clubs, and many of them don't even allow women to play. At Augusta women play all the time. If it were really the principle wouldn't she go after the clubs that don't even allow women in parking lot?

Tarkus

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Well said Cam. VERY well said.

Agreed.

I've been wondering just how far and how long this will go. Hootie's already pulled advertisements. I wonder if out of principle he would ever pull the plug on the tournament (ok, that's an apocalyptic result as far as golf is concerned, but what recourse would Martha have then)?

[GrantDawg]

Ps. to all this...

The reason that the Clan is protesting really stems from the fact Jessie Jackson has said he'll be a part of the Burke protest. Before that, they were not interested. The racist jerks are just being true to form.

[JPhillips]

Cam: I don't think we agree on things very often, but on this we are on the same page.

I don'y have any problem with what Burke is doing. She has every right to organize protests and boycotts. She can yell and scream and do whatever she wants provided she violates no laws. Augusta, thoug, has every right to say "Screw you we are staying all-male." I don't agree with them, but as a private club they can be exclusionary.

They don't, however, have a right to be free from criticism. Let this play out and Augusta will either change or suffer the consequences of their decision. Either way its still going to be a haven for the ultra-rich and most of us will be excluded regardless of sex.

[Ryan S]

Has Augusta National ever said it would never consider a female member?

If not, I don't know why everyone is getting worked up about it.

Seems to me like Ms Burk is trying to make a name for herself, and attacking a club she knows the public will not support.

[mckerney]

The whole issue is kind of funny. They want the club to stop discriminating against women so a woman can become a member and join in on discriminating against people who aren't rich and don't have high social stature.



Though maybe the issue would be settled if they reopened the Gold Club.

[sterlingice]

I just don't give a rat's ass. (I use that phrase a lot too!)

I don't think that's a very unique phrase. I use it and a couple of friends I know do as well.

Maybe someday we'll all be wearing unisex jumpsuits and using phrases like "Be well John Spartan" but for now it's just not like that.
ROFLMAO! I saw that rececently when it was on TBS or something like that late at night. Still one of the best historical examples of a prodect placement in that movie, btw. That movie helped make Taco Bell what it is today.

but every citizen has the right to think what they want and associate with who (whom? grammar help please) they want.
It would be whom. Whomever would sound better, but you get the idea. It's an objective pronoun because it is the object of a preposition.

What I wonder is why Martha is so focused on Augusta. Could it be for self advancement and notoriety? Maybe she figures that will provide her the most limelight. I wonder if she realizes there are many other men's golf clubs, and many of them don't even allow women to play. At Augusta women play all the time. If it were really the principle wouldn't she go after the clubs that don't even allow women in parking lot?
Is there even a doubt that this is what she is doing?

SI

[oykib]

I have to agree with John on almost all of his points. He hasn't explicitly said that Augusta should be forced by law to accept female members.

But the thread was started with complaints about this 'bitch', who won't shut up. I think that's a problem. She should be able to exert any and all civil and media pressure to try to right what she feels is wrong.

As most of you would admit, this exclusionary business is wrong, even though it's not criminal. Why shouldn't she be able to shout about it?

[Leonidas]

I think this is all a hoot (no pun intended to Hootie, no really). Can you just imagine the board members at Augusta convening this week.

Some flunky comes up to Hootie: "Uh sir, the Klan is now protesting."

Hootie: "Protesting what boy?"

Flunky: "Uh, sir, they are protesting for us, against the les, I mean women."

Hootie: "Aww shit!"

[kcchief19]

So many people have completely misunderstood and misrepresented what this is about. No one leading this debat, especially Martha Burke, has ever said that Augusta has a legal obligation to let women or anyone else into their club. Just the opposite -- Augusta would appear to have a very clear right to keep the club men only.

The question from the very beginning has been SHOULD they keep it men only. That's an entirely different question.

Comparisons between Augusta and other club or organization is completely irrelevant. You cannot compare anything else to Augusta because Augusta is the alpha dog -- it's the best of the best. Martha Burke isn't trying to play bingo at the VFW Hall in Bumblefuck, Iowa. She's trying to get women allowed to be members and PLAY at the most renowed golf club in the country.

Letting women into Augusta is the right thing to do.

[CamEdwards]

caving into public pressure, allowing others to ramrod their idea of what is right and wrong down your throat, letting people trample over the idea that we have an inalienable right to be asshats... how is that ever the right thing to do?

Again, I think if Martha Burke wants to protest, let her, but she's protesting a basic American right. Hootie and the Blowhards will NEVER back down now, even though they were already talking with at least one woman about joining Augusta when Ms. Burke started her yapping.

[Fritz]

WE MUST HOMOGENIZE SOCIETY

[Joe Canadian]

I've said this again and again... if you are going to limit membership by gender don't be suprised if you're called a sexist, or compared to another prejudice group.

Every "private" club has the right to limit membership all they want based on whatever criteria they want. I agree 100% with that... thats what makes or society free. All I'm saying is that if you are going to limit membership based on sex, don't complain that people call you a sexist...

