Muirfield

ForeRight

Women allowed


What a day to be alive

The Rape of Lucretia

Utterly scandalous that a private club has been forced into this u-turn.
Two can play at that game though - should the Open be boycotted by fans and players at this dictatorial interference in the business of other clubs ?

Wichita Lineman

Utterly scandalous that it took them this long to allow women as members and utterly scandalous that 20% still voted to keep them out. Talk about being dragged kicking and screaming from the stone age!

Tom.D.BJJ

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Utterly scandalous that a private club has been forced into this u-turn.
Two can play at that game though - should the Open be boycotted by fans and players at this dictatorial interference in the business of other clubs ?

They werent forced into it. They could have decided not to allow women members. They just wouldnt be allowed to host the Open.

ridonkulous

Wichita Lineman wrote: »

Utterly scandalous that it took them this long to allow women as members and utterly scandalous that 20% still voted to keep them out. Talk about being dragged kicking and screaming from the stone age!

Why? What's wrong with a male or female only club? I don't see anything wrong with it personally. Not allowing them to host the open is fair enough 'punishment' but seems a bit extreme to me. I don't see why a golf club should have to allow male or female members if they do not wish to. It's a private club after all. Now I may be a bit hypocritical in that I would disagree with member discrimination in terms of race, religion etc etc. But in terms of gender for private clubs I see no issue. Probably helps that I'm a man but I wouldn't be protesting if there was a women only club in the same situation.

blue note

It's really not something that bothers me. It does bother me slightly that it's only men only clubs that are targeted for criticism, but really I just don't care about the whole debate.

BigChap1759

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

They werent forced into it. They could have decided not to allow women members. They just wouldnt be allowed to host the Open.

This is it exactly - are you seriously suggesting that it would be OK for the R&A to condone continuing to host The Open Championship at a club that excludes women???

Sorry for biting, I should know better!

red ears

Its not something that bothers me so long as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will women's clubs be browbeaten into admitting men.

Kingswood Rover

red ears wrote: »

Its not something that bothers me so long as what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Will women's clubs be browbeaten into admitting men.

I think there may be women only clubs in other sports, but with regards to golf are there women only golf clubs that have their own course.

Kingswood Rover

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Utterly scandalous that a private club has been forced into this u-turn.
Two can play at that game though - should the Open be boycotted by fans and players at this dictatorial interference in the business of other clubs ?

Wind me up in me oilskins and blankets.:D

Richard Hillman

They were bullied into it. A sad day.

ridonkulous

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

I think there may be women only clubs in other sports, but with regards to golf are there women only golf clubs that have their own course.

Simply put yes there are.

FixdePitchmark

I think it was the move by the R&A that was key.

That is a fairly impressive result in any election - so fair play to them.

The timing is interesting - because there have been a significant challenges to liberalism, left politics and equality, political correctness in recent years - with Trump Brexit etc.

Probably puts Royal Dublin and Portmarnock in the spotlight here again now.

I think whilst I wouldn't support an all male club in a sport - I think what we have seen in recent years is the vilification of people with an alternative view is not actually helpful in the long run.

Just because someone wants an all male club - I don't think it defines them as a female hate figure. (IMO)

BigChap1759

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think it was the move by the R&A that was key.

That is a fairly impressive result in any election - so fair play to them.

The timing is interesting - because there have been a significant challenges to liberalism, left politics and equality, political correctness in recent years - with Trump Brexit etc.

Probably puts Royal Dublin and Portmarnock in the spotlight here again now.

I think whilst I wouldn't support an all male club in a sport - I think what we have seen in recent years is the vilification of people with an alternative view is not actually helpful in the long run.

Just because someone wants an all male club - I don't think it defines them as a female hate figure. (IMO)

I don't think the issue is an all male club - it's the R&A being seen to be supporting an all male club by continuing to allow them to host The Open Championship

FixdePitchmark

BigChap1759 wrote: »

I don't think the issue is an all male club - it's the R&A being seen to be supporting an all male club by continuing to allow them to host The Open Championship

Not sure I get you. To put things in order.

An all male club in Scotland that holds Open holds a vote on Female membership - they reject it.
The R&A remove them from the Open Roster because of this vote.
They vote to be not All Male - they are returned to roster.

How is it not about "All Male" Club

ridonkulous

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Not sure I get you. To put things in order.

An all male club in Scotland that holds Open holds a vote on Female membership - they reject it.
The R&A remove them from the Open Roster because of this vote.
They vote to be not All Male - they are returned to roster.

How is it not about "All Male" Club

He means it's fine for the club to be all male but the R&A cannot be seen to support an all male club so removed it from the open roster. Voting in women was just to get back on the roster, obviously enough.

BigChap1759

ridonkulous wrote: »

He means it's fine for the club to be all male but the R&A cannot be seen to support an all male club so removed it from the open roster. Voting in women was just to get back on the roster, obviously enough.

Correct - the R&A are not canvassing all of the men only clubs and trying to get them to change their entry policy. They are simply using the leverage they have to project their beliefs that, in modern golf, men and women should have equal access to golf, which I'm not sure anyone here would argue against save for some of the usual suspects

valoren

The R&A, the sport's governing body after all, only admitted women members in 2014.

