Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Bob_Huntley on June 28, 2013, 11:33:15 AM
-
British political big-wig comes out swinging against Muirfield holding the Open Championship.
Se:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10148105/Alex-Salmond-Staging-Open-at-Muirfield-gives-impression-women-are-second-class-citizens.html
Comments welcome.
Bob
-
Shocking...
-
You say British political big wigs, but all I see is reference to Alex Salmond.
That political small wig is just pandering to the women's vote for his Scottish (Small Degree of) Independence vote.
-
British political big-wig comes out swinging against Muirfield holding the Open Championship.
Se:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10148105/Alex-Salmond-Staging-Open-at-Muirfield-gives-impression-women-are-second-class-citizens.html
Comments welcome.
Bob
Have any of you ever been black-balled? For every action there is a reaction.
-
Why isn't maintaining an all male club just a way of preserving political power that is eroding to the fairer sex in this day and age? It's not about the golf. Augusta National is basically a political and business entity that happens to have a golf course. They manned up and admitted women.
So, I'm thinking Muirfield should man up too.
-
You say British political big wigs, but all I see is reference to Alex Salmond.
That political small wig is just pandering to the women's vote for his Scottish (Small Degree of) Independence vote.
Martin,
Did I use the plural?
Bob
-
I wonder how much leverage the R & A has on the "Honorable Gentlemen".
As we are now in the thirteenth year of the twenty first century and this issue continues to exist is beyond me.
-
Muirfield will admit women or be dropped from the rota. End of discussion.
-
I see two practices of custom and behavior that are questionable in a modern context that continue to confound the public citizen just trying to get along in our complex and too often priveleged and bifurcated society. One is the anachronism of exclusively organized private clubs along membership lines of gender or race discrimination also hosting and perpetuating the standing and prestige of hosting national championship events. Stodgy and traditional they may be, but it is only a matter of time that the 'tory conservative mentality' of fiercly maintaining their old exclusivity based on gender or race will fall. It fell at Augusta primarily because in our modern context of beliefs and mores that the idea of all male or all white clubs is anathema to our evolving sensibility on such matters. And, it will fall in the old British Empire as well.
The second thing that continues to become maddeningly disgusting to the everyday citizen trying to get along and play fair by the rules of governance and taxation and such where we are all expected to give our fair share, is the notion that these priveleged legislators and officials have the gall to spend the public's treasure, needed greatly to assist real life health and welfare or even business-job creation endeavors, to be wasted on some pompous ass or asses faux representing the notion of a governmental ruling class presence at national or prestige events, as if they confer some aura of officialdom approval for the event. The event, if a great championship as The Open or Ryder Cup does not need the official imprimatur of some gasbag legislator or official to confer public sanction or approval to the event. The people in attendance and following it around the world is prestige enough!!!
Let these asses pay their own freight if they desire to enjoy witnessing the sporting spectacle, just like the rest of us commoners! After all, they more able than we to afford the cost of admission. The trouble is that none of the priveleged officials spending the public resources have to sacrifice and make a prioritized decision of whether to spend their resources on an occasional entertainment vs a pressing domestic need like a repaired roof or brake job, etc. When the common person decides to spend a little on themselves, they usually give up something else. These asses give up nothing yet spend what you have contributed to the public treasury in honesty to pay your fair share, expecting it to be spent on common needs of which there are many, always.
A pox on all their politician houses and special official box seats and booths. >:(
-
I do feel a little sorry for Muirfield, Troon and RSG. They are entitled to select their own membership and they do not control the tournament.
The R&A get off lightly because the focus is always on the Clubs, when it’s the decision to ask these clubs to host that should be debated. Last year Dawson went on a lovely jolly to Brazil to choose the course designer. For a no of years he led a campaign to get golf back into the Olympics during which they made all the right noises about inclusiveness.
On the R&A website they say “The R&A seeks to engage in and support activities that are undertaken for the benefit of the game of golf.” How this entirely predictable row benefits the game of Golf I can not see. We need more young and women golfers and we need to be seen to be welcoming them. We do not need The Open held at all male clubs. Time for change at the R&A. The clubs should continue to do whatever they want.
http://www.randa.org/en/RandA.aspx
-
If I believed in idolatry I would have a golden statue made of you. Great post!
KBM, ha! I stand ready to receive your idolatry. Rub my brass snout and I shall grant you your wish. It is I, Il Porcellino, Chinghiale of i Fiorentini Fortunati. ::) ;D 8)
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGmwTv4VhgHYUad0IVAwG1xOvlL0OrAnuthN2PkiIJxIpO_Z7r)
-
I think Pasatiempo should allow women and Muirfield should change their logo.
-
I wonder how much leverage the R & A has on the "Honorable Gentlemen".
How many female members are there in the R&A - I think the answer is 0. Shouldn't the first step be to get female members of the R&A before they can criticize or pressure others into accepting women?
p.s. - You forget a u as it is spelled "Honourable".
-
You say British political big wigs, but all I see is reference to Alex Salmond.
That political small wig is just pandering to the women's vote for his Scottish (Small Degree of) Independence vote.
Martin,
Did I use the plural?
Bob
Alex can easily be mistaken for the plural.
-
...
Why do we have to try and homogenise and sap the individuality out of EVERYTHING in this world? I see it happening everywhere and it saddens me.
