Augusta National Issues

I wonder if the NYT will cover the Masters assuming women are still banned from membership come tournament time?

I think Hootie and his boys are basically idiots but the whole 'firestorm' about it makes me root for him to stick to his guns.

It's hard to pick sides in this whole debate. I guess what disappoints me is that Martha Burk should be channeling her efforts into helping end domestic violence and incest, getting women equal pay for equal work, creating opportunities for women to break "the glass ceiling", etc.

The problem with activist groups? They would rather score a symbolic victory than win a real battle. But, who knows, maybe women will stop getting beaten by their abusive spouses once Oprah and Martha Stewart are allowed to join Augusta.

Maybe I think to simple. It is a private club, private property, private money, so can't they do what they want. If they want a good ol' boys club, can't they have that? Is this club somehow stopping the progress of women? I want equal pay, equal voice for women, but this makes no sense to me. If people don't like the fact that there are no women in the club, fine, if they want to boycott the Masters, fine, if that is the down fall of Augusta, fine. But if they want to have their rules, it is their private club isn't it? They want to pressure people, such as Tiger, to give a public opinion on the matter of a private club. Don't we have the freedom in the USA to have private clubs anymore?

Yes, private clubs are free to discriminate. To my knowledge, no one, including the NYT, is arguing that Augusta National is violating the equal protection clause or any other law. All they are arguing is that, given the prominence that Augusta National has because of the Masters, and given the fact that it therefore essentially functions as a "titans of industry" club, that it is "wrong" for it to discriminate against women, even if it's not illegal. I happen to agree with this. You may or may not. If not, would you feel differently if they excluded blacks and/or Jews? Why? Many people seem to have a stronger sense that that would be wrong (again, even if not illegal for a private club). I'm not sure I understand why.

But I hope we can all agree that both Martha Burk and the editors of the NYT have a First Amendment right to complain about this discrimination if they don't like it, and to try to use either the power of pursuasion and/or political pressure to change things. What could be more American than that? I thought the whole purpose of the First Amendment was so that people could try to focus attention on an issue and try to change other people's minds.

My only regret about the way people like Martha Burk and the NYT editors are proceeding is that I think they are wrong to single out Tiger Woods for particular pressure. What about Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer, both of whom are now full members at Augusta, which Tiger Woods is not. And what about Phil Mickelson and David Duval and all of the other touring pros. Even though Tiger Woods may have more influence than most (although propbably not more than Arnie) to single him out seems like a racist act in itself.

like most opinions stated so far, i agree it's a private club, therefore a private issue.

one question that i have is:

Is there a stated rule/guideline/whatever that specifically prohibits women from being members, or is it that they just don't happen to have any members who are women ?? if the first situation is in effect, why not just change the stated rule to be "Members are who we want, when we want, regardless of what they are, but it's our decision so go screw yourselves." ??

IMO, hootie has handled this issue's PR badly. martha is on every talk show around, getting exposure out the whazoo, but you never hear from ANGC. i think hj has actually said, someday a woman may be a member, but it'll be on our timetable, not yours. but that statement was too long ago, and not very well publicized.

I agree with Portland guy. There are way more important issues than this. It's a step in the wrong direction to focus on something so trivial. How are womens rights going to be furthered if some lady can tee it up at Augusta? Is that somehow going to help my daughter get equal wages at work or be given the opportunity to advance her career? I don't think so.

Good points TryonCreek, I do agree that people have the right from the first amendment to speak their mind. And Augusta is a high profile target to make their point. So now it becomes a battle of two set of rights, the right to speak your mind, and the right to have a private club (I am sure there is a better way to say that, but you get the point). But if Burk's group get their way then one group gives up their right, and that maybe an over simplistic view. Augusta seems to be willing to go the full nine yard s in this, they have the money, and don't need the sponsorship money from the Masters. Would it bother me if black/jews where not allowed in a public library, I would be pissed. But what about Augusta, this may not be politically correct, I am not sure. They can pick and choose their members, but along with that I have the right to my opinion that such a group is a bunch a backward thinking rednecks. It is a cloudy issue for sure. Does Martha Burk belong to any private clubs? If so, who do they exclude?

Wealthy, insular white women, who live in segregated buildings, eat at segregated restaurants, send their kids to segregated schools, belong to segregated clubs and attend segregated social events, are protesting Augusta's men-only policy so that OTHER wealthy, insular white women, who ... live/eat/send/belong/attend...can join a country club that is open for ONLY TWO MONTHS out of the year? Do I understand correctly?

Hmmmm... What would these women do if they had any real issues in theirs lives.....like a broken nail, or split ends or something?