If this was a club limiting membership based on race, I think the other side would be getting alot more sympathy. But since it's just a gender issue it doesn't "appear" to be such a big issue.

I agree with what most of you are saying... that private clubs can limit membership in whatever way they want. Can the KKK realisticly complain when people call them racist??? I'm thinking no... but hey I could be stupid :). So why is it different when people are making the limitation based on sex?

I realize that Augusta National members don't go out beating up women... but the basic principle of prejudice is pretty similar. I don't think the members are really all sexist, but their actions are... IMHO.

Peace!

[Fritz]

Future targets for Burk? Probably not.

http://www.dar.org/cgi-bin/natsociety/content.cfm?ID=145&hd=n&FO=Y
http://www.democraticwoman.org/heritage/
http://www.aswa.org/
http://www.abwa.org/index.asp
http://www.ms.foundation.org/programs-guidelines-choices.html
http://www.nwbc.gov/

[KWhit]

Not to mention the thousands of women only health clubs around the country. Oh, what I would give to break that barrier!

Mmmmmm. Women in sportsbras. Mmmmmm.

[Craptacular]

FWIW, I think she's a bitch who won't shut up.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by KWhit
Not to mention the thousands of women only health clubs around the country. Oh, what I would give to break that barrier!


A guy in Wisconsin sued / is suing Curves for Women fitness centers. I can't seem to find a link to the news story.

[panerd]

I am going to have agree with Galt on this one. I am not neccessarly a fan of how he comes across, but he has the best point. We think this country is great because people have the freedom to discriminate if they want to? Say what? Who taught us that? The rich? The rich's interpretation of the constitution?

I am a middle class, white, male and have never really experienced discrimination of any form. But if I were a bum starving to death in Washington state and I saw Bill Gates go by in his limo on the way to his 42 bathroom, 16 kitchen house I would get togther a group of my bum friends and overturn the limo and take Gates hostage. But we can't do that because the well to do say it is against the law. I don't think Thomas Jefferson and company envisioned the mass class divide when they signed the declaration of independence. In fact they would probably be one of the people overturning the car. So I just laugh every time a rich person says this is what makes our country great, freedom. For whom?

If a group of black youths get together to protest discrimination are they really free? How long until the riot police show up with tear gas? And the good ol' boys watching the news at Augusta country club shake their heads at what has become of this country.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by panerd
I am a middle class, white, male and have never really experienced discrimination of any form. But if I were a bum starving to death in Washington state and I saw Bill Gates go by in his limo on the way to his 42 bathroom, 16 kitchen house I would get togther a group of my bum friends and overturn the limo and take Gates hostage. But we can't do that because the well to do say it is against the law. I don't think Thomas Jefferson and company envisioned the mass class divide when they signed the declaration of independence. In fact they would probably be one of the people overturning the car. So I just laugh every time a rich person says this is what makes our country great, freedom. For whom?

If a group of black youths get together to protest discrimination are they really free? How long until the riot police show up with tear gas? And the good ol' boys watching the news at Augusta country club shake their heads at what has become of this country.

Your attempt to turn this into a race/class war is impressive, but when you get down to it it's just whether some filthy rich old white men will let filthy rich white women hit a ball into a small hole with them.

[RendeR]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
Your attempt to turn this into a race/class war is impressive, but when you get down to it it's just whether some filthy rich old white men will let filthy rich white women hit a ball into a small hole with them.


Thats not even the point either, she CAN hit little balls into holes with them, as a ghuest she can use the facilities and play golf with whomever she wishes.

What this is about is that she wants to be recognized as a MEMBER of an all male golf club.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by RendeR
Thats not even the point either, she CAN hit little balls into holes with them, as a ghuest she can use the facilities and play golf with whomever she wishes.

What this is about is that she wants to be recognized as a MEMBER of an all male golf club.

I guess the point I wanted to make was this:

First woman to go to college: groundbreaking
First woman to serve in the military: groundbreaking
First woman governor/judge/senator/president someday: groundbreaking
First woman to join Augusta: Thank God I don't have to hear about it anymore

I don't think allowing women into Augusta is any real step forward for women. Personally, I don't care if women are in Augusta. It's just that to make this an issue of such importance is ridiculous.

Should Augusta allow women in? Maybe to put an end to all this silliness, but will the world be different afterwards?

[panerd]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
Your attempt to turn this into a race/class war is impressive, but when you get down to it it's just whether some filthy rich old white men will let filthy rich white women hit a ball into a small hole with them.

True and not true. The Augusta controversy as a whole is basically meaningless to me. What gets me fired up is not that people have an opinion either way (I actually agree with yours, who gives a shit about the country club?) but rather people who wave the red, white, and blue and say Augusta is what makes this country great. I sadly think that the KKK, Augusta, hate crimes, etc were not what Jefferson and company had in mind when they fought for our fundamental freedoms. And don't tell me that this country can't have gun control, stiffer control on immigration, and abolish idiots like the KKK and still not be the freest country in the world. I know, I know... but who decides what is right and wrong? Well the KKK is wrong, and these old guys not letting anyone but rich men in their club is wrong. I don't know how you can argue any other way.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
I don't know how you can argue any other way.