It seems to me that these type of men's clubs are all about homogeneity and sap out individuality.
-
a fair penalty would be to NEVER allow them to host the Weetabix British Women's Open ;) ;)
-
...
Why do we have to try and homogenise and sap the individuality out of EVERYTHING in this world? I see it happening everywhere and it saddens me.
It seems to me that these type of men's clubs are all about homogeneity and sap out individuality.
They're all about homogeneity by choice - that's my whole point. My homogenisation and sapping out individuality points were on a macro level.
So if individuality is good at the macro level, why isn't it good at the micro level?
-
They are entitled to select their own membership and they do not control the tournament.
Agreed. Where I disagree with Tony is any onus on those clubs to "grow the game" or being seen to be welcoming to all. Clubs like Muirfield and its members have nurtured something very special for centuries and owe the game nothing. They can conduct themselves on their private property as they see fit within the boundaries of the law.
Brain where have I stated that there is any onus on the Clubs to grow the game. My beef is entirely with the R&A.
I say it is hypocritical to lobby for inclusion in the Olympic movement and all that involves whilst at the same time to place your premier completion on courses run by exclusionary Clubs in 3 out of the next 5 years. I say nothing against all male clubs, in fact I am a member of one, but the R&A have created this mess and it is a mess. Golf has a poor history in this regard and the least the leading body can do is to move forward and present us with a shining example of all that is right with golf.
-
Brian,
The members of Muirfield are free to do as they please. If they choose to relive their experience at British Boys' school so be it. Noone is holding a gun to their heads insisting that they host the Open. They will not, however, be able to continue to have their cake and eat it indefinitely.
-
Garland - I am biting my lip here. Just re-read my posts and you'll eventually figure out what I'm saying. OK - bowing out of this thread now. It is riling me too much!
I know what you are saying. I'm just asking for justification of your logic on homogeneity/individualism.
It seems to me that all the things you say are good about the club reek of homogeneity and you object to the attempts to remove the individualistic homogeneousness. It seems to me these clubs are not all that "individualistic" given that they are quite common.
-
It is my understanding the R&A place pressure on HCEG to hold the Open as the pros like the place and the members don't need the championship.
This is what I think will happen, within the next couple of years the R&A will accept women members. After this a county council will insist the Open is at a club which allows women members. They can prevent an Open by withdrawing the emergency services, highways, etc.
My guess is HCEG and RStG will step aside and drop out of the roster. I'm not sure about Royal Troon.
-
Does hceg allow women to play the course as guests, like other members of the public?
-
Brian - how have the R&A created the mess?
If people look at the R&A properly there is a company limited in liability that runs golf and the various championships. Then there is the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews a private club without a course. I'm not foolish enough to think they are seperate but legally they are.
Jud if you think HCEG would be dropped from the rota you know little about them.
-
Jud if you think HCEG would be dropped from the rota you know little about them.
That's fine, then they'll be building a ladies locker room....
-
I bet if you dig into Salmonds background you will find a prostitute or two and plenty of porn on his computer.
Whats your point?
Tony is absolutely correct. The R&A runs the show and determines which club will be invited to host the Open. If the R&A doesn't like certain policies of a club it should not extend an invitation to host the Open. The ball then is squarely in the court of the club. For an outsider to hammer on about a club's membership policy (so long as it is within the law) is the height of arrogance. Would you try to control who can and cannot enter the home of your neighbour as well?
Ciao
-
I bet if you dig into Salmonds background you will find a prostitute or two and plenty of porn on his computer.
Whats your point?
Tony is absolutely correct. The R&A runs the show and determines which club will be invited to host the Open. If the R&A doesn't like certain policies of a club it should not extend an invitation to host the Open. The ball then is squarely in the court of the club. For an outsider to hammer on about a club's membership policy (so long as it is within the law) is the height of arrogance. Would you try to control who can and cannot enter the home of your neighbour as well?
Ciao
Dang! Abe Lincoln had it wrong. He should have left those southern plantation owners alone. How arrogant of him!
-
Sean,
Do we really have to rehash this again? The club is free to do as it pleases until it holds and profits from, directly or indirectly, an event in the public domain.
-
While some traditionalist people honestly believe that it is a private club, and they can have any membership rules and restrictions they want, the tide of history is not going in that direction. The right to be exclusive is a sound one in that context. But, it is against the evolution of consensus society practices and customs to continue to hang on to the olden times values and customs. It just IS going to change, and some hangers on to the old ways will be dragged kicking and screaming into a more modern understanding. Some can derisively say they aren't for all the 'forced diversity' call it 'socialism or totalitarianism' whatever, and claim it is an assault on our freedoms. They will hold on to their closely held beliefs that it is their right individually and collectively to form an organization to associate with whomever and whatever other class of people they wish and exclude others as they deem in their custom and practice.
