http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/sports/g...y10golf.html?th

Martha Burk, who has spearheaded the campaign to pressure Augusta National to add a woman as a member, said Johnson's comments would have no impact on her plans to protest Saturday in Augusta.

"He may be hoping that if he gets through this year, we'll eventually just go away," said Burk, chairwoman of the National Council of Women's Organizations. "We won't go away, even if that's the impression he has. If he's comfortable with practicing discrimination, and if his members are comfortable with practicing discrimination, then all the C.E.O.'s and business leaders of his club who are comfortable with that should say so publicly. Because if they're supporting him, they're supporting discrimination."

- - - - -

I think I am gonna be keeping up with this.

I heard Martha and a male representative of an organization (one of those position organizations who support Augusta's policy, but can't remember which one) interviewed together yesterday on NPR.

While I think both sides are being a bit petty about the whole thing, I must say that Martha is a very effective woman. She spoke very well on the issues involved and was on top of her game. She left the guy sounding a bit like a middle-aged, white male whose decendents were not all that tolerant of diversity of any sort.

In the end, Martha's concerns are valid and her cause just. However, changing Augusta National is purely symbolic. The group of women who could/would join is pretty limited. The bigger picture is that many, many major corporations provide their top executives membership. So, there is a broader and more important audience she is dealing with, in actuality.

And...? :confused:

Golf, and golf-related activities are, still, in this day and age, the purview of White, heterosexual men who refuse to leave the comforts of Jim Crow, segregationist life and all of its attendant perks, no matter how any of them feels individually (and, OBVIOUSLY, they don't care because at least 30% of them must be fathers of a daughter).

These men associated with golf (most of them White, but there CERTAINLY ARE non-White men in the bunch) feel that there is something sacred about exclusion by gender (I even heard an African-American guy on an elevator at work two days ago chime in with his friend about how "there'll be pink and mauve curtains everywhere if Augusta admits women".)

This kind of sad-*ss exclusion has no place in an America I wish to be a part of, especially when any woman who joins will have be under all types of non-game scrutiny - like Tiger Woods was, at least until he made it clear that he was absolutely unbeatable, particularly by men who had racism on their minds.

It is unconscionable when you work in a company, that denies you access to their country club and their golf course, solely becuase you are African-American, and, I guess, in most cases, non-Caucasian. This means that today's non-Caucasian parents STILL cannot give their offspring the benefit of the country club environs, sports mentorship, and networking - or even the hopes that they will earn membership if they succeed in school and career. frown

[ April 11, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

You know there is a gym that is closest to my house, that would save me another 2 miles of driving and if i go 4x a week for 52 weeks.... that would save me gas money with the prices the way they are... however they wont let me in cause i'm a guy... Naturally Women, thats the name of the gym... women can go there and work out in peace without any guys trying to pick up on them... Leave the grumpy old men have their club.. Martha should start her own, have her own golf tourney ect ect ect... There are women groups all over, and men groups all over...

The basic rules go like this, if women want something that exclude men, it ok... if men want their own group and women want in... it's a problem.

I'm sorry, PhillyFan. That attitude is LESS than asinine. If I didn't know you to post stuff like that regularly, I wouldn't have believed it.

You are ONE (1) person who is involved in your own private sports/fitness; and you're referring to a "juggling" of your schedule and personal commitments.

I'm referring to the American way of looking at access to corporate and sports equity, regardless of your racial background or sexual preference.

- - - - -

I mean, enough is enough.

I guess some people learn the hard way...

To approach thread about serious issues that involve people's lives, American/world history and the treatment of human beings is something that a lot of intelligent, caring, and devoted members of this community are trying to sort out and document in a thoughtful, analytical way.

The kind of response you just gave doesn't cut the mustard - not if you want to be taken seriously (maybe you don't care).

Scholarship and a super-high I.Q. is never required here. But, there are people on this board who ARE very intelligent AND THOROUGH, and don't deserve to be insulted with nonsense.

- - - - -

And on getting into "the club": Why don't you take the manager aside, tell her that you're gay and not interested in the women there, and tell us how it goes?

:mad:

[ April 11, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: bluebird48234 ]

Lets boil this down to the bare bones here bird..

I wish to join the womens health club, they will not allow me to join because of my gender. Martha wishes to have a women in Agusta, but that is a mens club. The difference is what? This has nothing to do with, race or sexual preference.

Until it is against the law to exclude women or for women to exclude men from a club, this will not change.

NOW since 99.999999999% of america will never be able to afford to be part of this little group of grumpy men, martha included... It's really just this woman trying to get her mug on tv. If martha was so into gender battles, she'd be all over the place, she is merely intrested in the press she gets.

In all seriousness, I'm not sure of the legality of that. If someone wants to ask them, here's the website.

http://www.naturallywomen.com/

Well, PhillyFan would have to do it.

No really they already proved it on a radio show, they called up ask about joining and were shot down.

It's perfectly legal, even though it may not be right, for private clubs to exclude men or women. The difference here is that we're not talking about just any club - this is Augusta National, which holds The Masters Golf Tournament, which has become something of a public institution. It's like something in the public domain, which means it should be accessible to everyone (who can afford it). By creating a great golf course and a wildly popular and prestigious tournament that is viewed by millions, they've put themselves in this situation of being a public instition. Now they should bring it up to the standards of American society and allow women!

[ April 11, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

According to this article on Sports Illustrated.com, Women Masters fans side with Hootie over Burk.

