Should Women Be Allowed In The Augusta GA Country Club

[Steve Whitehead]

I disagree. It's only hurtful when used in the politically correct sense that gives it the weight of anger, hate and fear. We discriminate constantly in science, choice of clothing, and yeah, certainly in social acquaintance.

I would offer that the two are unrelated. We can't reasonably compare racial / ethnic / gender discrimination with scientific / social / fashion discrimination. Having discriminating tase in clothing is not related to excluding members from a club based on their race / ethnicity / gender. The acceptability on one does not justify the other.

"It felt as if your post was intended to be insulting only, or shallow to the extreme."

"...what could there possibly be to talk about regarding such a cut and dried subject?"

I don't intend to be insulting or shallow when I offer my input. I thought my post reflected my feelings on the subject perfectly. If I had posted a direct question, "Should X be allowed?" and I recieved a direct "No" answer, I would accept that input as meaningful and complete. I've seen yourself and other folks on the board become upset over brief responses in the past and it's certainly possible that I've tripped over a forum etiquette issue that I'm unfamiliar with, but I would suggest that the length of a post is not directly related to the validity of the input.

I can offer a very long, pseudo-intellectual rant and add very little value to the discussion. I can also put a lot of thought and experience into very few words. (I've been known to do both.) Sometimes I wish we were more tolerant of brevity and less tolerant of long winded nonsense.

That seems a very socialist idea to my reading.

Socialism is used to collectively define a fairly diverse group of political concepts. (Most of them being economic not social.) I'd need you to draw a stonger parallel to the political construct of 'socialism" before I could agree or disagree.

If, in using the term "socialism", you intended to imply that I was being un-American (my word not yours) I would suggest that you are overlooking some very important moments in American history including the Cilil Rights Act of 1964 and Brown vs. Board of Education Topeka. Having said that, the OP was not asking about rights or law, he was simply asking if we thought a private country club in Georgia should refuse membership to women.

If my wife and I go to a bar I choose not to let the dirty, fat drunk guy share our table. Not from a belief that I am more valuable than he is, as I have no idea who he is, but simply because based on the way that he's chosen to spend his evening I'm confident that I won't enjoy his company. There's every chance that tomorrow I may have to beg a job from this very same person, but I've chosen the company that I want to be with while spending my time, and my money. It seems though, that your argument states that I, if I'm to be a good, non bigoted person, should allow him, and all others, to my table in the spirit of all inclusion. And that makes no sense to me.

And it makes no sense to me either. I'm glad I never said or suggested such a non-sensical thing. I made a statement of belief about whether or not a private country club and golf course should refuse membership to females. Honestly Dwayne, you've made such a gigantic leap from specific gender discrimination to this argument that I can't really put the pieces back together. You've piled straw-man fallacy on top of straw-man fallacy to misrepresent the spirit and meaning of my statement.

I believe that your previous brief argument works in a, what others but not me, might consider a perfect utopian world

On this point we can agree. The world will never be free of racial / ethnic or gender biases. We can only recognize them for what they are and do our best to minimize their influence. I don't claim to be free of any of it. There are parts of me that are racist and sexist and bigoted. We can only accept those parts of us as flawed and reject them.

The world is not utopian. There will be theft but it doesn't make it right. There will be violence but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable. There will be discrimination...but that doesn't mean that there should be. Augusta National does discriminate against women, but they should not.

Sometimes membership, by design, is exclusive. That means that some are included and some are excluded. When we are trying to make a decision about inclusion into a group or organization, there are many acceptable ways that we can measure an evaluate a human being. Gender is not one of them.

"Should women be allowed in the Augusta Country Club?" ...Yes

Dwayne I'm curious if you were to simply address the OPs question with a direct yes or no answer, what would it be?

Edited April 20, 2012 by Steve Whitehead

[Asysin2leads]

All else being equal, I'd rather the Westernized world reach out and help the millions of women around the world who have no rights or worse, and then, afterwards, worry about who gets admitted to the country club. I'm a worldview type of guy, and so long as their is female circumcision, forced prostitution, pouring acid on women because they want to go to school, honor killings, war rape, gender preference abortion, and a hundred other crimes against women that happen each and everyday, who gets let into the golf club and who doesn't is of little consequence for me.

