Author
|
Topic: Martha Burk has the golfing world by its balls
|
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945
|
posted 02 April 2003 10:42 PM
I realize I am male, a conservative (by the traditional standards of NDP supporters) and an American. That is thre strikes agsint me. I also know that this could get me kicked off. If you guys find this offensive let me know so I can have it taken down. I am sure you guys have heard of the Masters Tournament being held at the Augusta National golf club, a men-only club. martha burk, a feminist of the most radical order has been railing against this for a while.Here are some things she is famous/known for: Martha Burk is the hyper-feminist who has decided that her path to fame and perhaps fortune leads to Augusta National Golf Club. Burk wants Augusta National to accept a woman member. Augusta National is a private club. It pays taxes. It donates millions of dollars a year to charity. It’s very limited and exclusive membership is all-male. A very happy hunting ground indeed for a bitter woman who has a record of seeking public prominence through protest and outrageous conduct. So, how does a woman like Martha Burk manage to find a place on the public stage? She is supported by an eager media. Media types revel in bringing down the powerful. Members of Augusta National are seen as powerful, so there is no small number of editors, producers, reporters and media owners around the country that would like to slap these men around a little bit. I’m told that some newspaper editors are telling their sports reporters that they will not be permitted to cover the Masters tournament at Augusta this year if they do not agree to file at least one, if not more, Martha Burk story. I thought, then, that you might enjoy some information about Martha Burk that surely won’t be in those mandatory stories filed from Augusta during the Masters. Hold on, it’s a dark and depressing ride. Conservative organizations are not permitted to join Martha Burk’s National Council of Women’s Organizations. It would be more aptly named the National Council of Leftist Women’s Organizations. Several member organizations in Burk’s NCWO restrict membership to women only. These are tax-exempt organizations. Burk sees nothing wrong with this. In 1997 Martha Burk campaigned for the forced sterilization of all men in America. She proposed that this forced sterilization begin at puberty and that a panel of experts, presumably appointed by people who share her views, would then determine when this sterilization could be reversed and the man permitted to father a child. Martha Burk is a fan of racial and gender quotas. She believes that men should be limited to one-half of the top jobs in business and government. Burk is demanding that the wife of any professional golfer who plays in The Masters withhold sex from her husband. In an effort to show how really out of touch she is with reality, Burk has suggested that The Masters be moved so some other golf course. Later Burk admitted that “I don’t know very much about this club.” Burk has stated that she wants to enlist motorcycle gangs to help her with her protests against Augusta National. Then she acts surprised when Augusta city officials try to put restrictions on when and where she can demonstrate with her motorcycle pals. To get an idea of what Martha Burk thinks about conservatives, just look at her comments about the Independent Women’s Forum, a group that George Will refers to as “indispensable” and The Chicago Tribune called a group of “… very, very smart women.” Burk calls the IWF “ .. a right-wing organization formed by the wives and handmaidens of conservative politicians” and a “pack of she-wolves.” Martha Burk, like so many other activists, has attempted to wrap herself in a cloak of patriotism by exploiting the presence of women serving in our military in Iraq in her campaign against Augusta National. In February Burk made a taxpayer-funded trip to Estonia to participate in a conference on women’s issues. While there on the taxpayer’s dime she slammed President Bush. At one dinner session Burk toasted to “having a different U.S. President” when the next conference rolled around. Burked has made derogatory remarks about the appearance and even the accent of Augusta National Chairman Hootie Johnson. One can only imagine what happens if someone commented Burk’s appearance. Hint: She’s not attractive. Burk tried to aim her protests to the PGA Tour. Tour commissioner Tim Finchem told Burk that The Masters was not a PGA event and that the PGA Tour had nothing to do with it. Burk then called Finchem “amoral.” “Amoral” means without moral standards or principals. So – Tim Finchem explains to Martha Burk that cold, hard fact that the PGA Tour is not involved with Augusta National or The Masters golf tournament … and it means that he has no moral standards or principals. It’s is clear that Martha Burk is just another leftist-feminist activist out to make a name for herself. Polls show that the vast majority of American people, men and women, aren’t the least bit concerned over the membership policies of Augusta National Golf Club. No law is being violated, and most people think that they should be left alone. Without media support --- without editors and producers ordering their writers and broadcasters to do “Martha Burk stories” during the Masters --- she would fade back into the obscurity she so richly deserves. A side note: In an effort to avoid controversy Augusta National has cancelled all tournament sponsorships this year. In the past those sponsorships have led to multi-million dollar charitable contributions by Augusta National. This year the members have decided to dip into club coffers to make sure that these charities are still funded at the same rate as last year. Evil men, aren’t they? This comes from libertarian radio talk show hosts website. What do you ladies/women/womyn think of her campaign?