But the very fact that the equality laws have been promulgated in our modern society is proof that the world is changing, and the mechanisms of representative government have put new understandings in place via codes and law. The majority public seems no longer willing to support in ancillary ways like use of public treasury to provide services to an event put on by a club that excludes half of the human race based on sex. That is just fact. The law says they are exclusively men and can be so if they want at the HCEG, and the R&A can still apparently decide not to continue to offer an honoray membership to the Principal of St. Andrews because that person is currently a woman. But, are those same groups and clubs entitled to use any of the public's services paid for in taxation by half the population which are women, or add extra costly services to support and manage their events? The Open Championship is held at a place not open to membership inclusion of women- slightly more than half the world population. It is still OK to exclude them as the law and discussion states below - just not to ask for public services support to inflate the prestige and influence of the exclusive club. It seems no longer 'honourable' company to keep in the modern context. IMHO of course.
http://www.englandgolf.org/documents/Equality_Act_2010_Golf_Final__Aug_2010_.pdf (http://www.englandgolf.org/documents/Equality_Act_2010_Golf_Final__Aug_2010_.pdf)
particularly this:
j. Our club is a gentlemen’s club where women are not admitted to any form of
membership. Are we now required to admit women to the club?
No. Genuinely single-sex clubs are not affected by the Act, and may continue to
restrict their membership to one sex. However, if members of the opposite sex are
permitted to join associate categories of membership or are invited as guests, then
the club needs to comply with the Act.
-
If a woman pays the substantial green fee to play muirfield do they have access to the same facilities(or at least equal services) as a man paying the same green fee?
If women are provided a service that is offered in a lesser form based on sex does that not break equality laws in some way?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/3/crossheading/provision-of-services-etc
-
Mr. Tuddenham, could another question along the same lines be asked; how is the income from the green fees paid by a woman or man treated for revenue reporting purposes? Is there any special treatment of income based on corporate private club organization? I have no idea of that answer and how Great Britain and Scotland treat such revenue from green fees charged at a private club. Does anyone have information on that to enlighten us?
-
I realize that we must move in to the modern world, but can anyone see what would happen at the Royal Kabul Golf Club if this was put to the vote?
Bob
-
Sean,
Do we really have to rehash this again? The club is free to do as it pleases until it holds and profits from, directly or indirectly, an event in the public domain.
You are beefing with the wrong folks. Talk to the R&A, they are the decision-makers in this case unless you believe the club should voluntarily stand down as hosts.
You are beefing with the wrong folks. Talk to the Beeb, they can refuse to televise (or as you say put the tournament in the public domain) the event if held at a single gender club. Afterall, they are using public money to provide programming. I would be upset if the Beeb chose this hardline, but I would fully accept it as reasonable considering where the money comes from. In fact, I am somewhat surprised a brewha over this hasn't already happened.
Ciao
-
This is deja vu of the Augusta thread from a year ago. I realize laws and customs are different in GB&I, but like it or not boys, the times they are a changing. It's simply a question of when, not if.
-
This is deja vu of the Augusta thread from a year ago. I realize laws and customs are different in GB&I, but like it or not boys, the times they are a changing. It's simply a question of when, not if.
You are up early - where are you playing?
Ciao
-
This is deja vu of the Augusta thread from a year ago. I realize laws and customs are different in GB&I, but like it or not boys, the times they are a changing. It's simply a question of when, not if.
You are up early - where are you playing?
Ciao
Nowhere unfortunately, just an early riser. Still recovering from 11 rounds in 4 days at Kingsley last weekend!
-
I realize that we must move in to the modern world, but can anyone see what would happen at the Royal Kabul Golf Club if this was put to the vote?
Bob
Bob,
I am a member of Kabul Golf Club. We are not a "Royal" golf club, yet :) but we have allowed women players since the 50's:
http://www.kabulgolfclub.org/id3.html
"Women were an important part of the culture of this club, with Ladies' Leagues being organized from day one. The worn and weedy Ladies' Tees are still a feature of the course. The peace and prosperity of Afghanistan was reflected in the vitality of the Kabul Golf Club."
(http://capitalpartners.filmannex.com/Portals/127019/images/herat%20golf-resized-600.jpeg)
http://capitalpartners.filmannex.com/blog/bid/152925/Update-on-NATO-TV-Afghan-women-use-volleyball-to-bring-peace-to-Afghanistan
My business partner is Roya Mahboob, who is an Afghan refugee born in Iran, and she would be extremely disappointed in me if I did not vote to allow women, in anything. She would call her friend Sheryl Sandberg and have me and my golf club atlas buddies thrown off of Facebook:
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/roya-mahboob/
(http://static.filmannex.com/users/galleries//271442/sherly.jpg)
Here is Roya with Dylan and Fereshteh Forough in Newport, Rhode Island on the way to see Newport Country Club:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMWViYeCYAAimVu.jpg)
She is not rich, she is not powerful (yet), but she has a will power that is inspirational and she has broken down many barriers including some in my own head. If she or Fereshteh thought it would make a difference, they would learn how to play golf and join the R&A, but someone has to give them the opportunity.
Submitted with love,
Mike Sweeney
-
If she or Fereshteh thought it would make a difference, they would learn how to play golf and join the R&A, but someone has to give them the opportunity.
Are you suggesting women don't have the opportunity to play golf?
Ciao
-
I see two practices of custom and behavior that are questionable in a modern context that continue to confound the public citizen just trying to get along in our complex and too often priveleged and bifurcated society. One is the anachronism of exclusively organized private clubs along membership lines of gender or race discrimination also hosting and perpetuating the standing and prestige of hosting national championship events. Stodgy and traditional they may be, but it is only a matter of time that the 'tory conservative mentality' of fiercly maintaining their old exclusivity based on gender or race will fall. It fell at Augusta primarily because in our modern context of beliefs and mores that the idea of all male or all white clubs is anathema to our evolving sensibility on such matters. And, it will fall in the old British Empire as well.