[DwayneEMTP]

First, my apology if you believe that I was attempting to misrepresent you either in fact, or spirit. I have nothing but respect for your posts. It wasn't my intention to misrepresent you but to extrapolate what I believe to be your point.

An all men's club should obviously, from what I read into your brief answer, allow women into their privately funded club. Therefore there should be no protections offered to areas or gatherings privately funded. Therefore anyone should be allowed anywhere at any time despite the desires of those that have spent their money to create that 'anywhere.'

Creating straw man arguments was accidental if that is in fact what my post represents to you. It truly appears to me to be a difference in scale, not one of philosophy when I imply that if they should open their privately funded club to those that they don't wish to socialize with that, you too, should then be willing to open your privately funded and maintained home to those that you would choose not to live with. I'll ask that you forgive my ignorance when I say that I still don't see the difference.

Perhaps you thought that I was being modest when I stated that you're posts are intelligent and thoughtful enough to be intimidating to those of my more limited intellect. That's not the case. I mentioned 'shallow' and/or 'insulting' intending to explain my comment that followed, not to attempt to create/build on the argument that you have been either. Flippant might be more appropriate, and I still feel that that may be appropriate for the response.

Should I ask "Should intubation be allowed as an immediate intervention upon witnessed cardiac arrest" and you're answer is "yes" then I will note your opinion but it will have almost no value to me from a point of view of debate or education. It's awesome if I'm taking a poll, not nearly so helpful if I'm exploring a point of interest, which I believe was obviously the OP's intention here. But perhaps I've misunderstood the point.

If I'm forced to give a one word answer to the stated question my answer would be "no."

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I truly look forward to your thoughts.

Dwayne

[DFIB]

If I'm forced to give a one word answer to the stated question my answer would be "no."

Never? I suppose "stag" night and bachelor parties are out,

[akflightmedic]

Never? I suppose "stag" night and bachelor parties are out,

Nice try, but I am pretty sure this debated was about women being members as opposed to guests not allowed to play the course...which is its current status.

So stag night and bachelor parties are safe!!!

[Steve Whitehead]

First, my apology if you believe that I was attempting to misrepresent you either in fact, or spirit. I have nothing but respect for your posts. It wasn't my intention to misrepresent you but to extrapolate what I believe to be your point.

It was never my intention to make you think you needed to apologize Dwayne. I didn't feel your response was out of line. I only wished to point out that I felt your transitions of logic weren't representitive of my input. No harm, no foul. We're good.

And your response illustrates that leap perfectly. So give me a chance to elaborate. Here you reiterate my thought which I feel you represtent correctly:

An all men's club should obviously, from what I read into your brief answer, allow women into their privately funded club.

Absoloutely.

Therefore there should be no protections offered to areas or gatherings privately funded. Therefore anyone should be allowed anywhere at any time despite the desires of those that have spent their money to create that 'anywhere.'

OK, right there. HUGE leap of logic. Do you see what I'm saying? This is our "straw-man-fallacy. Instead of addressing my true argument, the argument that gender should not be used as a measuring point to determine if someone should or should not be admitted to a private establishment, we've jumped to everyone should be allowed everywhere all the time. And were discussing an absurd statement instead of my original statement. You've created a straw-man, and once you defeat that straw-man, my orginal thought is declared equally absurd.

...but it's not Dwayne. It's not absurd to think that using gender as a basis of admission is unacceptable.

Here's an example of why the two are not the same.

Let's take the fire service for instance. I work with very few females. Maybe... one in ten firefighters at my organization are female. (And we are pretty diverse comparatively.) Some folks will tell you that our testing process is discriminatory. We have a challenging physical agility test that is difficult for anyone to pass but it's exceptionally hard on many of our female candidates. (It's also an accurate mirror of some of the physical demands of the job.)

This test is indeed biased. It's biased against people who are not physically fit enough to do the job. In a selection process, this is a perfectly acceptable bias. It's acceptable because it pertains to an actual standard of the expected job performance and because it can be applied to every human being who shows up to be tested.

Now let's relate this to your example.

It truly appears to me to be a difference in scale, not one of philosophy when I imply that if they should open their privately funded club to those that they don't wish to socialize with that, you too, should then be willing to open your privately funded and maintained home to those that you would choose not to live with. I'll ask that you forgive my ignorance when I say that I still don't see the difference.

