Muirfield golf club

LuckyGent88

Just up on news now that muirfield golf club has failed to pass the 2/3 majority needed out of 800 members to allow women members.
Therefore it will now be excluded from hosting the open championship while it refuses to allow female members.

Strange that members would vote not to allow female members in this day and age especially giving the repercussions.

Think royal Troon have a similar vote coming up shortly.

alxmorgan

Quick response
Well done to them

https://twitter.com/RandA/status/733249767476764672

Golfgorfield

https://twitter.com/TweeterAlliss/status/733240365180985344

Minderbinder

Totalitarianism 2016

alxmorgan

This is hilarious
Dinosaurs

http://www.balls.ie/golf/the-farcical-letter-that-was-sent-ahead-of-muirfield-female-member-vote/333799

valoren

alxmorgan wrote: »

Quick response
Well done to them

https://twitter.com/RandA/status/733249767476764672

They will lose the Senior Open too, Walker Cup et al.
64% voted for the resolution though.
I think it's only a matter of time* before they get the 66%.

*It's the kind of club where you can only become a member where a previous member has passed away.

HighLine

alxmorgan wrote: »

This is hilarious
Dinosaurs

http://www.balls.ie/golf/the-farcical-letter-that-was-sent-ahead-of-muirfield-female-member-vote/333799

That's comical. I almost thought I was reading a satirical piece like Waterford Whispers or the like. Ladies would have difficulty with their "lunch arrangements"! Ha!

CMOTDibbler

HighLine wrote: »

That's comical. I almost thought I was reading a satirical piece like Waterford Whispers or the like. Ladies would have difficulty with their "lunch arrangements"! Ha!

I'm bemused by the foursomes match where a round takes the same time as lunch.

I'm just not sure if it's a very quick round or a very slow lunch.

blackwhite

I remember an article around the time of the R&A vote about this.

There's more women only golf clubs in the UK than there are men only clubs, yet only the men's clubs are under pressure to change.

CMOTDibbler

blackwhite wrote: »

I remember an article around the time of the R&A vote about this.

There's more women only golf clubs in the UK than there are men only clubs, yet only the men's clubs are under pressure to change.

A significant number of those are clubs without clubhouses or without a course. There are very few women only golf clubs in the strict meaning of the word.

There are all kinds of strange setups in the UK. Clubs with clubhouses and using third party courses or without either clubhouse or course.

Shawn Michaels

Interesting to see what effect (if any) his has on Portmarnock and Royal Dublin.

None I'd imagine.

LuckyGent88

Im sure the course has strict rules in becoming a male member so why don't they just allow female members but then just have strict guidelines and rules.

They already allow women to play the course and visit the clubhouse so what's the big deal with allowing a few female members just like Augusta.

Letree

I support women being members of golf clubs but they can't have their cake and eat it too. There are many different clubs and institutions that are women only. Yet anything that has the male only tag they want to be a part of it.

Montgolfier

Why can't men have a club of their own it's such BS driven by a media frenzy.
I'm glad they stuck to their principles.

CMOTDibbler

Letree wrote: »

I support women being members of golf clubs but they can't have their cake and eat it too. There are many different clubs and institutions that are women only. Yet anything that has the male only tag they want to be a part of it.

Yeah, why can't men be members of the Irish Countrywoman's Association? :rolleyes:

Montgolfier

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yeah, why can't men be members of the Irish Countrywoman's Association? :rolleyes:

Yeah or curves!

Letree

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yeah, why can't men be members of the Irish Countrywoman's Association? :rolleyes:

Whats the difference, one is a woman's country club the other is a mens golf club

Canadel

Montgolfier wrote: »

Why can't men have a club of their own it's such BS driven by a media frenzy.
I'm glad they stuck to their principles.

Well, they can. And it seems the members voted to retain that state.

Letree wrote: »

I support women being members of golf clubs but they can't have their cake and eat it too. There are many different clubs and institutions that are women only. Yet anything that has the male only tag they want to be a part of it.