The second thing that continues to become maddeningly disgusting to the everyday citizen trying to get along and play fair by the rules of governance and taxation and such where we are all expected to give our fair share, is the notion that these priveleged legislators and officials have the gall to spend the public's treasure, needed greatly to assist real life health and welfare or even business-job creation endeavors, to be wasted on some pompous ass or asses faux representing the notion of a governmental ruling class presence at national or prestige events, as if they confer some aura of officialdom approval for the event. The event, if a great championship as The Open or Ryder Cup does not need the official imprimatur of some gasbag legislator or official to confer public sanction or approval to the event. The people in attendance and following it around the world is prestige enough!!!
Let these asses pay their own freight if they desire to enjoy witnessing the sporting spectacle, just like the rest of us commoners! After all, they more able than we to afford the cost of admission. The trouble is that none of the priveleged officials spending the public resources have to sacrifice and make a prioritized decision of whether to spend their resources on an occasional entertainment vs a pressing domestic need like a repaired roof or brake job, etc. When the common person decides to spend a little on themselves, they usually give up something else. These asses give up nothing yet spend what you have contributed to the public treasury in honesty to pay your fair share, expecting it to be spent on common needs of which there are many, always.
A pox on all their politician houses and special official box seats and booths. >:(
If I believed in idolatry I would have a golden statue made of you. Great post!
Great post ?!? Only if it's a spoof.
Niall
-
If she or Fereshteh thought it would make a difference, they would learn how to play golf and join the R&A, but someone has to give them the opportunity.
Are you suggesting women don't have the opportunity to play golf?
Ciao
No.
-
Mark - where did I say the R&A created the mess? Granted, I acknowledged what Tony said about the R&A choosing the venue but that was about it.
I don't think there' s any mess. Just people trying to create a mess based on some misguided notion of a diversity crusade
Brian
More power to your elbow, you're one fo the few talking any sense on here. What we have here is an opportunistic politician trying to court the female vote. His interest isn't in golf, or even equal opportunities, he's simply trying to boost his ratings.
I listened to a radio interview he gave yetserday where he suggested the R&A should urge HCEG to admit lady members or alternatively to set up a womans club that could use Muirfield alongside HCEG ! While you get your head round the perverse logic of having an all male club urge another all male club to let in lady members or alternatively set up another "sexist" organisation in the name of equality, let me tell you he was also quite happy for the R&A to remain all male and for the likes of St Regulus to be all female as long as everyone can play the TOC. So there's the answer, HCEG to offer even more visitor slots than they already do that can be booked by either male or female which is the case at the moment ::) If we still had a journalist worth a toss in this country they would have a field day with this nonsense.
Mark
Re Royal Troon - they have a ladies club attached that plays the Portland Course and indeed the ladies club has its own clubhouse. If they have any playing rights on the old course then they would be limited.
Kelly
I have been a member of an all male golf club and I'm certainly not rich. You don't need to be rich to be a member of a golf club over here.
Niall
-
Peter Dawson was grilled in this morning's press conference about the issue. Is this the last Open at Muirfield?
-
Not sure about the rest of the globe, but we in the UK use the phrase 'silly season' to describe that part of the summer where there are no major national or international events taking place but the media still have to fill the pages of their newspapers, their TV schedules and their radio airwaves.
I can understand some folks unhappiness with this issue but if this were a different time of year or something of major significance were happening nationally or internationally just now, this story would maybe receive a very, very small amount of press time. Maybe even none at all.
For example, if a royal baby were born this afternoon, and I'm not saying that is something of major national or international significance, but if that happened the resulting media fest would put the sexism/golf/Muirfield debate to sleep for this year.
The world works in strange ways.
All the best
-
I see two practices of custom and behavior that are questionable in a modern context that continue to confound the public citizen just trying to get along in our complex and too often priveleged and bifurcated society. One is the anachronism of exclusively organized private clubs along membership lines of gender or race discrimination also hosting and perpetuating the standing and prestige of hosting national championship events. Stodgy and traditional they may be, but it is only a matter of time that the 'tory conservative mentality' of fiercly maintaining their old exclusivity based on gender or race will fall. It fell at Augusta primarily because in our modern context of beliefs and mores that the idea of all male or all white clubs is anathema to our evolving sensibility on such matters. And, it will fall in the old British Empire as well.
The second thing that continues to become maddeningly disgusting to the everyday citizen trying to get along and play fair by the rules of governance and taxation and such where we are all expected to give our fair share, is the notion that these priveleged legislators and officials have the gall to spend the public's treasure, needed greatly to assist real life health and welfare or even business-job creation endeavors, to be wasted on some pompous ass or asses faux representing the notion of a governmental ruling class presence at national or prestige events, as if they confer some aura of officialdom approval for the event. The event, if a great championship as The Open or Ryder Cup does not need the official imprimatur of some gasbag legislator or official to confer public sanction or approval to the event. The people in attendance and following it around the world is prestige enough!!!
