Skip to comments.NOW is NOT the time (Women members of Augusta Nat'l)
Posted on 09/05/2002 10:58:15 AM PDT by buzzyboop
Earning the "privilege" to smoke fine cigars, exchange dirty jokes and lie about your golf game, sexual exploits and how hard you worked to inherit your wealth with a group of mostly old white men isn't part of the cure for gender discrimination.
Augusta National Golf Club, the home of the Masters, the chosen playground for Hootie (Johnson) & His Blowhards, isn't the proper battleground for the war on gender discrimination. It's the equivalent of President Bush sending ground troops to Dallas looking for Osama bin Laden. A hunt for bin Laden in Texas would draw a lot of attention to a very serious problem, and there are a lot of good ol' boys in Texas who could use a swift kick in the ass, but in the end the hunt wouldn't get us any closer to tracking down Osama.
What Burk and her sympathizers must come to understand is that, just like cancer, there are different forms of discrimination and each strand of cancer (discrimination) has a uniquely different cure.
Racial discrimination and gender discrimination are not the same. The side effects, the consequences, the complications are different. Racial discrimination sentences black men to death row at an alarming rate. Gender discrimination prevents women from getting equal pay for equal work. Racial discrimination allows the police to profile and beat black and Latino men without fear of repercussions. Gender discrimination allows pop culture to make massive profits promoting women as sexual objects.
It's foolish to debate which form of cancer (discrimination) is worse (although racial discrimination ravages the entire body). Any discrimination kills humanity.
But it's not silly to discuss what's the best way to go about curing the different forms of discrimination. As a black man, I've grown tired of every group that's discriminated against pointing to discrimination cures used by black people as justification for their actions. When it suits their purpose, gay activists claim they want the same treatment as black people. Funny how they never ask for it when they're standing in court or applying for a bank loan or buying a new car.
This hyporcrisy bothers me because every time someone inappropriately uses a platform built to combat discrimination, the gleeful benefactors of that discrimination point to its inappropriate use as an example of why the platform must be torn down.
Which brings me back to Martha Burk and the National Council of Women's Organizations.
They're arguing that Augusta National needs to open its membership to women primarily for the same reason it welcomed a black member in 1990, for the same reason major corporations turned against exclusionary Shoal Creek.
"Do they have different standards for sexual discrimination versus racial discrimination?" Burk has asked. "Do the practices and policies on sex and race discrimination differ?"
Are the consequences different? Hasn't it been proven in this country that there are benefits to gender-exclusive organizations and clubs? Women-only health spas populate our rich suburbs. High-priced, all-girls schools produce some of this country's finest leaders. Men and women need places to socialize and develop away from each other. It's in the best interest of both sexes. We're an overwhelmingly heterosexual society. Men and women here traditionally don't isolate themselves from each other the way different racial and ethnic groups do. Men and women sleep together, eat together, vacation together, carpool together, work together, go to school together. Men and women, generally speaking, learn about each other and are given ample opportunity to develop a healthy respect for one another.
Ofterntimes, that's not the case when it comes to race. That's why racial-exclusionary policies, especially those established by the majority (power) community, must be eliminated from our society. That's why black people wanted Augusta National and the nation's other elite golf clubs integrated. Black people are fearful when the power structure congregates without any one representing us. We don't want to play dominoes or "Pass The Courvoisier" with Hootie & His Blowhards. Screw them. They think Busta Rhymes is an old Oklahoma running back. We just don't want powerful people who never take the time to get to know us gathering together and making decisions that could impact our lives. The best way we know how to combat that problem is by sending in a token or two.
Hell, it's not like we slap a pair of knickers and a cardigan sweater on Al Sharpton and plop him on the 18th green. We don't even send a double agent, a Bryant Gumbel. We're more than happy if every Augusta Shoal Geek Golf Club had a couple of Uncle (Clarence) Thomases. We're not trying to make Hootie & His Blowhards uncomfortable. They have a constitutional right to assemble, regale each other with politically incorrect jokes and bitch about the money NBA players make. What's the use of being rich and bigoted, if you can't have a little harmless fun?
Now, I don't want to be totally one-sided. Ms. Burk is responsible for the elimination of all TV commercials during the 12½ hours of CBS's coverage of The Masters. For that, every man in America should be thankful.