1. Why not? 2. Why do you think they are having their cake and eating it?

Your argument here amounts to a guy arrested for robbing a grocery store whose defence is that there are other guys robbing bars, cars and whatever else.

Letree

I am a member of a club with lots of women members. I like it that way and personally wouldn't really want to be in a men only club. However i am uncomfortable with these men being browbeaten into changing their clubs status. So what if its men only.. must women muscle their way into every last place men are in.

Its the double standards of it all. We know well if a group of women decided tomorrow that they'd like a women only golf course then they would be applauded and supported in that venture. Some excuse like the women feel more comfortable with only other women around etc would be used. Nobody would raise a murmur. But it can't be allowed the other way.

Minderbinder

C. ENTRIES
(1) Entry into RQ will be accepted from any male professional
golfer, from a male amateur golfer whose playing handicap
does not exceed 0.4 (SCRATCH), from a male amateur golfer
who has been within WAGRTM listing 1-2000 (see www.
WAGR.com) during the period WAGRTM week 2015/01 to
date of entry and from any female golfer in
(i) The top 5 and ties in the 2015 ANA Inspiration.
(ii) The top 5 and ties in the 2015 KPMG Women’s PGA
Championship.
(iii) The top 5 and ties in the 2014 US Women’s Open
Championship.
(iv) The top 5 and ties in the 2014 RICOH Women’s British
Open Championship.
(v) The top 5 and ties in the 2014 Evian Championship

Maybe Muirfield should copy the R&A by allowing just the very best women golfers in the world the chance to be members?

Jawgap

Montgolfier wrote: »

Why can't men have a club of their own it's such BS driven by a media frenzy.
I'm glad they stuck to their principles.

Nobody is saying they can't - they just can't have that and be on the Open roster.

Presumably the-powers-that-be don't want to be seen to be rewarding an institution with the most prestigious competition in the sport when that same institution actively excludes almost 50% of potential players?

Also, to be frank, while I think the R&A were right to remove them from the roster, if the HCEG rang me today and offered me membership I'd accept

Ronney

The R&A should ask them do they want to host the Open Championship and if they say yes give them the Ladies Open and announce it to the media! Imagine the Blood pressure levels of the grumpy Lads in the corner of the Bar!

syngindub

common sense $$ will prevail

Kingswood Rover

Letree wrote: »

I am a member of a club with lots of women members. I like it that way and personally wouldn't really want to be in a men only club. However i am uncomfortable with these men being browbeaten into changing their clubs status. So what if its men only.. must women muscle their way into every last place men are in.

Its the double standards of it all. We know well if a group of women decided tomorrow that they'd like a women only golf course then they would be applauded and supported in that venture. Some excuse like the women feel more comfortable with only other women around etc would be used. Nobody would raise a murmur. But it can't be allowed the other way.

Sexism is sexism and completely daft in this day and age i would just as aghast if their was a swanky womens only golf club voting to retain their bar on men. Golf may be a little behind the curve in this area why is theire a GUI and a ILGU although i think the 2 bodies are exploring the idea of Joining up. We really are a nutty species but we are getting our act together.

martinkop

In fairness, 64% voted to allow women members but it needed a 66% majority for the motion to carry. So the "almost" majority of the club are open to change and thinking along the values of modern culture and society.

But anyway you can only become a member when another member dies, so I'd say the waiting list is rather long.

BigChap1759

Jawgap wrote: »

Nobody is saying they can't - they just can't have that and be on the Open roster.

Presumably the-powers-that-be don't want to be seen to be rewarding an institution with the most prestigious competition in the sport when that same institution actively excludes almost 50% of potential players?

Also, to be frank, while I think the R&A were right to remove them from the roster, if the HCEG rang me today and offered me membership I'd accept

Nail on head

blackwhite

Jawgap wrote: »

Nobody is saying they can't - they just can't have that and be on the Open roster.

Presumably the-powers-that-be don't want to be seen to be rewarding an institution with the most prestigious competition in the sport when that same institution actively excludes almost 50% of potential players?