Let these asses pay their own freight if they desire to enjoy witnessing the sporting spectacle, just like the rest of us commoners! After all, they more able than we to afford the cost of admission. The trouble is that none of the priveleged officials spending the public resources have to sacrifice and make a prioritized decision of whether to spend their resources on an occasional entertainment vs a pressing domestic need like a repaired roof or brake job, etc. When the common person decides to spend a little on themselves, they usually give up something else. These asses give up nothing yet spend what you have contributed to the public treasury in honesty to pay your fair share, expecting it to be spent on common needs of which there are many, always.
A pox on all their politician houses and special official box seats and booths. >:(
Bully!!!
-
While I detest the prospect of an entity discriminating against gender or race, I do respect the right of private property. When I pass a local Lucille Roberts (all female gym membership), I don't get all up in arms - I get the point. Sometimes you feel more comfortable with members of your own gender.
-
The train is speeding down the track. If Dawson chooses not to get out of the way of it he will be run over. Sounds like a win/win proposition to me...
-
a fair penalty would be to NEVER allow them to host the Weetabix British Women's Open ;) ;)
Someone on Morning Drive mentioned that next year's Women's Open is in fact scheduled for RSG.
-
Today
""But I'd like to stress we're not so insular as to fail to recognise the potential damage that campaigns like this can do to The Open Championship. And it is our Championship Committee's responsibility to do what is best for The Open and to maximise the benefits which The Open brings, not just to golf, but also to the local area. And, by the way, in huge funding for women's golf."
This is the first chink of light I've seen. He may just be beginning to comprehend that this row is not in the best interests of Golf. Single sex clubs are fine by me, but if you want to change the perception that Golf is socially backward you don't have 3 Opens in 5 years at all Male Clubs. Wouldn't tackling that perception be in the best interests of Golf, which is the nearest thing the R&A have as a mission statement?
Enjoy this Open Hon. Co.members and Troon members too, you will have some serious thinking to do if you want to have another. And if you don't, that's fine too.
If there is a rota then RSG are next pencilled in for 2022 with an announcement due about 2019. One disadvantage of bundling the single sex clubs together so closely means you have to really grasp the nettle to start issuing all those invites again. 6 years is a long time in sexual politics.
-
British political big-wig comes out swinging against Muirfield holding the Open Championship.
Se:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10148105/Alex-Salmond-Staging-Open-at-Muirfield-gives-impression-women-are-second-class-citizens.html
Comments welcome.
Bob
Bob Huntley,
You are a bad man. Quit stirring the pot and get back on the golf course. Wolf is a lot more fun, even playing poorly, than getting the class envy types all riled up. So much angst out there. And such a large supply of social engineers.
I remember you once counseled that brevity is the soul of wit. A preacher recently offered four thoughts for daily living on the subject:
1. Let your words be few. 2. Let your words be true. 3. Let your words be gentle. 4. Let your words be life-giving. Boy, 1 and 3 are particularly hard for me, but I am trying.
Me, I am going to enjoy The Open and let the social justice experts do their thing. Go Jordan Spieth!
I say it is hypocritical to lobby for inclusion in the Olympic movement and all that involves whilst at the same time to place your premier completion on courses run by exclusionary Clubs in 3 out of the next 5 years. I say nothing against all male clubs, in fact I am a member of one, but the R&A have created this mess and it is a mess.
Hypocrisy. Sounds odious, evil. Yet, as we are wired to pursue our self-interest- the survival instinct- who amongst us is not a hypocrite? It is a defense mechanism enabling us to get on our imperfect lives while holding others, particularly those we disagree with, to the impossible standards that we don't even approach. Unlike envy, which is indeed the most grievous of the Seven Deadly Sins, hypocrisy is mostly benign, particularly if one has a modicum of self-awareness.
-
I realize that we must move in to the modern world, but can anyone see what would happen at the Royal Kabul Golf Club if this was put to the vote?
Bob
Bob,
I am a member of Kabul Golf Club. We are not a "Royal" golf club, yet :) but we have allowed women players since the 50's:
http://www.kabulgolfclub.org/id3.html
"Women were an important part of the culture of this club, with Ladies' Leagues being organized from day one. The worn and weedy Ladies' Tees are still a feature of the course. The peace and prosperity of Afghanistan was reflected in the vitality of the Kabul Golf Club."
(http://capitalpartners.filmannex.com/Portals/127019/images/herat%20golf-resized-600.jpeg)
http://capitalpartners.filmannex.com/blog/bid/152925/Update-on-NATO-TV-Afghan-women-use-volleyball-to-bring-peace-to-Afghanistan
My business partner is Roya Mahboob, who is an Afghan refugee born in Iran, and she would be extremely disappointed in me if I did not vote to allow women, in anything. She would call her friend Sheryl Sandberg and have me and my golf club atlas buddies thrown off of Facebook:
http://time100.time.com/2013/04/18/time-100/slide/roya-mahboob/
(http://static.filmannex.com/users/galleries//271442/sherly.jpg)
Here is Roya with Dylan and Fereshteh Forough in Newport, Rhode Island on the way to see Newport Country Club:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BMWViYeCYAAimVu.jpg)
She is not rich, she is not powerful (yet), but she has a will power that is inspirational and she has broken down many barriers including some in my own head. If she or Fereshteh thought it would make a difference, they would learn how to play golf and join the R&A, but someone has to give them the opportunity.