If your objective is to be incorrect, then you have a mighty good argument.

FWIW, both your posts speak of race and economic class.

[Ryan S]

Originally posted by panerd
But if I were a bum starving to death in Washington state and I saw Bill Gates go by in his limo on the way to his 42 bathroom, 16 kitchen house I would get togther a group of my bum friends and overturn the limo and take Gates hostage.

So what you are basically saying is that you think it is a bad thing that people are rewarded for their hard work?

[Easy Mac]

Rough quote:

"Just remeber that when you're being inundated with all of this 4th of July crap, remember what you're celebrating. The fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic white males, didn't want to pay their taxes."

They had slaves during the Declaration of Independence, those slaves were not allowed in a lot of places. Nor were women for that matter. I'm pretty sure they would have little problem with women being kept out of their clubs.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Fritz
If your objective is to be incorrect, then you have a mighty good argument.

FWIW, both your posts speak of race and economic class.

OK then, give me one good reason why the men at Augusta are right. And don't tell me because of the LAW. My friends try to pull that bullshit all of the time. They drank when they were under 21, they go over the speed limit all of the time, they find "creative" ways to do their taxes, but then when they want to win an argument they start talking about how sacred the law is. Why are these guys right to exclude women from their club?

[panerd]

Originally posted by Ryan S
So what you are basically saying is that you think it is a bad thing that people are rewarded for their hard work?

I had no intention of deflecting the argument from John Galt or changing the direction of the discussion, but no I don't feel like Bill Gates should be punished for all of his "clean" hard work. But I am also not living in a cardboard box.

[RonnieDobbs]

Originally posted by panerd
OK then, give me one good reason why the men at Augusta are right. And don't tell me because of the LAW. My friends try to pull that bullshit all of the time. They drank when they were under 21, they go over the speed limit all of the time, they find "creative" ways to do their taxes, but then when they want to win an argument they start talking about how sacred the law is. Why are these guys right to exclude women from their club?

I honestly believe that people have the right to associate with whomever they choose to associate. By the word "right" I don't mean right by law (which they do have) but right as a human being. And a part of that is that they have the right to choose NOT to associate with certain types of people. The people at Augusta have chosen to associate with like-minded people with (I may be generalizing a bit too much here) similar backgrounds. It may be limiting their experiences meeting new and "different" people, and it may keep the "different" people from getting to know these people. But this is their choice, and they have made it. Disagree with the choice they made all you want, but I don't see why you can disagree with their ability to make that choice.

I guess my question in return would be why are you right to tell these people who they have to associate with?

[revrew]

John Galt,
While I, like some of the others, disagree with your position on this particular matter (and as you may remember, several others); from a literary perspective, I thought your attempt at satire was brilliant.

Knowing you to be a thoroughly analytical mind, I recognized the departure from the norm right away and found it tremendously humorous.

At the same time, part of its brilliance was in so soundly putting illogical, ranting dissenters in their place. You had to know that was going to tick 'em off.

And while I still disagree with your position, I wanted you to know your effort wasn't wasted. I found your post one of the most creative and effective I've read in some time. Even if we despise your position on this or that, JG, we don't all hate you. Feel the love, you piece of flesh, you. ;)

[EagleFan]

panerd's right. Why keep women out of a private golf country club? Why keep men out of a women's fitness center? Let's sanitize the world so that everyone can go anywhere and do whatever they want. In fact, maybe we should go flip over some rich guy's limo and hold him hostage, that seems to be okay in his book after all it's only the "well to do" that seem to have some moral objection to kidnapping someone. I wonder if thay're the same people that are against murder? We need to re-examine a lot of laws just to make sure we've really got the right ones.

I'm still a little puzzled how plantation and slave owner Thomas Jefferson would be the one there overturning a rich person's limo. He would be the one in the limo.

[QuikSand]

I share feelings expressed by several people in this thread, all over the map. Cam's closing pretty well summed up my feelings on the issue, as a matter of policy.

But most of all, I'm puzzled and saddened by the animosity that this issue seems to arouse in people - mostly (by my reckoning) male sports fans. I guess it's the same as the fury some people seem to hold about the racial issues in sports hiring practices (latest case being the NFL coach protocols).

Why is it that when someone makes a nominally well-intentioned argument that we disagree with, we seem to assign such malice to the person making the argument in the first place? "Bitch" - is that really necessary? Is she really out to make things worse? Or does she just have a different idea of what "better" is than you do?

There's an undercurrent to these issues which is, in a certain sense, more troubling to me than the issues themselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by QuikSand Is she really out to make things worse? Or does she just have a different idea of what "better" is than you do?


Just for the heck of it, I'm going to answer that question.

Yes, I think she's one of the legion who desires little in life except to take away something/anything from a group(s) she's jealous of.

That's a short answer to a more complex question.

I offer it not to promote a long debate on the subject of her motivations but rather to say I believe you've hit very close to the reason this and other issues strike such a nerve with so many people.