Also, to be frank, while I think the R&A were right to remove them from the roster, if the HCEG rang me today and offered me membership I'd accept

This.

Any club should be free to define their membership however they see fit - that's the purpose of a club - freedom to choose who you associate with for a common interest.

Equally well, the R&A are rightly free to include a fully inclusive membership model as a pre-requisite for hosting their competitions - will be interesting to see if Troon decide to make changes over the next 5 years.

Jawgap

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Sexism is sexism and completely daft in this day and age i would just as aghast if their was a swanky womens only golf club voting to retain their bar on men. Golf may be a little behind the curve in this area why is theire a GUI and a ILGU although i think the 2 bodies are exploring the idea of Joining up. We really are a nutty species but we are getting our act together.

There are plenty of women's only clubs and institutions - so what? Honestly, if a bunch of men or women want to go off and form a private club why should the rest of us care?

What shouldn't happen is that they shouldn't be rewarded for going down that particular route of exclusivity - so as long as it's them, and their money and their time let them away with it, I'd say.

BTW, as a bloke I'm excluded from joining in with the fastest growing sport in this country as administered by the Ladies' Gaelic Football Association.

Nearly all sports are rife with sexism - counties don't field mixed football teams, Katie Taylor will never fight a male competitor and Leona Maguire could shoot perfect rounds for the next 3 months with her eyes closed, she still won't be on the Ryder Cup team, just like Rory will never be on the Solheim Cup team.

Russman

You'd have to assume they knew the consequences of voting as they did (ie losing The Open), and were ok with that.
Personally I'm happy to be a member of a club that has both male and female full members, but I also think that if a group of guys (or girls) decide they want a private club for only themselves or don't want, as members of their club, either men or women, then that's ok too. Its their club after all.

That being said, in real world terms, how hard would it have been to change the rule and simply make sure anyone they don't want in (male or female) is simply blackballed ??!!

alxmorgan

Russman wrote: »

You'd have to assume they knew the consequences of voting as they did (ie losing The Open), and were ok with that.
Personally I'm happy to be a member of a club that has both male and female full members, but I also think that if a group of guys (or girls) decide they want a private club for only themselves or don't want, as members of their club, either men or women, then that's ok too. Its their club after all.

That being said, in real world terms, how hard would it have been to change the rule and simply make sure anyone they don't want in (male or female) is simply blackballed ??!!

That's the spirit

loyatemu

Montgolfier wrote: »

Why can't men have a club of their own it's such BS driven by a media frenzy.
I'm glad they stuck to their principles.

only 36% stuck to their principles

loyatemu

this is probably wandering off point, but is there any reason why Golf competitions are segregated at amateur level at all? Isn't the handicap system supposed to level everything up, and there are also different tees for ladies.

I've heard members at Greystones say they didn't allow full lady members because there was no demand from the ladies to play at weekends, which is a bullsh!t reason for a start, but why can't all handicapped competitions be mixed? (this was a few years ago, I think the club allows women to be full members now).

Keano

This is a sensitive subject so I'm putting a warning up early. Oh and one or two posts have a tone that has no place anywhere, so thread carefully. Thanks

DiegoWorst

loyatemu wrote: »

this is probably wandering off point, but is there any reason why Golf competitions are segregated at amateur level at all? Isn't the handicap system supposed to level everything up, and there are also different tees for ladies.

I've heard members at Greystones say they didn't allow full lady members because there was no demand from the ladies to play at weekends, which is a bullsh!t reason for a start, but why can't all handicapped competitions be mixed? (this was a few years ago, I think the club allows women to be full members now).

Players play from different tees.

The handicaps have been assessed from red tees, and respective SSS/CSS. This would have to be adjusted.
A lot of courses have a different par depending on the tees in play e.g. par 72 for men, par 75 for ladies.
etc....

CMOTDibbler

Jawgap wrote: »

BTW, as a bloke I'm excluded from joining in with the fastest growing sport in this country as administered by the Ladies' Gaelic Football Association.