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945
|
posted 03 April 2003 01:41 PM
So let me get this straight, since this is a feminism forum I may only post such things taht agree withthe general concensus of the group?Clersal, why do you think I headed to the Feminism forum? I dont bone up on Feminist arguments or diatribes as they may be. I decided to see what those people who have a vested interest in the movement have to say about Martha Burk. If "J-school" means journalism school, and if you are referring to Neal Boortz, he went to Law School. Look, if i have offended some sensibility that keeps people from actually discussing the primary body of my initial post, then please ask Audra to "lock" this thread.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790
|
posted 03 April 2003 02:46 PM
As to the actual issue, I think Martha Burk is out to lunch. Instead of bothering Augusta National, she should be attempting to reform inherent bias in private property laws; if she really wants to change shit up. Ok. Lets say AN lets her in as in honourary member. Then what? Big deal, Martha Burk can play golf there, but can Mrs.Janet Simms, amateur golf nut? Look, so long as malls can kick out teens in bandannas, night clubs can bounce ill dress would-be patrons and all women gyms can remain single sex, Martha Burk is being extremely short sighted. Or media whorish. But I don't think she is extreme feminism personified. I just think she's trying to exploit the issue-attention cycle for her personal bandwagon. If Pam Anderson can do it, so can MB.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 03 April 2003 02:50 PM
Well, one thing's for sure: you'll never go broke slagging men in Ms. Magazine - but I'm not sure that Martha's anything but a crank. In other words, Hankerin' Tom, you don't need to get a restraining order against her.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
The Decorator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3985
|
posted 12 April 2003 09:44 AM
Margaret Wente wrote a great article about this in today's Globe. I'd post it, but the Globe site always crashes my computer.I wouldn't join something or go somewhere I couldn't bring my wife to. In this day and age, restricting activities based on gender is rather silly. But the coin has two sides. If there are women-only fitness clubs, then shouldn't mens-only golf clubs have the right to exist? I think Burk is using the very 'old school' ideas she's attacking. A quote: "When men get get together, denigrating women is often part of the social interaction. When women get together, denigrating men is rarely done." That made me chuckle this morning.
From: U-G-L-Y you ain't got no alibi, you ugly! You ugly! | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674
|
posted 13 April 2003 04:33 PM
i think it was a brill propaganda move by burke to target the Masters.Masters advertisers need new exposure quote: The television audience, typically around 30 million to 40 million for Sunday’s final round, is dwarfed by comparison with events like the Super Bowl but is generally made up of higher income viewers.
the ban on advertising has only highlighted the issue ... every viewer now knows that it's ad-free this year due to the pressure from NOW. golf clubs across the US, if not internationally, will have to address it.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 13 April 2003 11:14 PM
quote: When women get together, denigrating men is rarely done.
Yes, while it may be socially acceptable for a woman to smile, or even giggle politely, at the male-bashing that forms the core of such television shows as "Sex and the City", or many stand-up comedy routines, women are acutely aware that there is a sharp line between reality and such escapist fantasies, or "theatre of the absurd", if you will. In the real world no woman in the company of other women would dare to denigrate men (worse yet a specific man) out loud, for to do so would be to cross the line, and would invite censure from her female peers which could be as mild as a sharp, dirty look across the brunch table, or as severe as outright ostracism by the social group. Similarly taboo are several other exclusively male activities, such as discussing the shallow physical attractiveness of co-workers or celebrities, ranking or evaluating the physical characteristics of the opposite sex, or breaking the confidence of the marital bed by discussing the physical attributes, sexual performance or personal habits of a partner.
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790
|
posted 14 April 2003 10:01 AM
Oh...I do this all the time with my female friends. The talk can become very explicit. No holds barred, and no regrets either. I didn't know we were the only ones aside from fictional characters who did that.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076
|
posted 14 April 2003 11:58 AM
Two things: quote: I wouldn't join something or go somewhere I couldn't bring my wife to. In this day and age, restricting activities based on gender is rather silly.