I agree with the conclusion of his argument, but he is totally inconsistant and hypocritical in his argument to reach his conclusion.
Never assume anything. She could be a lesbian, oh, you meant *itch.
My interpretation as well.
The author, as well as most people, just don't get it. Private discrimination IS NOT "bad". He goes through long-winded diatribes to show that private gender discrimination is fine, but all other forms of "discriination" are not fine. He even throws in a punch at "gays".
The authors basic premis is that only discrimination he says is good, in fact is. All other is bad. Forget Freedom of Association, this guys opinion trumps everything.
I'm curious to know what you though the conclusion of his argument was? It seemed to me all he was saying is that gender discrimination is fine for private organizations, but no other form of discrimination can be tolerated. He never even touched on freedom of association.
And to think, all this time, I was tricked into believing they go to death row on account of some heinous crimes they had committed.
Next they'll want to vote.
The argument is exclusively stated in terms of 'discrimination' (racial discrimination at that) and never expressed in terms of freedom of association.
lots of white male bashing here, too...
Jason Whitlock sounds like just another hand-wringing neo-Stalinist with his panties in a twist.
Yup, either one works..
Jason Whitlock is a racist who slanders people he doesn't like on the basis of their ethnicity and skin color. But apparently that's ok, provided he's also a leftist and black.
Agreed. This dolt is trying to turn a freedom of association issue into a racial discrimination issue where there is none to be found.
Besides, if I, as a private citizen wants to make a private organization totally funded by private dollars to include anyone by whatever criteria I want, I have that right as my First Amendment right that is PROTECTED (NOT GRANTED) by the US Constitution.
Lets see. I think I'll start an organization that includes everyone except for scum named Martha Burk and Jason Whitlock (Witless).
Let me qualify...I was cheering at the first half of it...then he started down the road that culminated in "Uncle Thomas."
Exactly. He takes the the high road and essentially says that "racial discrimination"(against minorities, presumably) is the "ultimate" discrimination, and that can not be tollerated, and all other groups can stand in line behind us.
It's kind of like the scene from the movie "PCU" where the gays, radical feminists and radical blacks are arguing who should be first in line at the frat party. The black guy says, "There is no justice for blacks in America"; the queer says, "Gays are subject to ridicule and discrimination whereever we go"; and the butch feminists says, "Women are oppressed word-wide, give it a rest".
Now, THAT is a funny visual!
"We don't even send a double agent, a Bryant Gumbel."
Gumbel is a double agent??? Damn, I was fooled. What agency is he really working for?
" We're more than happy if every Augusta Shoal Geek Golf Club had a couple of Uncle (Clarence) Thomases.
Ah yes, the ever present bashing of Supreme Court Justice Thomas as an "Uncle Tom". He doesn't even make BET's list of the most influential blacks in America.
" They have a constitutional right to assemble, regale each other with politically incorrect jokes and bitch about the money NBA players make."
How about we get some "diversity" on NBA teams. It seems to me they have way too many black players and maybe the NBA needs to implement affirmative action programs to correct this racist problem.
What's the use of being rich and bigoted, if you can't have a little harmless fun?"
Of course, ALL rich people are bigoted. I guess that includes Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Quincy Jones, Oprah Winfrey, Jesse Jackson, Wesley Snipes, ect....
Too bad that you're not a man, Jason "Whittle Wheenie" Whitlock. ;-)
I understand what you are saying, but the "big deal" is that this is in no way about "righting a wrong" or about someone being denied a right. This is simply another attempt of radical womynists trying to "kick men in the nuts" and show them "whos boss". This is another attack upon freedom of association. There aren't any women out there trying to get in to Augusta - no women wanting to be the only, or one of a few, in an all male club. There is not somebody wanting to "be a part of something", they want to destroy what someone else has. Its that simple, and the butch feminists finally picked the wrong people to mess with. Its time this nonsense stops.
Walter (E) Williams just wrote a column on freedom of association. His take is that you either support freedom of association totally, or that you totally throw it out. No cherry picking.
This article can be found on JewishWorldReview.com.
That is a great movie.
I would have to agree with you based on this article (although I enjoy his bashing of the strident nags). I've never heard his radio show, and I never read his column since the only thing I look at on the sports page is the weather.
I wonder if the Star would dare reprint this on their editorial page. It won't, but it is fun to think what would happen.