Golf Course in trouble for being Men only!

cambsno said:
What about civil partnerships?
Click to expand...

A man and a woman can't be in a civil partnership.
In same sex, surely both men could qualify for membership, but neither woman.
 
viv1969 said:
But are any of them members of Muirfield?
If not it's a little irrelevant :D
Click to expand...

They wouldn't know their "lob wedge" from their "brassie", but it wouldn't stop them getting into Muirfield, and the same criteria with different options hasn't stopped them getting into Westminster:(
 
neil_g said:
Unfortunately I think guardian summed up this debate pretty well..

http://gu.com/p/4jf65/fb
Click to expand...
Neil

Only in as much as it perpetuates the 'we are a special case' excuse/myth/precious state of some (men an women) who believe in the nonsense spouted by both sides of the divide.

At this rate we shall go tippy toeing into a world of even more discord.

There is no justification by any gender for positive discrimination against the other. That this whole private club choice is being blown out of all proportion, in my most humble opinion, merely because it gives even more sh_ite for whingers, moaners, mockraged and bored a-holes to point and demand the immediate change of happenance to occur.

I truly believe that we have a world in freefall, with the great sexual divide, that I am slowly disconnecting from discord on a face to face basis. There is no point because of the wider irony of articles like the Guardian has published. The other irony, which illustrates that many are not appreciating, is the dumbing down of the individual in order to create a momentary 'groundswell' until the next moment of mockrage comes along. The other irony is illustrated on this very site - Greek tourists taking photographs of a fountain in Southend get pounced on by illiterate 'mumsies' who are clearing the streets of paedos..... whildt not realising the fountains, for Greek national(s) with 5000 years of culture and architecture, were probably somewhat bemused at the 'arkitekture' in a bootiful seaside town in the cultural wilderness of Sarfend.

You really would struggle with making the bigger picture truly joined up.

I am off to a hermit's life this weekend (in comfort and not a cave), and I hope that when (if) I return that some serious reflection will reap and focus the herd to realise that they are all having their chains yanked, fed by the need for news (trivia) which means that they will have the revelation they are being led to think and spout the crap they are being fed......

It's a male owned and managed club.... it's a female only facility..... one is wrong, one is a sanctuary for the dispossessed, downtrodden and subjugated..... really? FFS!
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
tl;dr

so are you denying that historically there has been much discrimination and sexism towards women?
Click to expand...
Neil

Who are you asking that question of?

Anyone with half a brain would agree that 'historically' women were denied 'rights' based on their sex that, at that time, were vested on some, but not all,men. Women were deemed the property and chattel of men. That included no right to divorce, votes, shared wealth, blocked access to political position (though it should also be noted that many men also had similar blocks, politically, to voting, legal support, forced labour, press ganged into the Navy.....).

Like any argument it is easy to justify a shift into 'enhanced rights' on perceived historical 'wrongs' such that a positive blindfolding is used to redress an assumed imbalance to 'make things right'. How about we give men a similar 'free pass' to discriminate and redress millions of men dying in wars women did not have to suffer....?

Simplistic? Hardly. In the meantime I will stick to 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander', not a twisted Orwellian 'all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than some animals'

Mockrage rules..... History fools
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I love Muirfields statement...

"if women want to play here, then they can marry our members"
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'd actually have more support for them if they didn't allow wives of members to play to be honest. It shows that they're actually fine with women playing there and using the facilities, they only have an issue with women being members.
 
I wonder what the wives of these members think oddly enough
 
Widely reported that those wives who do play at Muirfield have absolutely no desire to be Members.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I wonder if other people's wives are allowed ?
Click to expand...

To play?
If you mean club guests' wives, yes, they can.
A woman can play as a guest herself, without a husband.
Women simply cannot become Members.
 
viv1969 said:
To play?
If you mean club guests' wives, yes, they can.
A woman can play as a guest herself, without a husband.
Women simply cannot become Members.
Click to expand...

It was a bit tongue in cheek Viv, I wondered if members could bring other people's wives to their club (instead of their own) [emoji3]
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It was a bit tongue in cheek Viv, I wondered if members could bring other people's wives to their club (instead of their own) [emoji3]
Click to expand...

That's a whole different kinda club! :eek:
 
Most Ladies aren't getting in a spat. Just the feminazis.
 
Feminazi is a word I dislike A great deal. The rights that women do have today owe much to the pioneers who fought long and hard. I find it offensive to Link feminism to a group of people who committed genocide and were ultimately responsible for millions of deaths.
 
Chipper said:
Feminazi is a word I dislike A great deal. The rights that women do have today owe much to the pioneers who fought long and hard. I find it offensive to Link feminism to a group of people who committed genocide and were ultimately responsible for millions of deaths.
Click to expand...

I have no issues with feminism, and fully acknowledge that many of the freedoms women enjoy today were hard fought for. But the kind of “militant feminists” who are often seen wailing and tearing at their hair shirts over the daftest things, I do find really annoying, and I don’t think they do women any good at all. I find feminazi a good description for them.

It’s your prerogative to take offence, but I don’t believe that I’m linking feminism to genocide, merely using the term in a (commonly used) descriptive fashion.
 
I have just read the guardian article posted earlier. it puts it more eloquently and clearly than I could. And just because a term is commonly used, it doesn't mean it is ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top