Time to rant a bit I was up early this afternoon, and caught a little of the local sports talk show on the radio. They were discussing the Augusta Country Club, and how there are no female members. Apparently some of the women's groups are trying to compel Augusta to admit female members. The first caller I heard said that it was a private club, and they could do whatever they wanted. The next caller compared Augusta National to the Taliban. The sad and scary thing was that he was serious. He honestly believes that a stuffy old group of men keeping their club private was the moral equivalent to stuffing women in burkas and stripping them of all their rights and dignity.
Folks, we've gone too far. Already, the government can tell us who to associate with, who we have to rent houses to, who we have to hire, who we can't fire, where our kids go to school, what they have to study there, what they aren't allowed to think while there, and so on. Yes, I know it's for a good cause, to combat racism and sexism and prejudice and bad body odor and what have you, but I think the cure is worse than the disease.
Let's look at this rationally for a change. I can't join Augusta. Chances are, you can't join Augusta. (If you can, how about loaning me a few bucks until next Thursday?)Even if I suddenly won the lottery tomorrow, and could afford a membership, I couldn't get in. They don't want me. Is this discrimination, or merely good taste on their part? Y'all read this blog; I'll let you judge. But it's their club; they get to make that choice. My mother's father played the course at Augusta as a guest. He was from a monied family in Memphis, and could afford the dues, but he couldn't be a member. His money wasn't old enough, I guess. His sister in law's husband, on the other hand, was a member. I guess his money must have smelled better.
All of this just goes to point out that Augusta is extremely choosy about who they admit to their club. But when does being picky about the people you associate with become prejudice? Is a policy that explicitly excludes women prejudiced? Or is it an attemot to maintain an atmosphere the members have built over the years, a heritage of sorts? I remember a women's college several years ago that was forced to open it's admissions to men for financial reasons. There was tremendous wailing and gnashing of teeth from the feminists, who moaned the loss of a unique resource for women. They said that women were losing a precious place, where they could learn and grow as women, withot the distracting presence of men. The students at the college shaved their heads, and held long vigils in protest of the college's decision. How is Augusta any different? Shouldn't men have the right to associate in a place free from the distracting presence of women without being accused of being chauvanists, or sexist pigs? Why is it that when women wish to exclude men, they are honored as revolutionaries, but when men want to exclude women, they are derided as repressive chauvanists?
It couldn't be a double standard, could it?
Posted by Rich at July 11, 2002 6:11 AM