It seems there's two kinds of people who discuss "equality" -- those who want to achieve it by providing for those "without" and those who want to achieve it by taking away from those "with".

Unfortunately, it seems to me (and I'd suspect to a lot of others) that we have an oversupply of the later and a shortage of the former.

In short, I think you're onto something here Quik.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
Why are these guys right to exclude women from their club?

Because they want to. Boy, that was easy.

[ISiddiqui]

As soon as Augusta is forced to open up, I'm gonna protest to get those women's colleges opened up because they are discriminatory :p.

[Subby]

I am behind any group that advances the cause of rich white chicks...

[panerd]

Originally posted by EagleFan
panerd's right. Why keep women out of a private golf country club? Why keep men out of a women's fitness center? Let's sanitize the world so that everyone can go anywhere and do whatever they want. In fact, maybe we should go flip over some rich guy's limo and hold him hostage, that seems to be okay in his book after all it's only the "well to do" that seem to have some moral objection to kidnapping someone. I wonder if thay're the same people that are against murder? We need to re-examine a lot of laws just to make sure we've really got the right ones.

I'm still a little puzzled how plantation and slave owner Thomas Jefferson would be the one there overturning a rich person's limo. He would be the one in the limo.

Originally posted by Fritz
Because they want to. Boy, that was easy.

Sure was easy to not answer the questions asked. It's pointless anyways nobody reads but about 1/10 of my posts anyways. (I admit that I get off subject also. I should have kept the limo part out of it) I never said I had an opinion either way on this issue. I was taking people to task who said that the guys are right because of the sacred laws of this land and that this type of freedom is what makes America great.

My two questions (which nobody adressed in any of their flame responses) were...

1. Is it right just because it's the law?

2. Is an all male club excluding women & poor people (and I am sure more than this) what makes this country so great?

Since most of you say yes to both of these, I have to question whether I am the lunatic here.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by panerd
1. Is it right just because it's the law?

2. Is an all male club excluding women & poor people (and I am sure more than this) what makes this country so great?

Since most of you say yes to both of these, I have to question whether I am the lunatic here.
1. Um yeah, if you don't like the law then work to get it changed.

2. It's part of what makes it great. Do you real think anyone should be able to join any club they wanted? That I should just be able to walk into Augusta become a member and play golf even if I couldn't afford it. That's just silly. If I'm a private club I should be able to associate with whomever I want. If you don't like it start your own club. Oh wait, you don't have any money to do that. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
1. Is it right just because it's the law?



Depends on how you mean "right." The law and "right" are often at odds in my book, but that does not mean that they always are. IMHO, the fact that law prevents exclusion in private (in some cases) is not right. The law restricting smoking in private places is not right. The law mandating handicap access to private places is not right.

Originally posted by panerd
2. Is an all male club excluding women & poor people (and I am sure more than this) what makes this country so great?


Is it what makes this country great? No. It isn't a flaw either though.

I am curious why you keep mixing gender and economic status.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by QuikSand
"Bitch" - is that really necessary? Is she really out to make things worse?

Yes. Jon summed it up better than I could. From what I've heard / seen of the matter, she is driven by arrogance, spite, and the need to be an annoyance. The term fits her well.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Tarkus

2. It's part of what makes it great. Do you real think anyone should be able to join any club they wanted? That I should just be able to walk into Augusta become a member and play golf even if I couldn't afford it. That's just silly. If I'm a private club I should be able to associate with whomever I want. If you don't like it start your own club. Oh wait, you don't have any money to do that. :rolleyes:

Tarkus

If that's what you thinks makes this country great. No use in debating, as I have no idea on where to even start.

[panerd]

Originally posted by Fritz
Depends on how you mean "right." The law and "right" are often at odds in my book, but that does not mean that they always are. IMHO, the fact that law prevents exclusion in private (in some cases) is not right. The law restricting smoking in private places is not right. The law mandating handicap access to private places is not right.



Is it what makes this country great? No. It isn't a flaw either though.

I am curious why you keep mixing gender and economic status.

I think we are more on par with each other than you may believe. You have me pegged as an ultra-liberal which I am far from. My whole entry into this fray had nothing to do with the lady that is mad at Augusta or whether women should be allowed to join. My main issue was with the pro-Augusta crowd on this board using the "law is always right" as the backbone of their argument. And then when people started with it making this country great, I about blew a gasket.

Do I think freedom of speech makes that country great? Yes. Is the KKK an unfortunate result of this freedom of speech? Yes. Is the KKK being able to rally what makes this country great? Hell no. Whether I am jealous of thier money or thier misguided principles (this is Augusta again), either way they sure as hell don't make me proud to be an American.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by panerd
I think we are more on par with each other than you may believe. You have me pegged as an ultra-liberal which I am far from. My whole entry into this fray had nothing to do with the lady that is mad at Augusta or whether women should be allowed to join. My main issue was with the pro-Augusta crowd on this board using the "law is always right" as the backbone of their argument. And then when people started with it making this country great, I about blew a gasket.