The idea that women were 'excluded' from Muirfield is preposterous.
If they wished to play the course they could.
The club itself had a policy. Membership is for men only.
It's not as if this is something new or terrible.
A lot of other 'clubs' be they book clubs or whatever have such policies.
And the world doesn't bat an eyelid. Their club, their rules.

The club became a symbol of misogyny through a trial by media.
It wasn't about golf at all. It was about equal rights.
While that is good in and of itself, to focus on that particular club and portray it as a pariah was undeserved.
They were just dinosaurs, a relic of the 19th century, a disgrace, was the overriding message.
That women were more than welcome to the club, it's course and it's facilities was conveniently ignored.
You would think that women were turned away from the gates by security, while the captains of industry downed brandy and smoked cigars lording it over us all.
From reading about the club, they seem the sort of people who couldn't give a monkeys what you think.
It's admirable. They kept to themselves. And wanted to be let be. Their only crime was that the club contains arguably one of the world's finest courses. If it was a goat track, would anyone have cared about equality?

The club was bullied by the R&A.
The club put the membership policy to a vote and it was defeated.
That should have been the end of it.
That the R&A removed the course from the Open rota, pretty much immediately, was political correctness gone mad.
They should have backed the club.

We advocated that the club alter it's membership policy. We are inclusive blah blah. They voted. We support their right to vote. They are a private club. And we should respect their right to privacy and their vote. Murifield GC has a rich Open championship history yada yada. We look forward to returning the Open to Muirfield GC in future. Period.

Like those who railed against Trump becoming President, the message ought to have been, suck it up. That's democracy.

The core message from this is that there is no point in having votes.
Particularly where a governing body with a new fangled agenda for being PC will not only pressure a club into voting, but punish a club for voting against that agenda, and will sustain that punishment until such time as another vote is held where the result suits that agenda.

Now that the re-vote allows women, you can have the Open now. It's bullying plain as day.

Rikand

The queue to join muirfield is so long it'll be the next century before any women get in anyways

Armchair Andy

Rikand wrote:

The queue to join muirfield is so long it'll be the next century before any women get in anyways

No it won't. Why should a woman have to wait at the back of a man's queue? Next it'll be gender caps for all clubs.

FixdePitchmark

valoren wrote: »

The R&A, the sport's governing body after all, only admitted women members in 2014.

The idea that women were 'excluded' from Muirfield is preposterous.
If they wished to play the course they could.
The club itself had a policy. Membership is for men only.
It's not as if this is something new or terrible.
A lot of other 'clubs' be they book clubs or whatever have such policies.
And the world doesn't bat an eyelid. Their club, their rules.

The club became a symbol of misogyny through a trial by media.
It wasn't about golf at all. It was about equal rights.
While that is good in and of itself, to focus on that particular club and portray it as a pariah was undeserved.
They were just dinosaurs, a relic of the 19th century, a disgrace, was the overriding message.
That women were more than welcome to the club, it's course and it's facilities was conveniently ignored.
You would think that women were turned away from the gates by security, while the captains of industry downed brandy and smoked cigars lording it over us all.
From reading about the club, they seem the sort of people who couldn't give a monkeys what you think.
It's admirable. They kept to themselves. And wanted to be let be. Their only crime was that the club contains arguably one of the world's finest courses. If it was a goat track, would anyone have cared about equality?

The club was bullied by the R&A.
The club put the membership policy to a vote and it was defeated.
That should have been the end of it.
That the R&A removed the course from the Open rota, pretty much immediately, was political correctness gone mad.
They should have backed the club.

We advocated that the club alter it's membership policy. We are inclusive blah blah. They voted. We support their right to vote. They are a private club. And we should respect their right to privacy and their vote. Murifield GC has a rich Open championship history yada yada. We look forward to returning the Open to Muirfield GC in future. Period.

Like those who railed against Trump becoming President, the message ought to have been, suck it up. That's democracy.

The core message from this is that there is no point in having votes.
Particularly where a governing body with a new fangled agenda for being PC will not only pressure a club into voting, but punish a club for voting against that agenda, and will sustain that punishment until such time as another vote is held where the result suits that agenda.

Now that the re-vote allows women, you can have the Open now. It's bullying plain as day.

Excellent post.

But is there a chance they were,
a symbol of misogyny - without trial by media.

Women were excluded from being members - that is the point, the fact they can come in for dinner or play the odd round is irrelevant.

R&A have had a strong change in direction on equality - should they not equally be admired for that. This didn't come out of nowhere.

Society has changed dramatically in 20 years. The R&A are adjusting to the reality of modern culture.

red ears

Why are women so anxious to get into places that men gather and associate. Men aren't half as interested in getting into women only clubs or associations of any description.

Seve OB

Armchair Andy wrote: »

Why should a woman have to wait at the back of a man's queue?

Because they want equality

Dirty Dingus McGee

Richard Hillman wrote: »

They were bullied into it. A sad day.

Or a more accurate argument would be they were enticed into it.

50% of potential players for golf in general and spectators for professional golf are women so it's not exactly good business sense to allow a course which bars women from being members to host the Open Championship and it doesn't exactly promote the greatest image possible for the game.

I don't really have a problem with a private club of any type having whatever rules they want but it doesn't mean they should be allowed to host the open if they have a rule barring women from becoming members.