babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Martha Burk has the golfing world by its balls

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Martha Burk has the golfing world by its balls
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 02 April 2003 10:42 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 02 April 2003 11:10 PM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In 1997 Martha Burk campaigned for the forced sterilization of all men in America. She proposed that this forced sterilization begin at puberty

She did not.


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 02 April 2003 11:31 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
What do you ladies/women/womyn think of her campaign?


I had never heard of Martha Burk. I Googled.
I am not sure of why you seem so, I guess the word is annoyed with her campaigns.
quote:
Martha Burk is the hyper-feminist
I am not quite sure what a hyper feminist is. It seems much the same as saying someone is very dead.

Anyhow I googled rather quickly and don't see anything that warranted such dislike.What bugs you so much about Martha Burk?


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 03 April 2003 02:10 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clersal, those were not my comments, as I explained. I figured the Feminist forum would be the place to see if the "annoyance" level is warranted.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 03 April 2003 02:14 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Andrean, I just read your article...uhm, unless this was printed tongue-in-cheek the unnamed radio show host's comments are absolutely true.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 03 April 2003 04:07 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hankerin' Tom.. while I didn't look at andrean's link, I wouldn't point out that a certain source is unnamed when you, yourself, refuse to name a source.

If you think idiots only do certain things while you're exempted from being considered an idiot for doing the same thing, I have news for you.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 03 April 2003 10:04 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clersal, those were not my comments.

Strange as you did post:
quote:
In 1997 Martha Burk campaigned for the forced sterilization of all men in America.

What was said:
quote:
Mandatory contraception beginning at puberty,

Not quite the same thing.
Now you understand my reason for thinking that you disliked Martha Burk.
quote:
I figured the Feminist forum would be the place to see if the "annoyance" level is warranted.

Whose annoyance level?

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 April 2003 10:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, maybe we could leave this thread open here in the feminism forum, as the "gathering place" for the men on babble who feel feminism is a personal affront to their manliness, and who feel the desperate need to air their anti-feminist gripes in the feminism forum. A nice special thread right here, just for all those men who feel they are so downtrodden by all those ballbusting feminists. And we could direct them to this one when they try to feed us their tripe in other threads in the feminism forum.

The only problem is, I think if we feminists just allowed the trolls to talk amongst themselves about how horrible feminism is, without giving them a reaction, they would likely get bored and leave.

...waitaminite...

[ 03 April 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361

posted 03 April 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for andrean     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hankerin' Tom, have you never heard of satire?

Do the words, "a modest proposal", that Burk uses in her first paragraph, mean nothing to you?


From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 03 April 2003 10:18 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry Michelle but couldn't stop myself from wondering why the flap about someone expressing possibly anti male sentiments who is in a position of no power when in the seat of
"power" sits a man who is racist, misogynist and just plain friggin stupid.

From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 03 April 2003 10:23 AM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hankerin' Tom, betcha because she took an anti war stand yer knickers are in a knot.
How about going into this thread, ' Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik. '

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 03 April 2003 10:44 AM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[insert circus music here]
From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 03 April 2003 11:51 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, thanks for proving to me what the LEft really is. Clockwork, you seem to misunderstand, I did not list the source becauwse it is irrelevant to the question. but erhe you go, www.boortz.com look for his April 1st and March 31st blogs.
"A modest proposal" means something to me but that does not detract her seriousness of the rest of the peice. An author may include a joke within the body of his work but still write it with all sincerity.

I do not believe that I fear women, nor their EQUALITY. Why, I just love the IWF feminists
The annoyance level that I wanted to check was that of the author, I am sorry I did not make that more clear.
But thanks for dismissing my question and demeaning me.


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 03 April 2003 12:34 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, any time.
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
vickyinottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 350

posted 03 April 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for vickyinottawa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tom, it was very difficult to tell from your first post that this was from a source and not your own diatribe against Burk. This might explain the reaction. If you want to avoid being labelled a Troll, you may want to use the handy Quote function. This would clearly indicate which views are yours and which are someone else's.

And when posting inflammatory material like that in the Feminism forum - which is very clearly a space for discussion from a pro-feminist point of view - you might consider giving us a bit better indication of WHY you are posting it.


From: lost in the supermarket | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 03 April 2003 12:44 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your source Hankerin' Tom. First thing I saw:
quote:
WARNING!
Do not believe anything you hear on my show, or anything you read on the Internet unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true -- or you have actually taken the time to verify the information with another source. That's called "doing your homework."

Gotcha!

[ 03 April 2003: Message edited by: clersal ]


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 03 April 2003 01:33 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, thanks for proving to me what the LEft really is.

And what have we, the grandest thinkers that inhabit the "Left", proved?

quote:
Clockwork, you seem to misunderstand, I did not list the source becauwse it is irrelevant to the question. but erhe you go, www.boortz.com look for his April 1st and March 31st blogs.

Ah, another J-school graduate in our midsts. Like I said, it's irrelevant when you do it but noteworthy when someone else does it….

From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 03 April 2003 01:41 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 03 April 2003 01:51 PM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whooosh! (That was the sound of a really big object flying over Hankerin' Tom.}

The only sensibility that you might offend, Hankerin Tom, is of the common variety.


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 03 April 2003 02:46 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 03 April 2003 09:32 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
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.


Bull poop Hankerin' Tom.

From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Decorator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3985

posted 12 April 2003 09:44 AM      Profile for The Decorator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 13 April 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Decorator, not to mention Burk's Umbrella group accepts several "womyn only" groups.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 13 April 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 13 April 2003 06:37 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Willowdale what is "brill propaganda"? according to dictionary.com "brill" is an edible flatfish.

sincerely,
baffled at babble


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 13 April 2003 07:32 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
brill = brilliant

My dad uses that expression. He's from Wales.