You should have been more clear (I am hardly one to talk) if that is what you were going for. The law is an obligation, and so is right is from a certain point of view. We know laws change and can be applied or interpreted differently, so their "rightness" is far from certain.

I did not peg you as a liberal. Your post do remind me of radical-socialism.

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by panerd
If that's what you thinks makes this country great. No use in debating, as I have no idea on where to even start.
Um, I said it's part of it. I didn't say that's why it's great, or that it was even a significant part, and honestly I don't really care whether or not you want to debate me. There are plenty of others here with whom I've had and can have great debates. And you know the great thing about that? Even when the conversation gets real heated I and others involved have been able to walk away without being vindictive or holding a grudge. In fact, I had a doozy last night and even though I called him an idiot and his remarks were incredibly stupid I could still talk to him about the Yankees today! :p :D

Tarkus

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by RonnieDobbs
I guess the point I wanted to make was this:

First woman to go to college: groundbreaking
First woman to serve in the military: groundbreaking
First woman governor/judge/senator/president someday: groundbreaking
First woman to join Augusta: Thank God I don't have to hear about it anymore

I don't think allowing women into Augusta is any real step forward for women. Personally, I don't care if women are in Augusta. It's just that to make this an issue of such importance is ridiculous.

Should Augusta allow women in? Maybe to put an end to all this silliness, but will the world be different afterwards?

Excellent point, I couldn't have said it better. What is this really accomplishing? The only thing it says to me is that no matter how much certain groups of people wish to congregate by themselves, they should never be allowed to.

I can see it now - a group of elementary school boys who form a "club" for themselves, and convene in one of the boys' treehouse. A neighborhood girl wants to be part of the club, so sh takes the boys to court :rolleyes:

Would it be nice if Augusta admitted a woman? Probably. Should they have to? No. What has Martha stated as the benefit from this happening, either for the specific woman to be admitted or for women in general? That some rich women will be even more rich and stuck up than they already are? That they can sit around and have a good chuckle about all of us peons who aren't in the club? So they can gain more notoriety and recognition (I couldn't begin to compile a list of members of Augusta, and I couldn't care less).

What's next? Fraternaties? Sororities? Student unions (hmm, I think Martha would have fit in with the Black Student Union, Korean Students' Association or the Chinese Students' Association at my school)? How about the VFW? The Masons? Maybe a few alumni associations? Labor unions? (note: I do realize that each of these groups is tied together by a common element, and that none of them are as arbitrary as being a bunch of rich guys who like to play golf. Ok, maybe not the first two. But if they want to have their own organization, that's their right too).

[Mountain]

I don't know if what is being advocated here is having the government pass a law to force Augusta to intergrate women into thier club. If so, then that is wrong because it is government coercion on indivdual behavior. That is what the founders of the Constitution truly feared is an oppressive and coercive governemnt imposing its will upon its citizens.

Now if Burke is trying to exert economic pressure upon Augusta to prevail that's fine. However, any goevernment limitation on our right to associate or not to associate destroys our personal freedoms which are already diminished. See the 4th Amendment decisions ever since Reagan declared the war on drugs.

Also, the primary way that the Federal governemnt can regulate the conduct of private citiazens towards each other is by use of the commerce clause. The commerce clause was the basis to integrate hotels and restaurants. Perhaps someone will make the argument that membership in Augusta is commerce and can be regulated but considering the make up of our current Supreme Court I find the outcome, thankfully, unlikely.

[ISiddiqui]

However, any goevernment limitation on our right to associate or not to associate destroys our personal freedoms which are already diminished. See the 4th Amendment decisions ever since Reagan declared the war on drugs.

It goes WELL before that. Since the 60s the assault on the 4th Amendment has gone on. Ironically during the Warren Court.

[Mota]

My question is why does it only have to go one way?

What about ladies night at the bars? How come they can get in free and we have to pay?

If they gain access to Augusta will we be able to get into clubs free now?

[Mota]

And on a more serious note, if it was a "white people only" club, would that be acceptable? How long do you think they could get away with that? 10 seconds? 15 maybe?

If you're not supposed to discriminate on the colour of someone's skin, why should it be okay to discriminate based on their sex?

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by Mota
If you're not supposed to discriminate on the colour of someone's skin, why should it be okay to discriminate based on their sex?

Theoretically, skin color makes no difference in the person. Gender does.

Just for the record, I think that it isn't right to discriminate against someone purely on gender, but I think it should be allowed. I also think that discrimination based on skin color should be allowed and that Martha Burk (for other issues and statements, not just this idea) is a power-hungry feminist who should disappear from the media. I think she once said that it would be better if males were restricted to about 10% of the population, for pro-creation only.

[Craptacular]

This is from her mouth ... or at least typewriter (from Nov/Dec '97 issue of Ms. Magazine):

---
Let’s stop the abortion debate right now. Both sides can agree that eliminating the need for abortion would solve the problem. If all babies were planned, wanted and could be cared for, women wouldn’t seek abortions. A modest proposal: control men’s fertility. The facs of men’s fertility are that men can cause hundreds (even thousands in the case of certain athletes who shall remain nameless) more unwanted pregnancies than can women. In the most extreme case, consider a woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth every year of her fertile life. It is theoretically possible for her to have 35 children in her lifetime. In the same period, if a man had unprotected sexual intercourse once a week he could theoretically father 1.820 children. Add his increased years of fertility, and his potential for physical domination over women, and we can readily see that the problem of unwanted pregnancy is largely one of uncontrolled sperm.

So how do we control men’s fertility? Mandatory contraception beginning at puberty, with the rule relaxed only for procreation under the right circumstances (he can afford it and has a willing partner) and for the right reasons (determined by a panel of experts, and with the persmission of his designated female partner). This could be easily accomplished with a masculine version of the contraceptive implants some judges are now trying to force on some women by court order.

Controlling men’s fertility would not be a hard restriction to enforce. The fertility authorities could use a combination of punishments for men who failed to get the implants and for doctors who removed them without proper authorization. The men could be required to adopt one orphan per infraction and rear her or him until adulthood. The doctors, could lose their licences or, in extreme cases, go to prison.

The current welfare law allows states to eliminate support for many women with children and deny additional assistance to single mothers who have more than one child while on welfare. Why not punish men caught fathering more than one child with a mother who’s already on welfare? With DNA fingerprinting, the method could be foolproof, especially if doctors reported any man who refused the implants or sought medical attention after unsuccessfully attempting to remove them himself. Understand, men’s right to control their own bodies and life choices would not be infringed. Men could continue to have sexual intercourse and to father children. They would merely be required to accept a few minuscule and ever-so-reasonable restrictions.


Martha Burk is president of the Center for Advancement of Public Policy in Washington, D.C., and editor of the “Washington Feminist Faxnet
---

She claims that it was a spoof. Of course, if a prominent man wrote a similar piece about women, would she laugh it off?? Somehow I doubt it.

[Fritz]

doesn't read like a spoof.

[John Galt]

She claims that it was a spoof.
doesn't read like a spoof.

It reads like exactly like satire - it begins with "a modest proposal." That refers to Swift's great essay that was oddly enough mentioned earlier in this thread.

Hopefully, later to day, I'll have time to reply to some of the substance of this thread. I hate to have run from a mess I helped create.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Hopefully, later to day, I'll have time to reply to some of the substance of this thread. I hate to have run from a mess I helped create.

Please do. If it is satire I have missed her point.

[Craptacular]

I don't doubt that it was satire, at least to an extent. It's easy to disguise your true opinions and just pass it all of as satire; we've all done it. Burk is a very intelligent bitch, and certainly knows how to push the right buttons in people. How much does her "satire" reflect her true feelings?? Well, based on some other things I've read about / from her, she is really good at changing the rules depending on what suits her best at the time.

[GrantDawg]

No, it is satire. It is not even very light-handed. She is saying what she wrote is exactly equal to the "controls" that pro-life activist are trying to put on women's bodies.

Of course she is totally ignoring the fact that men do have controls put over their sexual activities, too. If you get a woman pregnant, there are government in-forced payments to be made. You are responsible for what you do. I am also not against sterilization for men who constantly impregnate women but will not support or cannot support the children (I've heard of one guy who has 12 children from 9 different women yet refuses to pay a dime of child support).

So, if she thinks pro-life means that men should not be held responsible for their actions, she is wrong.

[John Galt]

Ok- I've been out of the substance of this thread for a little while (work sucks that way), but I'm gonna try to reply to the major arguments people are making.

I honestly do agree with you that those things do go on and are a large part of business for some people. I do not agree that they make or break anyone's career. So this particular woman is not allowed to be a member of the club, so what? if she has male friends who are members she can enjoy the club as often as she and her friend wish, thereby gaining access to those very same contacts.

It just isn't the same. This isn't just about Augusta - as long as men have clubs where business is done, women will be at a mjor disadvantage in the professional and corporate world. The result is that a glass ceiling for most women will continue. There will be exceptions, but women are hurt too much by clubs and societies like Augusta.

By this same token the KKK does not allow blacks to be members. Would you argue that they must be forced to accept non-whites into their group? Its a privately funded organization.

I think blacks should be admitted to the KKK. I know you like many on this board consider "private" groups to have certain inalienable rights (and this is the current view held by the Supreme Court). I, however don't hold this view when it comes to matters of integration. The public/private line has been used throughout history to hurt women and minorties. It was the private restuarants and clubs that kept blacks out for years. It was the notion that it was a private matter that protected wife beaters throughout modern times (and still protects marital rapists).

And women can't open their own golf club because....... ???

They can, but it won't have the same business contacts and prestige. It is a man's world and a women's group doesn't carry the same cache and it certainly won't be broadcast on TV the same way Augusta is.

. If a bunch of crotchety old southern men want to think of women as a lesser sex, or other races, religions, sexual orientations, etc., as less than their own, it is their right to do so.

I've never disagreed with the notion that this is how the law IS. I just think it SHOULD be different. And we already have decided you can't discriminate in business - I think the same rule should be carried to other private organizations.

Therefore, by your argument, they should open the doors to everyone and charge 5 bucks a head. It's discrimination, pure and simple, that keeps me out of Augusta.

I'm not a socialist - I don't believe "economic" discrimination is the same as "gender" discrimination. Yes, admission fees always keep the poor out - they do not, however need to keep women out.

And John, always remember, the Supreme Court is not final because they are right, they are right because they are final.

The Court has been wrong on many occasions and still is. The fact that they are final is irrelevant.

Take any discussion on any issue, and someone will pull this one out of their bag of tricks. The only thing that unites them is that they'll inevitably defend their "satire" by comparing themselves to Jonathan Swift.

I admit that I'm no swift, but I thought it was at least pretty good. ;) Oh well.

I wonder if she realizes there are many other men's golf clubs, and many of them don't even allow women to play.

The fact that there are worse clubs out there isn't a reason not to act in this case. This is the most famous, most watched golf club in the US (maybe the world).

caving into public pressure, allowing others to ramrod their idea of what is right and wrong down your throat, letting people trample over the idea that we have an inalienable right to be asshats... how is that ever the right thing to do?

I think "caving" has nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong. Excluding blacks was wrong in the past and excluding women now is bad. Standing up for discrimination is a mistake that Hootie should correct.

FWIW, I think she's a bitch who won't shut up. The term fits her well. Burk is a very intelligent bitch

QS made this point nicely, but I'm not as nice or level-headed. Women who believe in a cause and aren't afraid to speak about it aren't "bitches." Please stop using slurs to demean and deflect criticism.

Your attempt to turn this into a race/class war is impressive, but when you get down to it it's just whether some filthy rich old white men will let filthy rich white women hit a ball into a small hole with them.

I think that is a very short-sighted view of the situation. This is about glass ceilings everywhere (see my point above about business dealings at these clubs). This is also the most famous and most televised golf club in the world. What kind of message do you think this sends to girls and boys across the US (and the world)?

I honestly believe that people have the right to associate with whomever they choose to associate. By the word "right" I don't mean right by law (which they do have) but right as a human being. And a part of that is that they have the right to choose NOT to associate with certain types of people.

I don't think this is about "associating." If you just want to have white, male, heterosexual friends, go ahead - you are probably missing out, but oh well. I think it is different when you form an organization that discriminates. These groups hold power, whether you want to admit it or not - they are places of business, they exert political lobbying pressure, and they send signals (Augusta does it through TV).

While I, like some of the others, disagree with your position on this particular matter (and as you may remember, several others); from a literary perspective, I thought your attempt at satire was brilliant.

Thanks for the kind words - I hope all is going well with number 8.

At the same time, part of its brilliance was in so soundly putting illogical, ranting dissenters in their place. You had to know that was going to tick 'em off.

Yeah, I knew it would piss off some, but that comes with the political nature of this board. Most posts piss me off, but that is because everything is relative.

There's an undercurrent to these issues which is, in a certain sense, more troubling to me than the issues themselves.

I couldn't agree more. Perhaps that is one reason I'm a little prone to react strongly - I get upset at the undercurrent AND the arguments themselves.

Um yeah, if you don't like the law then work to get it changed.

That seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor. Bad laws suck whether or not they get changed.

I can see it now - a group of elementary school boys who form a "club" for themselves, and convene in one of the boys' treehouse. A neighborhood girl wants to be part of the club, so sh takes the boys to court

Clearly, this is a different case - this is the most famous golf club and is televised globally. It is a place where people do business and careers are made. It is easy to use the ridiculous example to argue the point, but the fact that we can see why it is ridiculous is why it doesn't argue the point (fallacy of the slippery slope).

What's next? Fraternaties? Sororities? Student unions (hmm, I think Martha would have fit in with the Black Student Union, Korean Students' Association or the Chinese Students' Association at my school)?

There is a big difference between groups that formed in response to discrimination and those that are part of it. Minority student unions help address the fact that discrimination still exists. Augusta doesn't do anything to attack discrimination, it promotes it.

Theoretically, skin color makes no difference in the person. Gender does.

Gender shouldn't matter for purposes of forming a golf club. All the reasons why it should prove my point that this isn't just about rich women hitting a little ball into a little hole.

Of course she is totally ignoring the fact that men do have controls put over their sexual activities, too. If you get a woman pregnant, there are government in-forced payments to be made. You are responsible for what you do. I am also not against sterilization for men who constantly impregnate women but will not support or cannot support the children (I've heard of one guy who has 12 children from 9 different women yet refuses to pay a dime of child support).

Burk's article is clearly satirical just like Swift's proposal that we eat the poor. I agree with her point that abortion is viewed as a rights of the child v. the rights of the mother debate (and that is a problem). Yes, men have to pay child support, but there is a big difference in the way men and women have responsibility for a baby.