Submitted with love,
Mike Sweeney
Mike,
If the Taliban can shoot a girl in the head for attending school what must the penalty be for playing golf?
Bob
-
[
If the Taliban can shoot a girl in the head for attending school what must the penalty be for playing golf?
Bob
Bob,
My Italian business partner always says, "Let's give the Taliban a WebTV and let them make money and be regulated by the advertising industry like us :)" He is Italian and he understood that his Grandmother chose chocolates from the Americans over genocide from the Nazis.
I can't disclose too much as Roya is back in Afghanistan now for Ramadan. If it was not for her Father, life would be different. She would remind you so much of your "granddaughter" that we played MPCC with too many years ago.
My wife has questioned many decisions over the last year, and then she saw Zarlasht:
http://www.filmannex.com/movie/we-believe-in-zarlasht/35146
Here is the filmmaker who discovered Z:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazmany_Arboleda
I can't disclose her name as she does not wear a headscarf, but we have a woman blogger in Afghanistan that could make $12,000 this year. Here is the average income of an Afghan family today:
http://data.worldbank.org/country/afghanistan
PS. I support the right of private clubs to stay private and have male or female only memberships. I simply believe the R&A, which in my mind is a public entity, should not use host sites that discriminate.
Here is the woman's football (soccer for my John Kavanaugh type friends :) ) that we sponsor in Kabul:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BOriLTRCUAAVz7K.png:thumb)
(http://static.filmannex.com/users/galleries//274106/girls2.jpg)
-
Tony - I'm not convinced the member of HCEG would be too concerned at losing the Open. The person who would be most annoyed would be the odious Mr Salmond. Kent county council put the economic benefit of the Open at £90m to Kent. If the R&A took the "East Lothian" Open to England, Ulster or Wales Salmond would have serious egg on his face.
-
"But, are those same groups and clubs entitled to use any of the public's services paid for in taxation by half the population"
Which public services are we talking about?
-
Tony - I'm not convinced the member of HCEG would be too concerned at losing the Open. The person who would be most annoyed would be the odious Mr Salmond. Kent county council put the economic benefit of the Open at £90m to Kent. If the R&A took the "East Lothian" Open to England, Ulster or Wales Salmond would have serious egg on his face.
Mark,
If HCEG decides they'd rather remain a men's club than retain the Open, why would Salmond be held responsible?
-
Do we really have to rehash this again? The club is free to do as it pleases until it holds and profits from, directly or indirectly, an event in the public domain.
Says who? Again, if change is really the goal, the people responsible are not host club members, but the R&A and the BeeB. One controls the site the other controls the money making media. Write your letters and start a campaign, but please don't accuse me of rehashing this when it is your name plastered all over these threads. We get it, you don't like male only clubs making money from big time events. Its small beer in the world of dislikes, but if you feel strongly - do something. At the very least you can be seen not to support the event - then work up from there. But please, don't be one of those guys who says tech is bad for golf while standing in line for a new driver.
Ciao
-
Hi Lou,
I'm just curious why you chose to edit out the last line of the paragraph you quoted?
"I say it is hypocritical to lobby for inclusion in the Olympic movement and all that involves whilst at the same time to place your premier completion on courses run by exclusionary Clubs in 3 out of the next 5 years. I say nothing against all male clubs, in fact I am a member of one, but the R&A have created this mess and it is a mess. Golf has a poor history in this regard and the least the leading body can do is to move forward and present us with a shining example of all that is right with golf."
As golfers isn't it in our 'self interest' to have the game we love, that occupies much of our time and in some ways defines us in the eyes of others, presented in the best light? Perhaps if you had a daughter you might feel different about this matter, perhaps not. I had the same feeling when I read Ran's comments about ignoring all the fuss about Trumps method's and just concentrating on playing the golf course. Such a narrow focus on self interest is short sighted at best. Golf is by most accounts in trouble and the perception of it as being for old sexist men (which is incidentally not a case that I'm arguing) does not help one bit.
As to my hypocrisy's, yes guilty as charged. But then I'm not claiming to represent anyone but myself.
Mark I understand your point. I think everyone knows by now where I stand on this and I believe it's at the Political (Cameron got involved yesterday with a wild misaimed shot) and R&A level that change will be worked out. Some of these Clubs will choose not to change their membership policy's and good for them.
-
Hi Lou,
I'm just curious why you chose to edit out the last line of the paragraph you quoted?
"I say it is hypocritical to lobby for inclusion in the Olympic movement and all that involves whilst at the same time to place your premier completion on courses run by exclusionary Clubs in 3 out of the next 5 years. I say nothing against all male clubs, in fact I am a member of one, but the R&A have created this mess and it is a mess. Golf has a poor history in this regard and the least the leading body can do is to move forward and present us with a shining example of all that is right with golf."
As golfers isn't it in our 'self interest' to have the game we love, that occupies much of our time and in some ways defines us in the eyes of others, presented in the best light? Perhaps if you had a daughter you might feel different about this matter, perhaps not. I had the same feeling when I read Ran's comments about ignoring all the fuss about Trumps method's and just concentrating on playing the golf course. Such a narrow focus on self interest is short sighted at best. Golf is by most accounts in trouble and the perception of it as being for old sexist men (which is incidentally not a case that I'm arguing) does not help one bit.