There are several standards that apply to whom I allow in my home. If I made a list it might include, 1) I need to know you or be familiar with you. 2) I need to have invited you or been expecting you. 3) If a football game is on, you need to be carrying beer. 4) You need to be not-stinky (or I will turn you away) All of these rules are my preferences and none of them are discriminatory because I apply them to every human being who approaches my door. If I made a rule that said 1) you can't be black 2) You can't be female 3) You can't be jewish 4) You can't be Muslim. Now I'm being discriminatory. I'm applying a rule unilaterally. (and based on an inappropriate or even immoral standard) I'm refusing you because of who you are. This is the difference between personal preference and bigotry. It's a huge difference. And people have been trying to dress up bigotry to look like personal preference for a long, long time.

I will note your opinion but it will have almost no value to me from a point of view of debate or education. It's awesome if I'm taking a poll, not nearly so helpful if I'm exploring a point of interest, which I believe was obviously the OP's intention here. But perhaps I've misunderstood the point.

You make an excellent point. It's something I'll consider if a posted question raises a desire in me to be flippant. Perhaps I should have just left this one alone.

If I'm forced to give a one word answer to the stated question my answer would be "no."

OK, then my next question would be "Should black people be allowed in the Augusta, GA country club?" (Note: I'm not asking "are they" and I'm not talking about law or freedom or status quo or even choice. I'm just asking on a moral...right and wrong level...should they?) Yes or no?

All else being equal, I'd rather the Westernized world reach out and help the millions of women around the world who have no rights or worse, and then, afterwards, worry about who gets admitted to the country club. I'm a worldview type of guy, and so long as their is female circumcision, forced prostitution, pouring acid on women because they want to go to school, honor killings, war rape, gender preference abortion, and a hundred other crimes against women that happen each and everyday, who gets let into the golf club and who doesn't is of little consequence for me.

This is a really....really good point.

It doesn't change the issue. It doesn't speak to the rightness or wrongness of the issue. (In fact, one might argue that it's an easy way to do an end-run around any topic with non-global implications)

But it does put the issue in perspective.

[DwayneEMTP]

I see your points Steve, perhaps I made too big of a leap trying to exaggerate for clarity.

I think that we go different ways on this in three areas.

The first, I continue to fail to see why you should be allowed protections on who enters your home when others are not allowed those protections on properties that they've purchased and maintain with their privately earned/spent money. This is not a public club, but a private club by invitation only, which continues to make it synonymous with your home in my argument.

Second, I don't believe that women have been discriminated against unless there is harm in some way. Women are fully able to create their own clubs. Intellectually, emotionally, financially there is no need to force them into such clubs (If that was the argument here, extrapolating again) and it would appear to me that the disrespect comes from assuming that they need to piggyback on men instead of find their own way in such a thing.

It's interesting to me when you say "...This test is indeed biased. It's biased against people who are not physically fit enough to do the job. In a selection process, this is a perfectly acceptable bias. It's acceptable because it pertains to an actual standard of the expected job performance and because it can be applied to every human being who shows up to be tested.." as it sounds to me as if you are then protecting, as the fire services have been famous for doing for generations, your own 'brotherhood bias' as you don't have to be in this business long to know that many, many firemen could no longer pass such a test, making the test bigoted by it's nature, don't you think? It's applied evenly to 'everyone that shows up' but not everyone that may be responsible for those physical standards is forced to show up, right?

If I took a poll here (Which I'm not doing, so please everyone, don't litter the thread with testimonials) nearly everyone could tell story after story about 300lb fireman happily working in the same services that turn women away for not passing the physical fitness that a large percentage of the Old Timers would also fail. Perhaps you work in a more progressive system, but can you honesty say that I'm making up this part of the argument from whole cloth?

And lastly, you seem to bestow a 'sameness' on men and women that I don't. You don't seem, and I'm of course making a generalization here, seem to see a place where men and women would choose to be socially separate. But I do.

I love women. I love them fat, or skinny, or tall or short, or whatever....I love their energy, their strength, their differences. When I went to Afg I told Babs, "I'm not going to love or hate anyone, that's just to complicated for me. I'm just going to go and learn to do better medicine." But within a month I celebrated every time I heard of a dead Taliban and I didn't want to be within 20 miles of a woman if I could help it. There the sexual harassment stigma was so powerful that if you were accused you were immediately sent home, most likely never to return, an investigation was initiated, and you were at some later time sent a letter giving you the results of the investigation. There was really no defense and I knew of two good people that were attacked and eaten by this monster.

