Should a sexist institution like St Georges host the Open ?

Bearing in mind that the Open is the pinnacle event in the British golfing calendar, should it be awarded to a club that will not permit half the British population as a member ? OK, it probably wont even consider 99.9% of the population but if you are a woman it's not even up for debate. I believe someone high up at the R&A was recently asked this question and his answer was it wasn't up to the R&A to influence social engineering. What a wonderfully enlightened man he must have been.....
So for me I can accept that they have a right to be a male only institution, however I'd equally have to say that such an institution should not be considered fitting to host the Open.
I thought Id post this thread after freading an article by Matthew Syed in this mornings Times by the way...not a Guardian in sight....

Most golf clubs have their quirks especially those at the very top end.
There's a womens only gym about 200 yards from where I live, nearest gym where I can go is around 2 miles and at that gym there are women only sessions, I don't have a problem with it I just work around the venues/times that I can go...

Considering the R&A is a gents only organisation the whole situation is more widespread than just RSG being exclusive.

Matthew Syed is an excellent read, also worth looking at some John Amaechi (ex NBA player) stuff, I heard a fascinating interview by him with Danny Kelly on the reasons why British sport isn't as successful as it should be.

Grizzly, is that gym being awarded any exclusive sporting events that will be shown on national TV ?

Diggers wrote:Grizzly, is that gym being awarded any exclusive sporting events that will be shown on national TV ?

I'd watch.

You throwing out gael-bait, Diggers?

Not at all Davie, though Im sure Gael and Lady Putt could both provide very interesting views on the subject.
Like I say Im not saying that same sex institutions should not be permitted to exist....though Id never in a million years want to join one.... however I do think its a valid point as to whether they should be hosting a national sporting event.

It's a good question, however is surely part of a much bigger question about sports place in society.
Enlightened or not, the R&A official mentioned has a point to some degree.

Of all the atrocities that go on in the world, not admitting ladies into a golf club is probably pretty far down the list.
China's human rights policies for example could be considered (!) more of a problem and they were given the Olympics.
Police brutality and slave labour problems in Brazil and yet they have the 2014 World Cup.
There is a distinct lack of freedom of speech in India and yet they hosted the 2011 Cricket World Cup

Of course they should be admitting lady members, but Royal St George's is pretty far down the list of unjustices in my eyes.

If sport gets involved in factoring in these issues would it be impossible to hold a sporting event anywhere at all?

I think this whole single sex thing is blown way out of proportion. There are male only institutions, female only ones, mixed ones....what's the problem? We are talking here about the MEN's open championship. There is also a LADIES open championship. I wouldn't have a proplem if the ladies played their event at Sunningdale Ladies golf club.

Quick example of the whole sexism thing getting out of hand.....

At my club, women used to pay a reduced membership in return for 6.5 days a week access to the course (not Saturday mornings). Legislation stipulated that they have to have equal access so they now pay the same as men and have 7 day access. Slight problem, nobody actaully asked them if that is what they want. They don't, they were happy with the way things are. End result is the ladies pay more and don't want to use the course on Saturday mornings because it is choc-a-block.

Fair points MPB, but does what happens in the world stop you from putting your own house in order ? The fact is we could be setting an example and the only example being set here is reinforcing the image that golf is a game played by biggoted middle class white males.

My club is at present Gents only (not that I support that view) and are at present in the process of working out a procedure to admit women. God knows why they need a procedure it should be automatic. There are however women only clubs in the town too.

Diggers wrote:Fair points MPB, but does what happens in the world stop you from putting your own house in order ? The fact is we could be setting an example and the only example being set here is reinforcing the image that golf is a game played by biggoted middle class white males.

I dispute that, there are plenty of 'female only' clubs in Britain, probably a lot more than people realise.

Digs, it certainly doesn't stop you putting your own house in order, agreed.
Surely though there's somewhere you have to stop interfering

There are men's clubs and there are ladies club's in the world in general, let alone golf

That seems like a hell of a problem for the R&A to decide to tackle on its own?

Diggers - my point is that whilst there may be deliberate segregation it doesn't always mean that it's discrimination, and why is segragation always painted as such a negative issue ?
As Drive4show says, do they actually want to be members of the club ?
Would their presence require modernisation to club facilities, and if so are they prepared to meet the cost ?
Can the club cope with increased membership ?
It is what it is, nothing to stop a woman/group of women buying their own land/course and running a womens only club

For once I find myself agreeing with Diggers (that's got to be a first) but as long as the game of golf is dominated by men (and the majority of comments on here - from men - bear that out) then things won't change. I certainly would not join a club which discriminated either way (I certainly wouldn't want to join a "ladies only" club either, couldn't think of anything worse). IMO women's golf needs to get its house in order as well and not discriminate against women who work for a living (all major comps, opens etc are played midweek for example). What will happen when the planned merger between the EWGA and the EGU takes place, I'm not sure. I'll be interested to see if anything changes.