Women can play at Agusta as guests and can attend social functions. They just can't be members. I know this campaign is all about the profile of Augusta and the Master's but there are thousands of other men's and womens golf clubs, like the National in Woodbridge and the Toronto Ladies Golf Club. Royal Troon, the site of the British Open this year is all male as well. I don't have a problem with single sex clubs for either gender. Actually the biggest criteria for joining Augusta is how much cash you have, which leads to the second point: quote: the ban on advertising has only highlighted the issue ... every viewer now knows that it's ad-free this year due to the pressure from NOW. golf clubs across the US, if not internationally, will have to address it.
The Master's has traditionally been shown on CBS with usually only 4 minutes of commercials per hour, versus the 14 or so typically. For the past number of years IBM, MacDonalds, And Cadillac have been the exclusive sponsors. To my knowledge chairmen of all three companies (GM in the case of Cadillac) have been members. This year Augusta paid CBS $20,000,000 to air the event. They don't care, they have the cash, so they simply bought the time. It fits their philosophy anyway, pristine, commercial-free coverage. I think Martha would do better dealing with a real issue like the Glass Ceiling, or how a womans career can be derailed when she has a family rather then protest something that, if truly applied evenly, could cause a lot of headaches for women's organizations as well. Kudos to Mike Weir. Time to get the sticks out because spring is finally here. [ 14 April 2003: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945
|
posted 15 April 2003 08:28 PM
I was watchign ( and still am watching) Martha Burk complainignoabut Augusta National. This person is an idiot. She thinks a company is public if they sell to the public. idiot. She thinks that because members of Augusta National recieve public bids on public jobs or get subsidies or even get tax refunds and then possibley pay for August Membership with such monies then it is public funds that fund August National. how can anyone think this person is smart or wise or trustworthy?Now she is blaming Augusta International for lay off's at member's companies. Yikes Burk, your National Council of Women allows "clubs" to be listed under its umbrella that engage in Mono-genderism. grrrr. [ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Hankerin' Tom ]
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 18 April 2003 12:55 AM
quote: What if the prestigious, private club had a policy that excluded black people from becoming members?
It's been noted that there exist as many "women only" health clubs as "men only" golf clubs. If not more. quote: In my opinion, both are equally discriminatory.
Would you like to make that "all three"?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
midge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3542
|
posted 18 April 2003 09:50 AM
Well...maybe I am going out on a limb here. But I would say that women only fitness clubs serve a purpose. If you look at the stats, young girls are not as active as boys. This encourages both girls and women to become active in a healthy, welcoming envrionment. I know of fitness clubs that post women-only athletic teams that they could join - soccer, golf clinics, soft ball etc. Also, it is very intimidating working out with big, strong men. It is very uncomfortable working out with men for other reasons as well(in my opinion). If I want to wear tight workout clothes (because it is easier to run on the treadmill), I would feel much more comfortable doing so in a women-only environment. What is the argument for not letting women join Augusta National? Other than it being a private club. What is the big deal? Why can't a bunch of rich men share the same membership at a golf course as women? As a woman and a golfer, I probably wouldn't want to play at Augusta let alone join. But I should have the right to decide that for myself.
From: home of medicare | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275
|
posted 18 April 2003 12:48 PM
Gotta agree with the Wiz.Then again: quote: I’m told that some newspaper editors are telling their sports reporters that they will not be permitted to cover the Masters tournament at Augusta this year if they do not agree to file at least one, if not more, Martha Burk story.
Who told this clown that nonsense? Sounds like a smear campaign to me. Discrimination is discrimination, and that's a story that people care about. Since there's no left-wing media to speak of, then this one must be getting told because it's the kind of news that sells papers and airtime.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
The Decorator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3985
|
posted 18 April 2003 03:07 PM
It's OK to feel a bit intimidated one your first visits. Once you realize that no one gives a crap about what you're doing, everything becomes fine. quote: Also, it is very intimidating working out with big, strong men. It is very uncomfortable working out with men for other reasons as well(in my opinion).
I don't want to sound condescending, but the 'big, strong men' (who are in the minority at most places - most people are your average joes) are too busy lifting and looking at themselves to give a poop at what you are doing. quote: If I want to wear tight workout clothes (because it is easier to run on the treadmill), I would feel much more comfortable doing so in a women-only environment.
That's your perogative, but like I said before, most people don't give a crap about what you look like (unless you are a hottie). Besides, spandex is a priviledge, not a right.
From: U-G-L-Y you ain't got no alibi, you ugly! You ugly! | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723
|
posted 18 April 2003 06:27 PM
I would certainly draw a line between a place of employment and a private recreational club. Apples and oranges. I assume that you are against all private clubs. Girl Guides? Mensa? They descriminate against dumb people. Golf clubs in general descriminate against people that can't golf, ya know. Fact is, as stated before, the real descrimination is wealth-related, not gender related. Joe Sixpack, white, male and middle class, has no better chance of getting a membership to Augusta than a woman. The first, and only, woman members will be the filthy, stinking rich wives of other members. That benevolent crusader, Matha Burk will sleep well when that happens I bet!!! [ 18 April 2003: Message edited by: Wankity ]
From: Saskabush | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
midge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3542
|
posted 18 April 2003 08:14 PM
quote: Fact is, as stated before, the real descrimination is wealth-related, not gender related. Joe Sixpack, white, male and middle class, has no better chance of getting a membership to Augusta than a woman.
No, I think it is both wealth and gender related. Clearly this is gender related. Hootie's unwritten policy is, no woman can be a member. But you're right, poor people can't either...nor middle class for that matter. quote: The first, and only, woman members will be the filthy, stinking rich wives of other members. That benevolent crusader, Matha Burk will sleep well when that happens I bet!!!
Why aren't rich women fighting for their rights??? Because I think that is where it has to start. Feminists fight for ALL women's rights – in this case wealthy women, in most cases not-so-wealthy women. And when they fought for the vote, it was for all women. So here is someone fighting for rich women's rights, and then we have rich women saying, "get lost, we don't care." I don't get it. Are they just too comfortable in their gigantic homes, raising children and playing golf on their husbands' terms? It just goes to show who runs the show, and it ain't wealthy women. And it sure isn't poor women, nor middle class women. It's rich men, and Augusta is a classic example of that.
From: home of medicare | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723
|
posted 18 April 2003 08:45 PM
quote: Are they just too comfortable in their gigantic homes, raising children and playing golf on their husbands' terms?
No, more than likely they're down at the All Ladies Social Club/Women's Charity League/ All Girls' Bridge Club etc...while their hubbys are at the golf course. In any case,I think it's a tad condescending to assume the feminist movement knows better than these "rich, comfortable women", or any woman for that matter. The abysmal showing at the protest shows they clearly don't give a hoot (ie ). It's not 'the vote', it's not 'free speech'. It's an all guys club with members named Hootie, Cooter and Billy Bob. Why any woman would want to 'hang' with these guys, is beyond me, but I digress. Ok ... let's cut to the chase here, is there any acceptable all-male club? Or is that soley acceptable in the cases of the many women-only groups? The Lions Club .... The Elks ... Thursday Night Poker at the Rec. Hall ... all evil? [ 18 April 2003: Message edited by: Wankity ]
From: Saskabush | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 19 April 2003 01:05 AM
quote: midge, theni suppose the next timei find myself in Ottawa onthe Carleton Campus i shall just utilize my "rights" and push my way into the "no men zone" itneh Carleton Womyn's Center.
Then you may very well be interrupting a Sex Assualt Survivor's meeting... and some of these survivors are going to be less than thrilled to see you pushing your way in for no other reason than to show you can. Bad example for that reason. However, while I can see good reasons why the Womyn's Center needs a women-only area, I can't see the same logic being applied to a rowing machine. Wanting to wear spandex without some awful man seeing you is hardly "special grounds" that justify gender discrimination. Maybe the men who play Augusta don't want women seeing them in their plaid pants. [ 19 April 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945
|
posted 19 April 2003 03:45 PM
The NBA has an effective ban on short people, people who cant play ball, and has a small amount of White players compared to black players and very few if any latino players (18% white, 82% black, 0% latino (Shropshire)). The NHL I am far less familiar with, though i think they have something against people with teeth In all seriousness hockey is highly disciminatory against the poor being on of the most expensive team sports one can play.Public vs private funding is not a red herring. if you buy something you choose who to buy it from, white, black, man, woman, cheap or expensive. When the Government spends money it can choose on a very limited set of requirements, foremost among them being cost, efficiency, and with Affirmative Action, Gender and Skin colour play a large part.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|