When women were present no one, and I mean no one, would cuss, tell jokes, watch shows that might contain something as racy as a woman unexpectedly showing up in a bikini. Casual conversation ceased, and believe it or not, in that environment, casual conversation was really important. All 'normal' life became tense and nearly militant in an environment that was already to much of both. Because this is how 'women' are? Of course not, but because one or two of the thousands of amazing women in that environment used sexual harassment as a tool for progression.

I really hated the attitudes that I developed. And I didn't and don't dislike women, but became afraid of them in that environment, as I had/have a family to feed. I couldn't chance being friendly as that chance could result in my inability to provide. I can see where a club filled with powerful men, or powerful women, would choose to eliminate that threat, and I do believe that they should have the right to do so.

Should blacks be allowed? My single answer is 'no.' But that would not represent my entire thought on the subject. But my argument would not change if we were speaking of race instead of sex.

If I had the money needed to create such a place I can't imagine that I would want to draw those kinds of lines. I'm old enough now to have seen that most of my stereotypes and preconceived notions have had major flaws and some of my best friends came from places and types of people that I would have chosen to avoid had I been able. But it seems to me a very American concept that if you want to build something with your own money, that harms no one, then you have the freedom to do so, and I agree with that morally and philosophically, with few exceptions.

I'm truly grateful for your conversation, particularly as I know that this isn't a subject that sparks your interest as a 'hard' issue. I get the impression that you've participated only to be respectful by way of not ignoring my posts...and that's cool as hell.

But I believe that this/these discussions have value here, particularly in the EMS environment, as so many have never gained, or have maybe lost, the ability to debate, or argue, or even disagree without without anger or a near instant defining of absolute answers. I'm not claiming to be good at it, but I do enjoy it and the mental gymnastics that an intelligent, contrary opinion creates. I find that it improves my logic, and my language, and almost always broadens my mind. I think those are all good things whether we're speaking of intubations, the relative value of religion in our schools, or the acceptable parameters for relative discrimination.

It's likely that we won't solve this problem, though I would truly like to come to better understand your point of view, but perhaps we can help to set a decent example for discussions in other threads for those that come after us. And trying to do such things, I'm willing to bet that on this we agree, is the responsibility of all of us.

Thanks for your time.

Rereading my post I'm confident that it exemplifies your point on brevity when compared to those posts that ramble for pages without actually saying anything...

I'm working on it, I swear I am....

[Asysin2leads]

This is a really....really good point.

It doesn't change the issue. It doesn't speak to the rightness or wrongness of the issue. (In fact, one might argue that it's an easy way to do an end-run around any topic with non-global implications)

But it does put the issue in perspective.

It's not a run around. There is always a third option to a "Yes/No" query, that third option is "That's a stupid question." This dilemma is only applicable to a very small population in a smaller socioeconomic bracket. The issue effects such a small portion of people as to be, in a practical sense, irrelevant. Is it morally ethical to destroy a termite mound in Botswana? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but with the world has some really major issues right now, maybe we could worry about that. I grumble a little bit when I hear about the super-privileged complaining about something they can't have. Waahhhh!

[Happiness]

The funniest thing has happened in this thread. The men are debating over something that most women really dont care about.

Do I think women should have memberships, dont care

In my world I think that both men and women have everyright to have a place to go to without the opposite sex. I have a few camping trips with the girls and the only time the men are allowed is at drop off and pick up. We like to call those trips alcoholidays.

happy

[Richard B the EMT]

In my world I think that both men and women have every right to have a place to go to without the opposite sex. I have a few camping trips with the girls and the only time the men are allowed is at drop off and pick up. We like to call those trips alcoholidays.

I can understand ladies/guys night out, Here, I'll stir the pot a bit, by saying that they are all right, as long as no guys "outside the family" get invited to the ladies gathering, or ladies to the mens gathering. Strip clubs and Chippendale's are possibly exceptions to this.

As for "alcoholidays", never let your drink out of your sight, as "Roofies" have been known to circulate by the hand of uninvited "guests".