If a man abandons his child, the woman has to pursue civil remedies. If a man has no money, she is out of luck. If a woman abandons her child, she is subject to criminal penalties (neglect and abandonment. If she wants to keep her child and has no money, she is either subject to criminal penalties (neglect) or forced into an adoption. Men have a lot of luxuries in child-rearing that women don't. The abortion debate should account for those differences. Her satire is an attempt to show that women are heavily restricted in the way abortion is regulated - in ways that would be unexceptable if applied to men.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
Her satire is an attempt to show that women are heavily restricted in the way abortion is regulated - in ways that would be unexceptable if applied to men.

This is what women want though. After all, women would find it intolerable if a man could direct them to have an abortion, or put a child up for adoption. Women want the right to be the sole person who can decide if she should, or should not have a baby (once pregnant.) What they do not want is to be the sole person responsible for contraception (prior) or the person to bear sole financial burden (after).

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
If a man abandons his child, the woman has to pursue civil remedies. If a man has no money, she is out of luck. If a woman abandons her child, she is subject to criminal penalties (neglect and abandonment. If she wants to keep her child and has no money, she is either subject to criminal penalties (neglect) or forced into an adoption.

John, what a traditionalist view of things. I am very proud.

This is not a male/female thing though. The person who "touched it last" has the "burden." That happens to be women in many cases, but not all.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by John Galt

QS made this point nicely, but I'm not as nice or level-headed. Women who believe in a cause and aren't afraid to speak about it aren't "bitches." Please stop using slurs to demean and deflect criticism.


One of the nice things about an environment like this is the ability to "say it like it is". I mentioned this before, but I feel strongly enough about the issue to use strong terms. Frankly, I don't give a damn if some people are offended. I feel the term "bitch" suits her nicely.

Bitch: a woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing; a woman who is thoroughly disliked

Spiteful: having a desire to vex, annoy, or injure

Overbearing: aggressively haughty; arrogant; expecting unquestioning obedience

Haughty: having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy

In my view, Ms. Burk fits the bill. Forgive me for not being afraid to speak my mind.

[Fritz]

ut oh, I am a penis and some testicles away from being a bitch.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Fritz
ut oh, I am a penis and some testicles away from being a bitch.

Bitch: A man considered to be weak or contemptible

You don't even have to lose the jewels Fritz! :)

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by John Galt

If a man abandons his child, the woman has to pursue civil remedies. If a man has no money, she is out of luck. If a woman abandons her child, she is subject to criminal penalties (neglect and abandonment. If she wants to keep her child and has no money, she is either subject to criminal penalties (neglect) or forced into an adoption.

There are no good reasons for child abondment. In most states, it is as easy as taking the baby to the nearest hospital. And in most states(probably all), if she needs money the state will give her food, clothing and a place to live. When a woman is subject to criminal penalties (as your mentioning) drugs are generally the problem.

On top of that, it is incorrect to say she only has civil remedies to go after the man. I don't know about in every state, but 30% of the inmates in the local jail are there for not paying child support. In Alabama, men have to put on black stripes and work on the side of the road next to a van that says "dead-beat dad." It doesn't sound like they are getting off too easy themselves.

The bottom lined factor is people should be responsible for their actions. Of course, none of this as anything to do with the topic at hand which is should men be allowed in women's locker-rooms.

[Airhog]

Well if some rich white woman thinks she has the right to join, then this poor redneck boy that doesnt even play golf has the right to join as well!

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by John Galt
Women who believe in a cause and aren't afraid to speak about it aren't "bitches." Agreed, although I think a more accurate comment would be that women who believe in a cause and aren't afraid to speak about it aren't necessarily "bitches." They could be, sure, but not because of their views.

But in the same way, men who want to go play a round of golf and then hang out with the guys are not necessarily misongynsts, sexist oppressors, or worthy of comparison to the KKK.
Originally posted by John Galt
Please stop using slurs to demean and deflect criticism.I wish both sides would.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Agreed, although I think a more accurate comment would be that women who believe in a cause and aren't afraid to speak about it aren't necessarily "bitches." They could be, sure, but not because of their views.


Having a certain view does not make one a *****; it's how they act on it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by John Galt
What kind of message do you think this sends to girls and boys across the US (and the world)?

That rich people have too much damn time on their hands?

Originally posted by John Galt
Gender shouldn't matter for purposes of forming a golf club. All the reasons why it should prove my point that this isn't just about rich women hitting a little ball into a little hole.

Maybe they just don't want to add in the little white tees. Men and women are different and that is fine. Some nights I just want to play poker with my friends who are guys, and I am allowed to do this in my home. If I build an addition and start charging money for the privledge, should this be any different? No.

I think that NGO's like NOW, MADD and others have exceeded their objective, but as no advocacy group ever disappears, they merely change form. If you want to do something good, look at places where they stone women for having a child instead of a place where a rich woman can't go and smoke cigars with the good ol' boys. Anyone want to join me in a new group, Normal mEn Versus fEminist Ranting? Or possibly Men Against Your Bitchy Excesses In Feminist Yapping On Unimportant Grandiose Obfuscations Avoiding What Actually matters Y?