Bluebird -- I hope my earlier post was clear in that I think Augusta should change its policy. My point was that Martha's charge against them was symbolic in that she really was speaking to other entities. She is trying to attack exclusionary policies and mentalities through Augusta. The fact that (as Max pointed out) Augusta has moved more toward a public entity provides the perfect environment for her. However, it is the membership she is trying to educate. The club is just the conduit.

Lisa Raymond a top player in tennis was quoted in the Philadelphia Daily news as saying "Let tradition be tradition, just like wearing mostly white at Wimbeldon" I agree whole heartedly w/ her! Let it go...

I just don't think most women, or people for that matter, really care all that much about this issue. The average woman in this day and age is concerned with their careers and/or raising a family. I've talked to a number of women on this issue and they've all basically said "why can't guys just have a place of their own". So if women aren't going to be all that concerned with this non-issue, then neither will I. And the fact that Martha got all of 40 people to protest with her yesterday just proves people have way bigger fish to fry.

I got it. I still basically feel the same way, though.

I need to do more research on what she is actually doing...and, I just hope that she gets out of it something that makes it worthwhile.

Maybe "the bigger fish to fry" is that women don't see membership in their lifetimes - yet, that doesn't make it wrong to fight for the correct principle.

Dr. Martin Luther King realized that the world he pointed to would not be enjoyed by him.

I think that the principle is worth fighting for, as women will have clubs one day that men might want and need to join for the socio-economic benefits.

Maybe this battle would not be worth your or my time; but, it must be worth Ms. Burk's...and I would like to know more about why she is spending her resources on this, as she is in contact with most of the decisionmakers in golf (that is, she has the best information at her fingertips).

Philly Fan, I'm with you. Women have the unique ability to exclude men; however, we can't exclude women from anything. I don't think that is fair in the least.

A couple of my friends that I run with are members of the Junior League. I've often joked with them that in their last year, I want them to sponsor me for membership in the Junior League. Their response was, "We love you but there is no way in hell a man is getting into the Junior League." Do you see men raising hell over this?

Martha....LET IT GO!

[ April 14, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Aubie in Bham ]

Did anyone hear, Martha had a WHOLE 30 some protesters with her... they tried to bus people in from Atlanta and only 18 showed up... yeah people are bad about this!

Aubie/Philly,

The big difference between golf club membership and Junior League membership is that deals are made on the golf course. Shutting out women from golf club membership is one way of maintaining the glass ceiling.

gj

Gator, I can tell you that many professional women on Wall Street are active in the Junior League, and that it's seen as a way to cultivate business relationships with other (female) brokers, bankers, traders. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You're absolutely right. There's nothing at all wrong with that. But that doesn't resolve the inequity with Augusta, or any other golf course, for that matter.

I;m not sure I'm following. How is it OK for one group but not the other? Not trying to be contentious here, just genuinely don't follow the dinstinction......

And that, my friend. is the root of the problem - when is it "ok" to discriminate and when is it not?

Backing up for a sec, "discrimination" is not a bad thing in and of itself. I think of the cat food commercial with Lauren Bacall purring, "Good taste is easy to recognize." (Looking back, I wish that I had been more "discriminating" when it came to girlfriends.) wink

So "discrimination" as "distinction" is not only necessary, but beneficial. Moving up the scale, there are situations where distinctions on the basis of gender, race, you name it, are legitimate. Shouldn't the Knights of Columbus be all-male? Shouldn't fraternities/sororities be gender-divided? Isn't there a cultural argument to be made for historically black colleges and universities? What about deaf culture?

The problems arise as you move through the scaled grey areas to situations that discriminate without any legitimate basis, such as lunch counters, Jim Crow laws, etc. Where do you draw the line?

I believe that private organizations should have the right to determine their own members. Sad to say, that means that the Ancient Order of Hibernians can exclude gay groups from the Boston St.Patty's Day parade (legally speaking, but not morally). I certainly want the reciprocal right to exclude Exodus from Gay Pride.

I also believe that laws and policies should be uniformly enforced, unless such applications lead to an absurd result (e.g., shaving female cadets' heads at military academies, when a way-short cut achieves the desired psychological effect).

For my analysis, the line can be drawn when the organization is public or quasi-public, such as the Boy Scouts. For a number of reasons -- receipt of public funds, holding itself out as an American institution -- I believe that the Boy Scouts have no legal right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. However, because there are plausible arguments to be made for the benefits of gender segregation (too long and involved for the purposes of this post), the Boy Scouts can legitimately discriminate on the basis of gender. So can the Girl Scouts. So can other youth groups.

But country clubs, like the Rotary, offer business incentives for membership -- kind of like an upscale Chamber of Commerce. OK, a really really upscale Chamber. This is what differentiates a country club from the Junior League, or the men's group at my church. And because businesses cannot discriminate, I believe that it offends fundamental notions of fairness to let (perhaps a small number of) businesses do so through the back door by keeping female executives out of the clubhouse. I know that many of these clubs "let" women play, but let's not kid ourselves -- there's a huge difference between being a guest and being a member.

While you'll agree with the basics of this analysis re fairness and uniformity, you'll probably disagree with where your own personal line is drawn. It doesn't make you a bigot if you have fair intentions. I mean, think about it -- who's beating down the door to get into the (insert example of minority-identified group here)? And once that plaintiff wins entry, does said plaintiff stick around, or just remain satisfied with proving a point?

I think that Martha Burk is very wise in shifting her strategy toward corporate members. It's going to be interesting to see how the dialogue progresses.

GatorJ

[ April 22, 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: GatorJamie ]