Nearly all sports are rife with sexism - counties don't field mixed football teams, Katie Taylor will never fight a male competitor and Leona Maguire could shoot perfect rounds for the next 3 months with her eyes closed, she still won't be on the Ryder Cup team, just like Rory will never be on the Solheim Cup team.

That's not sexism though. You seriously wouldn't consider putting Katie Taylor in the ring with an equivalent weight level male boxer? Some sports don't really have that issue (weight, height, strength etc.) but still segragate their sports in order to attract more competitors and create more competitions. But it's mainly about fairness, not sexism.

A lot of Golf Clubs have mixed competitions. The ladies play off one set of tees and the men off another, My own club does this for every club competition.

Kingswood Rover

blackwhite wrote: »

This.

Any club should be free to define their membership however they see fit - that's the purpose of a club - freedom to choose who you associate with for a common interest.

Equally well, the R&A are rightly free to include a fully inclusive membership model as a pre-requisite for hosting their competitions - will be interesting to see if Troon decide to make changes over the next 5 years.

No they should not, barring people from joining a club because of their age, sex, race is wrong. Yes of course you can choose with who you like to associate within any group/club. The purpose of a club surely is the common interest and how a group of people come together to pursue that interest more productively. Its not defining who can and can't join.

Russman

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

No they should not, barring people from joining a club because of their age, sex, race is wrong. Yes of course you can choose with who you like to associate within any group/club. The purpose of a club surely is the common interest and how a group of people come together to pursue that interest more productively. Its not defining who can and can't join.

But what about the people who decide to form a private club, and their common interest in golf, running, chess, whatever, with their particular friends/associates ?
Just because others might also like to pursue the same activities surely doesn't mean they should be admitted "just because" ??
Surely the essence of any private club is the sense of belonging, togetherness, shared values, esprit de corps etc., call it what you will, that members have ?

Minderbinder

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

No they should not, barring people from joining a club because of their age, sex, race is wrong. Yes of course you can choose with who you like to associate within any group/club. The purpose of a club surely is the common interest and how a group of people come together to pursue that interest more productively. Its not defining who can and can't join.

So men should not be excluded from (as said earlier) the Irish Country Womens' Association? If I want to join they have to accept me?

Can't believe some of the rubbish I'm reading.

blackwhite

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

No they should not, barring people from joining a club because of their age, sex, race is wrong. Yes of course you can choose with who you like to associate within any group/club. The purpose of a club surely is the common interest and how a group of people come together to pursue that interest more productively. Its not defining who can and can't join.

Well then grab your torch and pitchfork and head for this place

http://www.gracebelgravia.com/discover-grace/membership/

Jawgap

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's not sexism though. You seriously wouldn't consider putting Katie Taylor in the ring with an equivalent weight level male boxer? Some sports don't really have that issue (weight, height, strength etc.) but still segragate their sports in order to attract more competitors and create more competitions. But it's mainly about fairness, not sexism.

A lot of Golf Clubs have mixed competitions. The ladies play off one set of tees and the men off another, My own club does this for every club competition.

How is it not sexism?

I could (and probably am) the worst boxer in the world - Katie Taylor would be capable of slapping me around the ring with one arm tied behind her back and a blindfold on, but there is no way I could ever - as things stand - get to fight her. No matter how hard I train, no matter what competitions I enter, it's never going to happen. So, it's not that she's never going to fight a male boxer in her weight class, or a male boxer who competes at the same level, it's that she is never going to be allowed box a male opponent, no matter how much she may outclass him or be on a par with him.

Golf is fundamentally very egalitarian. You and I stand on a tee box, smash the ball around and if, after 18 holes, you've done it in less strokes than I have or scored more points or won more holes - you are the better golfer. The handicap system simply makes it competitive.

If golf wants to be truly 'non-sexist' and 'non-discriminatory' then it should lump the men's tour, the challenge tour, the women's tour and the senior's tour into one and maybe have divisions - the top golfer, will be the top golfer based on performance on the course over a season.

Ok, that's not going to happen because the Tours are 'products' and need to me marketed to different segments, but that segmentation is 'discriminatory.'