As to my hypocrisy's, yes guilty as charged. But then I'm not claiming to represent anyone but myself.
No specific reason other than it was not pertinent to what I was attempting to address. And I was not accusing you of being a hypocrite specifically, only that we all tend to talk out of both sides of our mouth from time to time.
IMO, the world in general and golf specifically have much, much larger fish to fry than the acceptance of women to an all male golf club or the awarding of an important event under its auspices to a club which has some policies that are contrary to current populist (not necessarily majority) notions of equality. Like so many other things plaguing the confused minds of those yearning to dominate society through the sheer force of a large government, the concept of equality under the law (or in the eyes of God) has been bastardized by these justice warriors well beyond common sense, practicality, or the ability to implement with any hope of success. I have to wonder what percentage of women really give a rat's ass about being precluded from joining Muirfield because of their gender, particularly, if, in fair play, by removing that obstacle, men would then have "the right" to join clubs and participate in activities previously restricted to the fairer sex.
I do have a daughter and I do want her to have access to every reasonable opportunity that adds value to her life. The universe of these is so vast that somehow missing out on Muirfield, Augusta National or Preston Trails doesn't merit a second thought. It would indeed be a great example of hypocrisy if a club which discriminates based on gender (say the R & A) would preclude Muirfield or Troon for that reason.
What ails golf, IMO, has little to do with the ruling bodies' current stances on club policies and governance. Rather than seeking a role in social engineering, they might better spend their time identifying the various causes of why golf is losing steam and coming up with some practical, achievable solutions. Initiatives on the pace of play, water usage, and other sustainability issues are good first steps. Reviewing the possibility of bifurcating the rules relating to balls and implements as well as the conditions of play (e.g. redefining course boundaries) might be another. But if the golf powers want to play in the larger political field which very much affects the future of the game in significant ways, taxation and tort law are but two areas that beg attention.
I am greatly enjoying the Open and how Muirfield is playing. If you guys need a European Martha Burke to stir things up, there are no shortage of those. Not like there is not enough on your plate already over there.
Cheers.
-
As an aside I played golf with a group of friends yesterday, many of whom were at the Open on the Friday, spending an inordinate amount of time socialising it has to be said. Due to certain connections they were inside the clubhouse, which was stacked with wives, girlfriends and female hangers on. I'm told Condoleesa Rice was there although what category she comes into, I'm not sure ;).
Niall
-
I had a very interesting chat today with a young lady who was one of the campaigners to get women into the MCC (Marylebone Cricket Club). She became a respected member within a couple of years of women being able to join. She has no problem with the HCEG being men only and the Open being played there. Her issue is the R&A runs golf, as the MCC ran cricket and it is they who should have lady members as the ruling body not the venues.
-
Lou we seem to be speaking about different things so I’m still puzzled why you selected my post but I’ll try to reply to your points.
No specific reason other than it was not pertinent to what I was attempting to address. And I was not accusing you of being a hypocrite specifically, only that we all tend to talk out of both sides of our mouth from time to time.
Understood I never thought it was a personal attack. Some of the most consistent folk who avoid even the tang of Hypocrisy are also crashing bores; a certain amount of holding contradictory views makes life interesting. However when the Self appointed governing body acts “inconsistently” then I think it fair game to call them on it.
IMO, the world in general and golf specifically have much, much larger fish to fry than the acceptance of women to an all male golf club or the awarding of an important event under its auspices to a club which has some policies that are contrary to current populist (not necessarily majority) notions of equality. Like so many other things plaguing the confused minds of those yearning to dominate society through the sheer force of a large government, the concept of equality under the law (or in the eyes of God) has been bastardized by these justice warriors well beyond common sense, practicality, or the ability to implement with any hope of success. I have to wonder what percentage of women really give a rat's ass about being precluded from joining Muirfield because of their gender, particularly, if, in fair play, by removing that obstacle, men would then have "the right" to join clubs and participate in activities previously restricted to the fairer sex.
I do feel you are applying your well known belief in the danger of large Government to a governing body that we as golfers (outside the USA) voluntarily decide to abide by. Why can’t you see my point that it’s the perception of Golf as an Old Man’s game that makes it less than appealing to the young and to many other people who would gain real benefit from playing a round a week but have never been exposed to what’s good about the game. I’m not trying to reengineer society just point out that the R&A are needlessly blighting their own Championship with this policy. I have repeatedly said that Muirfield have the right to choose their own members, please acknowledge this and stop turning this into an issue that I’m not addressing.
I do have a daughter and I do want her to have access to every reasonable opportunity that adds value to her life. The universe of these is so vast that somehow missing out on Muirfield, Augusta National or Preston Trails doesn't merit a second thought. It would indeed be a great example of hypocrisy if a club which discriminates based on gender (say the R & A) would preclude Muirfield or Troon for that reason.
Now we are in agreement. It follows from what I have been saying that if the R&A want to represent the game of golf it is absurd that they are a synonymous legal representative of an all male group. They are cagey on this matter saying they are still looking at the relationship between the two organisations.