Another interesting point is that over 1000 women, including Hootie's own wife tee up on the course each year. They don't discriminate against women. It's just that they like to have a boy's club as well. Hell, there are plenty of women's only clubs that no one cares about. It's just that those silly womynists like to see themselves on tv. Like Malmo said, even if they can force Augusta to let in women, they'll just let in some 75 year old multi-millionaire racist woman. What sort of a victory is that for women, anyway?

WOMEN ARE ALLOWED TO PLAY AT AGUSTA. THEY PLAY THERE ALL OF THE TIME. IT'S A FREAKING PRIVATE CLUB, THAT'S ALL. TAKE YOUR SILLY ASS OVER TO IRAQ AND FIGHT SOME REAL INJUSTICE AGAINST WOMEN.

I guess if there had been a woman came to her that had tried to get into Augusta and was denied strictly because she was a woman, I could see the point of Burk's campaign. Fact of the matter is, the idea of Augusta's mens-only policy came across her desk one day and she decided to make an issue of it.

Her going on TV is pathetic. I lost all respect for her when she said they could play the Masters someplace else because the tourney and the club were not joined at the hip. If you don't even know the history of something, don't talk about it -- it makes you look stupid.

I agree, why are they singling out Tiger? Is it because he is a minority? He is bigger than most everything in golf, but he isn't bigger than the Masters. If he sat out, they would play the tournament without him, and even though past champions have a lifetime invitation to the tournament, I bet his invite wouldn't come in the mail the next year, either. And as a 3-time winner of the tournament, he has playing privlidges, but he isn't even a member!

So why does his opinion change things?

There is a difference between being exclusive and being discriminatory, and that's a line Burk and her cronies don't understand. Augusta states it is a mens-only club. If you are a woman and you can't get in, it's because it's an exclusive club (and hundreds like that exist all over the country for both men AND women). If you are a man and you are denied admission because you are minority, a Jew, or are gay, that's discrimination. Despite what they think, there is a difference.

If Burk's organization wants a woman member, do they have one lined up? Is there a CEO or whatever out there that has the money, power, and prestige to get into the club -- and that wants to join? If they don't then sit down.

I for one with this issue would die down. We have women all over the world who don't get equal pay, are discriminated at every turn, and some who are even publicly executed if they are caught cheating on their husbands. Aren't there a few things more important for her to go after than a woman getting into a golf club?

from a girl's perspective, i think y'all are right on. i like the fact that i have girl's only places and that my boyfriend has boy's only places so that we can get away with our friends and then come back together and hang out. and i am one who thinks that discrimination based on race or ethnicity or religion is wrong (i don't think this is a case of discrimination against women, though). and yes, there are far greater battles to fight than whether or not bonnie billionare can become a member of some club . . . especially one that she could probably play at without being a memeber. but listen to this hypocrasy. there is this high school that has a boy's hockey team. one of the players wanted to stay in shape during the off season so he tried out for the girl's field hockey team and made the starting line-up. one of his boy hockey teammates also went out for the team but didn't make starting line-up. that's just 2 boys on the team. now a bunch of the mommies are all bent because these boys are "causing danger to their girls" (!!! whatever), and saying it's not fair because there are other opportunities for boys, blah, blah, blah. what the mommies don't realize is that, one, there are no other opportunities for boys to play field hockey as only a few of them want to play it so there's no need/numbers for an all boy's squad. what a lot of other girls out there don't realize is that if augusta does happen to open the membership doors to them, THEY BETTER BE WILLING TO GIVE UP A TON OF THEIR OWN PRIVATE STUFF!!! all of those private gyms? gone. all of those little coffee clatches? buh-by. although, you boys should probably in favor of this (augusta letting in the chicks) if you're catching on . . . see ya, title 9 ;) (of course i am in favor of some kind of over-haul on that one since it's a load of crap the way it stands now). -- kk

If Augusta National eventually caves to Martha Burk's idiotic demands, I'd love for them to get a really hot or really slutty woman as the token member. I'm thinking Anna Kournikouva for the hot category (does Augusta National have tennis courts or a pool? What about steak sandwiches?) and Anna Nicole Smith for the slutty category. Both of these women have the money to pay the dues and are probably hated by womyn like Burk. Burk couldn't complain because Augusta had a femail (how do womyn spell that?) member. Burk would have to start complaining about Kournikouva or Smith.

Well said, Katyk, you make a lot of sense. You stand as proof that not all of the critics of Title IX are rich, snobbish white boys (Dunes runner, take note).

Damn, Problem Solved, that's the best approach I've heard yet, I love that. And I've pondered this situation a bunch, being a former scholarship golfer at Ga. Tech.