As it stands, the best female golfers, no matter how good they are cannot win the Open, for example. Not because they might not be good enough, simply because their gender does not permit them to enter. Likewise, if a lower ranked golfer fancies his chances on the women's tour, or the seniors' tour, he can forget about it given the qualification criteria are not sport-related.

......and I'm not advocating that Muirfield get put back on the Open roster - I'm just saying as a private club, it's a matter for them. No doubt they were advised of the consequences of voting against it, and they did anyway (or rather not enough voted in favour), so they're out and the golfing world moves on.

valoren

I would imagine that the club is relieved that it has been taken off the Open rota.
It was probably a nuisance and hassle for them to host it.
It also shined a light in 2013 at the club's archaic policies and customs which wouldn't have been welcome either.

Minderbinder

Jawgap wrote: »

How is it not sexism?

I could (and probably am) the worst boxer in the world - Katie Taylor would be capable of slapping me around the ring with one arm tied behind her back and a blindfold on, but there is no way I could ever - as things stand - get to fight her. No matter how hard I train, no matter what competitions I enter, it's never going to happen. So, it's not that she's never going to fight a male boxer in her weight class, or a male boxer who competes at the same level, it's that she is never going to be allowed box a male opponent, no matter how much she may outclass him or be on a par with him.

Golf is fundamentally very egalitarian. You and I stand on a tee box, smash the ball around and if, after 18 holes, you've done it in less strokes than I have or scored more points or won more holes - you are the better golfer. The handicap system simply makes it competitive.

If golf wants to be truly 'non-sexist' and 'non-discriminatory' then it should lump the men's tour, the challenge tour, the women's tour and the senior's tour into one and maybe have divisions - the top golfer, will be the top golfer based on performance on the course over a season.

Ok, that's not going to happen because the Tours are 'products' and need to me marketed to different segments, but that segmentation is 'discriminatory.'

As it stands, the best female golfers, no matter how good they are cannot win the Open, for example. Not because they might not be good enough, simply because their gender does not permit them to enter. Likewise, if a lower ranked golfer fancies his chances on the women's tour, or the seniors' tour, he can forget about it given the qualification criteria are not sport-related.

......and I'm not advocating that Muirfield get put back on the Open roster - I'm just saying as a private club, it's a matter for them. No doubt they were advised of the consequences of voting against it, and they did anyway (or rather not enough voted in favour), so they're out and the golfing world moves on.

Actually the top 5 in the rankings on the major Womens' Tours can enter qualifying. But you are right that all other women cannot enter at any level of qualifying for the Open regardless of how good they are. Perhaps this organisation (the R&A) needs to look at itself first before judging others about discrimination, and perhaps the media and others should get on their high horse and ask why women with the same handicap as a man are excluded from competing in the flagship event on the basis of their gender. Pretty disgraceful when you think about it.

loyatemu

Minderbinder wrote: »

So men should not be excluded from (as said earlier) the Irish Country Womens' Association? If I want to join they have to accept me?

different scenario - the ICA is an organisation that specifically looks after womens issues. Muirfield is a Golf Club (whatever they might say).

There are organisations dedicated to men-specific issues (e.g. Mens Shed); there are fewer of them because men as a rule aren't discriminated against and society isn't loaded against them in the same way it is against women.

Minderbinder

loyatemu wrote: »

different scenario - the ICA is an organisation that specifically looks after womens issues. Muirfield is a Golf Club (whatever they might say).

There are organisations dedicated to men-specific issues (e.g. Mens Shed); there are fewer of them because men as a rule aren't discriminated against and society isn't loaded against them in the same way it is against women.

So what's your opinion of the R&A excluding women (who have a scratch handicap or better) from entering qualifying for the Open on the basis of their gender? Do you think the R&A are being hypocritical and do yo think the media should shine a spotlight on that as well as Muirfield?

Letree

loyatemu wrote: »

There are organisations dedicated to men-specific issues (e.g. Mens Shed); there are fewer of them because men as a rule aren't discriminated against and society isn't loaded against them in the same way it is against women.