What ails golf, IMO, has little to do with the ruling bodies' current stances on club policies and governance. Rather than seeking a role in social engineering, they might better spend their time identifying the various causes of why golf is losing steam and coming up with some practical, achievable solutions. Initiatives on the pace of play, water usage, and other sustainability issues are good first steps. Reviewing the possibility of bifurcating the rules relating to balls and implements as well as the conditions of play (e.g. redefining course boundaries) might be another. But if the golf powers want to play in the larger political field which very much affects the future of the game in significant ways, taxation and tort law are but two areas that beg attention.
The issue’s you are discussing mainly affect and concern existing golfers. I am looking out at the folk who do not play golf and never even wonder how long it takes to play. I have no idea who you socialise or do business with, but I would say less than 10% of my regular social set are golfers and for the majority of the other 90%, Golf apparently has a real image problem. The Open featured sterling pace of play and was a model example of water conservation and more sustainable course management. However the China People’s Daily ran an article focussing on the Gender issue as did all the press in GB&I and it all reflected poorly on the image of golf. I repeat , this row was entirely unnecessary and does the game of golf a disservice.
I am greatly enjoying the Open and how Muirfield is playing. If you guys need a European Martha Burke to stir things up, there are no shortage of those. Not like there is not enough on your plate already over there.
Like you I greatly enjoyed what I managed to see of the golf. Well done Phil.
Cheers.
-
I was wondering yesterday why it had been 11 years since the last Open at Muirfield, and I'm prepared to think this is one of the reasons, that the R & A doesn't like bringing this issue back into the spotlight, especially considering its own status.
I also wonder, after reading this thread, which of you posters have daughters, but I think I could probably make some educated guesses.
-
I can't analyze the rest of the world's mores, but here in America we are now undergoing (seems fast to some, slow to others) the hard change that comes post-Enlightenment...
Gender and Race was never contemplated in the founding documents, nor the tradition behind them.
I watched a stimulating panel about whether or not the US Constitution is worth preserving; and one panelist was citing the Hobbsian formula to which those makers/founders tested their ideas:
1. Q: Where does Law come from?
A: It comes from Constitution?
2. Q: Where does Constitution come from?
A: it comes from the consent of the governed?
3. Q: where does this consent come from
A: It comes from those traditions of natural rights which pre-date any Constitution
My point, with this Golf issue, was that the very tradition (as in all things) is so overwhelmingly "Male," (and if we want to go there, "White/Caucasian") that there is no underpinning, no social tradition, no contemplation of the gender role (or the natural rights of those not White Male) that the older the institution (like many British clubs in the crosshairs) have to reference and/or formulate consent over.
We think "Mmmmm, but the lineage of gender and race struggles for equality have been going on for a good long time now (150 years), to the extent that this is antiquated, barbarian...we know better... and of course, we shouldn't let the public coffers be advantaged by anyone who doesn't practice what is (now) Enlightened policy..."
But the problem (in all areas) is that the underpinning of this essential "fairness" and "equality" has to combat (in the Western sense) 1500 years of previous tradition (2500 if we go to the Greeks) in which gender and race were not consideration for the political and moral philosophy of our species.
So, guess what...IMO, we are going to be lumped in with the Enlightenment by future history...we are still undergoing the movement. We may be (rightly or wrongly, depending on your view) indeed making laws and now treating gender and race equally, bu tthe previous thousands of years of traditions are still in conflict with what we do. If we look to tradition and Founding generations for help; it's not there...it's not even on the map.
This is the essential disconnect and contemporary tension in what we believe are worthwhile traditions to keep and which ones are in need of change. The world is not an old man, in this regard; its an adolescent. It is only just in the last .05% of Western history that ALL the players are included in the program (white, black, men, women, religious, agnostic).
Did the Enlightenment mean for White Males only?
We are determining to contravene the answer you would have received in 1787.
This is the way of things.
cheers
vk
-
What if the Champion Golfer yesterday had not stuck to the typical speech after being presented the Claret Jug. With his wife and daughters there, he had quite the opportunity. I wonder if it crossed his mind?
-
Opportunity to what, lecture his host on how they run or should run their club?
Can't think of a way to be more rude.
-
What if the Champion Golfer yesterday had not stuck to the typical speech after being presented the Claret Jug. With his wife and daughters there, he had quite the opportunity. I wonder if it crossed his mind?
Joe,
When Phil sent his entry in, he accepted being in Rome.
If he wanted to make a statement, he could have done so by not sending his entry in.
But, once he submited his entry, he was in Rome.
Had he made a comment about the club's policies during his acceptance speech it would have been in the worst possible taste.
With all the wealth accumulated by women, why do you think there aren't any "women's" golf clubs ?,
-
Pat,
Ladies Golf Club of Toronto.
(http://i40.tinypic.com/1z377t2.jpg)
-
Where should the protesters meet?
-
Where should the protesters meet?
At the home of the woman who's stupid enough to propose holding a Tour event there in the year 2013, not to mention a Major...
-
I was wondering yesterday why it had been 11 years since the last Open at Muirfield, and I'm prepared to think this is one of the reasons, that the R & A doesn't like bringing this issue back into the spotlight, especially considering its own status.
I also wonder, after reading this thread, which of you posters have daughters, but I think I could probably make some educated guesses.
For those of you with sons, how pissed off are you that they can't get into the Girl Guides ?
Niall
-
Jud T,
Men can be card holding guests at the Ladies Golf Club of Toronto, hence there is no "women's ONLY" golf club.