I can't believe that this sort of thing still goes on in this day and age, and to be honest I wouldn't join a club that was men only. Seems a bit weird to me.

Also have sympathy for what LadyPutt says, their comps always seem to be midweek........again why in this day and age? Surely there are enough weekend days in a month to put asside for a Ladies comp, maybe alternate Saturdays and Sundays between male / female comps.

I think that there are two issues here - should a club like RSG be able to discriminate against a particular sex and should the R&A choose a club like this that does.

On the first point, RSG is a private institution that should be able to make it's own rules. If those rules were that unfair then people would not want to be a member and they would have no business plan. I'm sure that even if they did open it up to women then they would be in the same position as they are now with all male members because what woman would want to spend their leisure time with a bunch of small minded and petty men that want to sit around all day and talk about how men are king of the world over cigars and brandy.

The second issue is slightly more difficult but the R&A has a sole responsibility to put on a successful Open event and after that should not get involved in sending out messages or trying to change society. When people attend or watch this years Open they will only be judging the quality of the tournament by the set up of the course and the excitement of the golf. Nobody will be thinking about what RSG as a club is like nor will they aspire to be a part of that club because of The Open. On a more important issue, having The Open in the South East is really important in making it accessible to people across the country and right now the people of Sandwich could do with a boost in their economy. Pfizer, the giant pharmaceutical firm, announced this year that they are closing their premises in Sandwich making something like 13000 people jobless so to bring the revenue into this area that The Open will bring is a far more important reason to hold The Open at RSG than not to hold it because of a few bigots.

Harrison, The R&A is itself a sexist organisation with a male only membership. Therefore it's no surprise that they have no problem with Muirfield and RSG holding The Open.

super_realist wrote:Harrison, The R&A is itself a sexist organisation with a male only membership. Therefore it's no surprise that they have no problem with Muirfield and RSG holding The Open.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I'm sure that their discrimination extends further than just sex but who would want to be a part of it anyway? Their members will surely be the type of people whose company you endure rather than enjoy...

I see them frequently playing at St.Andrews, and many certainly have a pious and self righteous attitude to them, as if they are the rightful custodians of the St.Andrews Links and that they deserve more right to be there than other ticket holders.
Probably something to do with having to be introduced as a member and pay a frightful annual fee.

Excuse me but am I missing the point here? We are talking about the MENS open championship being played at a male only club.

Would we even be having this conversation if it was about the LADIES open championship being played at a female only club?

I suspect we wouldn't.

By the very nature of sport, there will and MUST be segregation of the sexes. Imagine the outcry if one of the Klitscko brothers stepped into the ring and landed a punch on a female boxer!

drive4show wrote:Excuse me but am I missing the point here? We are talking about the MENS open championship being played at a male only club.

Would we even be having this conversation if it was about the LADIES open championship being played at a female only club?

I suspect we wouldn't.

By the very nature of sport, there will and MUST be segregation of the sexes. Imagine the outcry if one of the Klitscko brothers stepped into the ring and landed a punch on a female boxer!

Whilst I may not disagree with the sentiment of the post, is it the Mens Open Championship ? I may be wrong but I though anyone could enter through qualification..

drive4show wrote:Imagine the outcry if one of the Klitscko brothers stepped into the ring and landed a punch on a female boxer!

Sorry D4S but that has to be "stupidest comment of the year"

JPX

that's a matter of opinion. The theme of this debate is all about women having equal rights (in this case, in sports events).

So where do you draw the line? And if you do draw a line, why draw it there? Either they have equality or they don't?

D4S, I think you are actually missing the point personally.
Just because you can have seperate male and female competitions does not mean you need to segregate the places that they play them. I dont believe the All England Club is male only for instance ?
How many Ladies clubs have sprung out simply from necessity...ie they were not originally allowed to join mens clubs or if they did join were treated like second class citizens ? Quite a few I would imagine.

Sorry. For me...who cares? So it's a men only club? So what? It's a men-only tournament.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I don't think a men-only club is something I'd want to be a part of but I don't see the big issue here.

I wonder what would happen if some of the Challenge Tour men decided they wanted to play on the Women's Tour? Or maybe Andy Murray (or someone else) might fancy the ridiculous equal prize money available playing the women at the major tennis championships? No? Thought not. I'm fed up to the back teeth with the proactive PC Brigade. There's a lot more important examples of mysoginism/sexism/whatever but this isn't one of them.

Im really lost as to why people think its about men and women competing against each other. That is not the issue, the issue is about discrimination of membership. And should a club...any club...that actively discriminates, as clearly St Georges does, be held as an example to the public in hosting a competition.

Diggers

I don't think I am missing the point.

Quite simply, there are male organisations and female organisations. Women are allowed to play the course at RSG and they are allowed into the clubhouse. I have no desire to join the WI but I'm certainly not going to go banging on about it just to make my PC point that I should be allowed to join. The same applies to Sunningdale Ladies GC.

Why would I want to join a female organisation and why would a woman want to join a male organisation?

I can fully understand why a woman would be offended that a nationally broadcast event...help up as a British sporting institution....is being held at a club where she would be ejected if she walked into the clubhouse.
Im not arguing about its right to exist, Im saying if it chooses to go down the discrimination route...which is what it does......then it should forgoe the right to hold the Open.

Diggers, to me The Open doesn't really have a great deal of association with the club of the course that it is using. St Andrews may be different because it is where the R&A reside but generally the membership of the club at the given course does not benefit with people wishing to be members just because of The Open. They will obviously benefit from the exposure that the course gets but then a good course will always get people wishing to play it and in this respect they do not discriminate. On this occasion the more important factors for holding The Open at RSG are that it is more than capable of holding such a big event, has a great location for golf fans in London and the SE and is in an area that really needs an economic boost right now. The families of Sandwich that are facing a big struggle with job losses will only appreciate the income that The Open generates - given the choice it might have been from Princes or RCP but beggars can't be choosers.

Cracking debate article diggers I'm not going to get into the sexism debate as there are pro's and con's to both sides, and each club should be judged on their own individual merits.

BUT I believe holding the Open at RSG is a bad idea for the very reason that it's a men only club. Golf fans from all around the world will be watching this weeks event, and many will be outraged that a backward institution is being promoted as one of the top courses in the UK. I think it's a bad idea for the tourist industry, the country as a whole and RSG should not be given the accolade. Many millions of £'s are spent by yanks, as an example each year, who come over to the UK and Ireland to play some cracking courses. RSG having being elevated onto a 'course to play before you die' status, will not allow these tourists on, because they turn up with their wives.

I appreciate that places like Augusta have an exclusive membership, but RSG is not in the same league. I respect their right to do whatever they please, but cannot accept that they should be rewarded for it.

Doc

Sorry, you've got your facts wrong. RSG does allow women to play the course and allow them into the clubhouse. I know, my other half was with me when I played there. What it WON'T allow is for them to become members. Hardly an issue for a touring yank.

And of course making it a pre requisite of hosting an Open to have a membership that does not discriminate would be easy to get around. They would just invite one woman from another country to be a member so that she would never visit but they can at least then say they have a female member. You cannot force people like this to change and even if they did, what woman in her right mind would want to be a member?!?

Maybe an answer for the BBC would be to air a programme about discrimination, to both sexes, on the eve of such an event like The Open or Wimbledon. That way people would be able to just enjoy the spectacle of it whilst those discriminative organisations are embarrassed...

Doc wrote:Cracking debate article diggers I'm not going to get into the sexism debate as there are pro's and con's to both sides, and each club should be judged on their own individual merits.

BUT I believe holding the Open at RSG is a bad idea for the very reason that it's a men only club. Golf fans from all around the world will be watching this weeks event, and many will be outraged that a backward institution is being promoted as one of the top courses in the UK. I think it's a bad idea for the tourist industry, the country as a whole and RSG should not be given the accolade. Many millions of £'s are spent by yanks, as an example each year, who come over to the UK and Ireland to play some cracking courses. RSG having being elevated onto a 'course to play before you die' status, will not allow these tourists on, because they turn up with their wives.

I appreciate that places like Augusta have an exclusive membership, but RSG is not in the same league. I respect their right to do whatever they please, but cannot accept that they should be rewarded for it.

Backward? Why, a priori, are they backward just because they'd like a male-only membership? I don't see that it necessarily follows.

But it is one of the top courses in the Country, whether or not the Open is held there this week and it's been a 'play before you die' course for a lot longer than what'll happen after this week.

Assuming D4S is correct that women can play RSG and enter the clubhouse (presumably via a green fee etc) then your tourist's wives (assuming they even want to play the course) can get on by paying a green fee....as their husbands/partners will be doing anyway.

sharrison01 wrote:...Maybe an answer for the BBC would be to air a programme about discrimination, to both sexes, on the eve of such an event like The Open or Wimbledon. That way people would be able to just enjoy the spectacle of it whilst those discriminative organisations are embarrassed...

Why would they be embarrassed? In any case (and I'm sure the existing membership would prefer it), what's to stop them saying "OK, sod the Open. We don't need it." People know RSG is a great course and will play it in any case. Be interesting to see how the Open rota looks if a number of such courses became unavailable.

Valid view Doc, but if we're looking at perception why is the Masters such a popular event, and the rules they employ do not hinder tourism for Georgia or the US in general.
They still have no women members, no membership applications, Caddies must wear jumpsuits, no autographs, no backward baseball caps and no running for spectators, this is IMO the greatest golf tournament in the calendar and they do not permit patrons to request autographs of their heroes at practice ?
It is what it is, they make the rules everyone simply has to abide by them, but it doesn't devalue the great tournament that it hosts

And surely as RSG is like any other private club in that you have to be proposed, seconded and then interviewed before becoming a member, the whole system will have an element of discrimination to it. I'm sure that there are men that have tried to join these types of clubs but have been turned down because their face does not fit. In old organisations like this, money doesn't always talk so unless the whole system is forced to change then there really is no issue.

Grizzly, I would argue that the rules at Augusta massively devalue the tournament. Sure I enjoy watching it but I despise everything that the club stands for so I guess its a guilty pleasure.

navyblueshorts wrote:
Assuming D4S is correct that women can play RSG and enter the clubhouse (presumably via a green fee etc) then your tourist's wives (assuming they even want to play the course) can get on by paying a green fee....as their husbands/partners will be doing anyway.

States quite clearly on the website, maximum handicap for both men and women is 18.

Now you could maybe make a case that they are being elitist towards women as there are far fewer women with a handicap better than 18 than there are men

navyblueshorts wrote:

sharrison01 wrote:...Maybe an answer for the BBC would be to air a programme about discrimination, to both sexes, on the eve of such an event like The Open or Wimbledon. That way people would be able to just enjoy the spectacle of it whilst those discriminative organisations are embarrassed...

Why would they be embarrassed? In any case (and I'm sure the existing membership would prefer it), what's to stop them saying "OK, sod the Open. We don't need it." People know RSG is a great course and will play it in any case. Be interesting to see how the Open rota looks if a number of such courses became unavailable.

This was in response to those that think that The Open should not be broadcast on national television if it seen to promote an organisation that is discriminative. I am very much in agreement with you in that there is very little issue but a programme of this nature would balance the books. However, it would just be one of those things that no body has any interest in whatsoever - I remember at Augusta a few years back there was supposed to be a mass protest because of their lack of women members - Jesse Jackson turned up with a handful of women and it quickly became very evident that there are more important issues than bigoted golf clubs.

OK, so if St Georges happened to believe that it should not permit black members, should it still be allowed to host the Open ?
Segregation is segregation surely ?

Diggers wrote:Grizzly, I would argue that the rules at Augusta massively devalue the tournament. Sure I enjoy watching it but I despise everything that the club stands for so I guess its a guilty pleasure.

Obviously, if you ever got the chance to play the course, you would turn it down?

Diggers wrote:Grizzly, I would argue that the rules at Augusta massively devalue the tournament. Sure I enjoy watching it but I despise everything that the club stands for so I guess its a guilty pleasure.

Sexist, racist, ageist - you name it, they show it! Doesn't stop it being a fantastic sporting event and the R&A only has a responsibility to compete with it in that sense.

I seem to remember playing a match at Royal Cinque Ports with a lady whose husband was a member at RSG. She said she was able to play with him BUT there were no ladies' tees and, and this is the best bit, because she was a woman and they don't recognise women golfers, she didn't have to pay a green fee! I presume that's a rule for wives of members, but it does sound rather silly.

I actually would D4S.

It works both ways...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356075/Teenage-boy-wanted-join-Girl-Guides-accuses-organisation-sexual-discrimination-turned-away.html

Now i think the Scouts is for Boys and Guides is for Grls and that is that, somewhere along the line that has been lost...

Whats the difference between golf clubs for men and women (same activity, but gender specific clubs) and Guides and Scouts?

A few people have beaten to me to it in bringing up Augusta.
When we did the most popular Major poll The Masters came out top. I wonder how many of those who don't think the Open should be at RSG voted for The Masters in the poll? Anyone going to own up?

Diggers wrote:OK, so if St Georges happened to believe that it should not permit black members, should it still be allowed to host the Open ?
Segregation is segregation surely ?

Wow, good upping of the ante in this debate! I think that in this instance it should certainly not be able to host The Open or even be able to exist as a club but that is because I disagree that segregation is segregation. There are numerous instances of discrimination to both sexes and by and large it is not a big enough issue for us all to stand up and make a change. Racial discrimination is on a zero tolerance basis and is as such far worse than sexual discrimination.

But it would appear from the score card that there are no Ladies tee's. Be interesting to know how ladies play it each year.

The perception of golf as a male dominated game is still holding its development back in this country in my view, but whilst the R&A is a men only club then little will change.

Diggers wrote:OK, so if St Georges happened to believe that it should not permit black members, should it still be allowed to host the Open ?
Segregation is segregation surely ?

Digs, i think we need to draw a line between discrimination and choice.
Just because they choose to exist as a male only membership, surely doesn't necessarily mean they have a negative view on women generally does it?