Is that really the case anymore?

Russman

loyatemu wrote: »

different scenario - the ICA is an organisation that specifically looks after womens issues. Muirfield is a Golf Club (whatever they might say).

There are organisations dedicated to men-specific issues (e.g. Mens Shed); there are fewer of them because men as a rule aren't discriminated against and society isn't loaded against them in the same way it is against women.

Yes but isn't that a bit grey ? You're suggesting organisations can be discriminatory if they are concerned with certain issues (women's issues in the case of ICA) but not with others (sports in the case of Muirfield).

If Muirfield is a golf club set up by a group of men, for certain men, I think they've every right to decide who can join. Personally I think they're mad not to change their rules (I know 64% voted in favour), but I keep coming back to "its their club and their rules".

I know he can be a dinosaur in a lot of ways, but I wonder did some members take a view similar to Peter Aliss in today's Indo, where he mentioned speaking to some ladies in Muirfield at a recent Muirfield Open and they didn't want to become members because they and/or their husbands would have to fork out thousands in joining fees, whereas with the status quo they could still pretty much do everything they wanted to for free anyway ?

PARlance

Minderbinder wrote: »

So what's your opinion of the R&A excluding women (who have a scratch handicap or better) from entering qualifying for the Open on the basis of their gender? Do you think the R&A are being hypocritical and do yo think the media should shine a spotlight on that as well as Muirfield?

Does your heart bleed for the men that can't join the Ladies Tour and play all their Majors.
What do you say about the lady playing off 13 HC who plays a much shorter course than a man off 13. Should we get rid of the red tees?
Moving away from gender. Is it discrimination to stop a 16 year old boy from playing on an under 12 boys team? Is that ageist.

PC gone mad...

Sport is generally divided by genders, age, abilities and for very valid reasons.

Some very muddled thinking about this.

The course is in the UK. It is a private club. To pick another institution at random, the prime minister of that country and half his cabinet went to a school that explicitly excludes girls. And that is OK because?

For some strange reason golf clubs have become pawns in this bizarre turf war whereas all sorts of other organisations discriminate between the sexes as a matter of course.

It kind of reminds me of here the way everyone talks about equality all day long but you can exclude a child from a school based on their religion or sex and nobody bats an eyelid.

slave1

Private club owned by members, they voted, they decided, their club, their rules, they knew the consequences (Open rota). Good luck to them.

R&A made a good decision but in fairness it's not that long ago that Augusta and St Andrews voted to allow ladies in.

Minderbinder

PARlance wrote: »

Does your heart bleed for the men that can't join the Ladies Tour and play all their Majors.
What do you say about the lady playing off 13 HC who plays a much shorter course than a man off 13. Should we get rid of the red tees?
Moving away from gender. Is it discrimination to stop a 16 year old boy from playing on an under 12 boys team? Is that ageist.

PC gone mad...

Sport is generally divided by genders, age, abilities and for very valid reasons.

I'm just pointing out the R&A's hypocrisy. You can read my other posts in this thread. As others have said there are many organisations that exclude people on the basis of their gender and age. The fact that Muirfield is taking all the heat is laughable and shows how willingly normal people follow and regurgitate whatever is in the media without engaging their brain in the slightest.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

Some very muddled thinking about this.

The course is in the UK. It is a private club. To pick another institution at random, the prime minister of that country and half his cabinet went to a school that explicitly excludes girls. And that is OK because?

For some strange reason golf clubs have become pawns in this bizarre turf war whereas all sorts of other organisations discriminate between the sexes as a matter of course.

It kind of reminds me of here the way everyone talks about equality all day long but you can exclude a child from a school based on their religion or sex and nobody bats an eyelid.

Some muddled thinking alright. Most people here seem to understand that it's fine for a private club/school/whatever to have specific rules regarding who can join/attend/whatever.

The governing body can take whatever action they like as well.

What most people find funny about this whole affair (I know I do), is the bizarre letter that was written to the members about the vote. It's like something you'd read in one of Tom Sharpe's satirical novels.