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 13 April 2003 07:43 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
thanks audra. i thought it was some sort of esoteric fishing legislation out of the EU reference.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723

posted 13 April 2003 07:51 PM      Profile for Wankity        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Speaking of the 'Masters', Mike Weir from Sarnia won it.

First Canadian ever to win a PGA major.


From: Saskabush | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 April 2003 11:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723

posted 15 April 2003 08:34 PM      Profile for Wankity        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fact that Burk claims to "represent" 7 million women, spent months organizing this and only 43 (43!!!! haha) showed up to picket speaks volumes.

[ 15 April 2003: Message edited by: Wankity ]


From: Saskabush | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
midge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3542

posted 17 April 2003 11:26 PM      Profile for midge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What if the prestigious, private club had a policy that excluded black people from becoming members?

Would it still be seen as acceptable by those who argue that women shouldn't be allowed to join because it's a private club?

In my opinion, both are equally discriminatory.


From: home of medicare | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 17 April 2003 11:58 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
But then, golf is an absurdly environmentally-destructive "sport" in any event. Here is a statement from the "anti-golf movement", which is very strong in Asia:
http://utenti.lycos.it/dossierisarenas/manifest.htm

From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 18 April 2003 12:55 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 18 April 2003 01:51 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So if we forced a discriminatory club, lets ssy the Triple K Woodworker's Club to accept African-Americans then African Americans would want to join the Triple K Woodworkers at their toolbenches?

Ina private club certain people are not wanted. That is why it is called private. It would be one thing if it were paid for with public (government) funds. Augusta National is a private club that earns all money through Membership dues, greens fees, and donations. Thier membership can freely choose who they would like in their club. They currently would not like women.

Now I do know that Carleton University (in Ottawa) has a "man-free zone" in ther "Womyn's Center". I bet they get public funding. Perhaps I should be allowed in their Man-Free Zone.


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
midge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3542

posted 18 April 2003 09:50 AM      Profile for midge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
The Wizard of Socialism
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2912

posted 18 April 2003 12:36 PM      Profile for The Wizard of Socialism   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So let me get this straight. We're supposed to rally behind Martha Burk for the cause of forcing a bunch of rich old guys to let rich women into their rich private club, where they too can be protected from the great unwashed? Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm a little fucked up from watching the kids of Iraq get blown apart by smartbombs. I just don't see the relevancy. If entry was being denied to the average woman, instead of those who probably spent a quarter million U.S. on their coming out balls, maybe this would bother me. Even if Ms. Burk is successful in her efforts, Sally Sixpack will still be no more welcome than her signifigant other Joe.

[ 18 April 2003: Message edited by: The Wizard Of Socialism ]


From: A Proud Canadian! | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 18 April 2003 12:48 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 18 April 2003 02:28 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Midge, if you, as a private individual, have the right to choose, why don't they, as a set of private individuals, have the same right to choose?
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Decorator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3985

posted 18 April 2003 03:07 PM      Profile for The Decorator     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
midge
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3542

posted 18 April 2003 06:11 PM      Profile for midge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Soooooo, does that mean that all private businesses (Wal-Mart, Costco, Staples etc.) have the right to discriminate in their private workplaces? I'm talking in terms of paying men more money than women, and making women work unpaid overtime, but not men etc. After all, it IS a private business, right? Provided they don't get funding from the gov't, they can make all the private choices they want. Is that how it works? Why can't I have an equal opportunity to join the most prestigious club in the country?

And about the war.... I have put as much effort into the peace movement as I have into women's rights. I don't think one should be sacrificed for the other.


From: home of medicare | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723

posted 18 April 2003 06:27 PM      Profile for Wankity        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for midge     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 18 April 2003 08:29 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With 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.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wankity
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3723

posted 18 April 2003 08:45 PM      Profile for Wankity        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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 01:50 AM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
magoo, my point was that Augusta is privately funded yet for some reason peopel thinkit should not be private in its selection of members whereas the Womyn's Center most likley gets Public funding but should still retain a discrimantory policy.
From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 19 April 2003 01:47 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
this privately funded thing is such a red herring.

the NBA is privately funded, should they ban certain groups too? the NHL is privately funded, should they ban future hayley wickenheisers if they are good enough to play at that level?


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 19 April 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 19 April 2003 05:59 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yo, why does anyone give a flying fuck about this particular debate (Martha Burk) when the top womens' golfer, Anicka Sorensten (sp?) is going to play in a mens tourny?

This carries far more political significance then does Martha Burk, who can't even hit the Gorilla hole at Sloppy Joe's Mini Putt.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Puetski Murder
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3790

posted 19 April 2003 06:00 PM      Profile for Puetski Murder     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yo, why does anyone give a flying fuck about this particular debate (Martha Burk) when the top womens' golfer, Anicka Sorensten (sp?) is going to play in a mens tourny?

This carries far more political significance then does Martha Burk, who can't even hit the Gorilla hole at Sloppy Joe's Mini Putt.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 19 April 2003 06:06 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it is the principle that counts. Note the I think.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 19 April 2003 06:58 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is this the feminist forum or did I take a wrong turn and end up in an evil clone of Into the valley of Guy Stuff?

Michelle, I don't think they got bored and I don't think they are even listen to the ground rules for this forum. Typical.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hankerin' Tom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3945

posted 20 April 2003 01:27 PM      Profile for Hankerin' Tom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Cross-over player\, Sorentsen, has caused quite a bit of Controversy here in the staes. Not becasue she is a woman but rather because no one seems to mind seeing her on the men's tour or playing against her on the tour.

The only problem i have with it is if she plays terribley then a bunch of Berr-swilling men are going to be very very very happy.


From: The Heartland | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 20 April 2003 02:04 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Beer swilling men are either happy or they fight.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca