Should Muirfield host the Open?

I see that I cant play Muirfield as a visitor if I'm 15 years old

I also see that I cant play Muirfield as a visitor because my h/cap is 24

Seems that 22 year old 15 h/cap women get all the breaks !! :D

Actually you can't play it because you're stuck in the middle of Indian Ocean in the sunshine!!
 
Non story IMO. The open should be played on the best links on the British isles regardless of their membership criteria. The open is all about quality golf play and not the politics if golf
 
Good points raised here and we have the same issue at my place :) The numbers are in the mens favour so they take the lead on many an issue and rightly so as its a majority. Your right I'm not overly well informed over St Andrews membership criteria but I wasn't discussing those guys I was discussing Muirfield and its policy of not allowing female membership and the impact/impression this might give to others especially in the worlds spotlight of hosting The Open. If St Andrews has the same approach then perhaps that's an additional area of concern. And christ what a concern it would be! :confused:

People have mentioned that this is old news and theres lots of women only men only clubs....

Firstly it might be old news but its topical enough to be quoted about in this months GM by the Editor and also based on the current bad PR the European tour is getting recently is this not something that should be looked at and discussed? Politically correct and all that it may well be yes and I understand many of the arguments here. Most are very valid and have good argument but when you have the world looking at you and your sport from the home of the game etc you have to get it right. I love the Open and the game but Muirfield, knowingly hosting the biggest Major in the world which is worth millions to them but has some old out of date male only members policy, is some what deluded and rather narrow minded imo. Why open yourself up for more pointless scrutiny? Their next AGM ... "should we allow ladies to join or loose the Open in a few years time???" Maybe then a decent course might get a chance!! :o Sorry ....

Who said that they would lose the open just cos they haven't allowed women?? The R and A clearly aren't changing their stance on this otherwise the open wouldn't be being held there this year.

As Peter Dawson has said the R and A wont make clubs change their membership just for the open. At the end of the day I'm sure that there will be thousands of people there through out the week and a few people not going just cos women aren't allowed to be members aren't going to be missed. It will be them that are missing out on a great championship.
 
Actually you can't play it because you're stuck in the middle of Indian Ocean in the sunshine!!

Its discrimination I tells ya!

Here I am stuck in the office a mere 14 hours flying time away from the place and Muirfield won't let me play tomorrow cos my golf shorts have an external pocket!
 
Good points raised here and we have the same issue at my place :) The numbers are in the mens favour so they take the lead on many an issue and rightly so as its a majority. Your right I'm not overly well informed over St Andrews membership criteria but I wasn't discussing those guys I was discussing Muirfield and its policy of not allowing female membership and the impact/impression this might give to others especially in the worlds spotlight of hosting The Open. If St Andrews has the same approach then perhaps that's an additional area of concern. And christ what a concern it would be! :confused:

People have mentioned that this is old news and theres lots of women only men only clubs....

Firstly it might be old news but its topical enough to be quoted about in this months GM by the Editor and also based on the current bad PR the European tour is getting recently is this not something that should be looked at and discussed? Politically correct and all that it may well be yes and I understand many of the arguments here. Most are very valid and have good argument but when you have the world looking at you and your sport from the home of the game etc you have to get it right. I love the Open and the game but Muirfield, knowingly hosting the biggest Major in the world which is worth millions to them but has some old out of date male only members policy, is some what deluded and rather narrow minded imo. Why open yourself up for more pointless scrutiny? Their next AGM ... "should we allow ladies to join or loose the Open in a few years time???" Maybe then a decent course might get a chance!! :o Sorry ....

Good post sir. I'd like to think Peter Dawson is on the cutting edge of equality, inclusion and is the right person to lead the R&A in the 21st century. But then I saw his quote regarding this issue in which trying to justify it he said

"My position is that I totally believe in equality but I do also believe that there are times when men need to socialise with men and women need to socialise with women."

Yes Peter, I know what you mean, in fact I have a video describing such places below

[video=youtube;HTN6Du3MCgI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTN6Du3MCgI[/video]
 
I don't think the OP was demanding muirfield change their membership policy, but rather given their membership policy should they be eligible to host Golf's flagship event?
In my view, no. And nor should other single gender clubs, mens or ladies. I don't see how the existence of women only golf clubs (or gyms...) adds anything to the debate, I'd suggest that they shouldn't get to host The Open either. Especially not the gyms.
 
I don't think the OP was demanding muirfield change their membership policy, but rather given their membership policy should they be eligible to host Golf's flagship event?
In my view, no. And nor should other single gender clubs, mens or ladies. I don't see how the existence of women only golf clubs (or gyms...) adds anything to the debate, I'd suggest that they shouldn't get to host The Open either. Especially not the gyms.

Of course it adds to the debate. If it was so wrong it wouldnt be happening in all these other examples would it?

What difference does it make to anybody thats Muirfield is mens members only? It barely affects anybody at all does it?
 
This is a ridiculous argument.

Private club = members decide what they want to do, irrespective of whether it's single sex or mixed sex.

End of debate.
 
I don't know what the price is to join, but I'm going to make the wild assumption that I can't afford the fees for Muirfield.

Is that not just as discriminatory? But rather than sexist, it's elitist? They know how much they want to charge, and how many people would pay this. If enough men won't pay it, then they will either reduce the price, or open it to women. I'm with the "Members club-can do what they like" group.
 
Of course it adds to the debate. If it was so wrong it wouldnt be happening in all these other examples would it?

What difference does it make to anybody thats Muirfield is mens members only? It barely affects anybody at all does it?

So your line of reasoning is other clubs discriminate by gender too so it's OK? I say it's not, in any case. Women only or men only clubs.

Clubs that discriminate on gender are outdated and should be phased out. Certainly should not be rewarded with getting to host golfs flagship event.
 
This is a ridiculous argument.

Private club = members decide what they want to do, irrespective of whether it's single sex or mixed sex.

End of debate.

But that's not the end of the debate, because it's more subtle than that. The private members' club is one element of it, the other element of it is should the R&A take the flagship event to clubs with discriminatory membership policies?

On the first point, I agree that private members' clubs should have the right to set their own membership criteria. I personally wouldn't join a club that didn't admit female members but if some people want to, that's their lookout. (And if you think about it, all clubs' membership policies are discriminatory, on cost, if nothing else - if you can't afford to join, then you can't join.)

On the second point, I think it's a bit more difficult. I agree that The Open should be played on the best courses available. Some of them belong to clubs with discriminatory membership policies and taking The Open to clubs which don't allow women leaves the R&A open to the kind of accusations we all know about, that they effectively condone these policies by awarding the tournament to the clubs in question.

My own view is that the R&A has a responsibility to not just put on the best tournament they can but also to develop and grow the game. Part of that, in my mind, is to present golf as an equal and inclusive sport as far as it's possible to do so. Having said that, I change my mind on this on a day by day basis, as I can't work out which of the R&A's responsibilities takes precedence - that to the tournament or that to the wider game. If it's solely to the tournament, then they should take it to the best course irrespective of the policy of the club. If it's to the wider game, then they'd be better not to give it to discriminatory clubs, IMO. If it's both, which I think it is, then it's a very difficult thing to answer.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what the price is to join, but I'm going to make the wild assumption that I can't afford the fees for Muirfield.

Is that not just as discriminatory? But rather than sexist, it's elitist? They know how much they want to charge, and how many people would pay this. If enough men won't pay it, then they will either reduce the price, or open it to women. I'm with the "Members club-can do what they like" group.

From what I understand, it's actually extremely cheap. Outfitting ( especially the Jacket for their formal Dinners which are quite a tradition) will probably be expensive though!

Getting invited to be, then accepted as a member is the hardest part. There is still a white ball/black ball ballot box - not an uncommon mechanism in Private clubs in some form or another.

That has its own discrimination 'issue'.
 
Clubs that discriminate on gender are outdated and should be phased out. Certainly should not be rewarded with getting to host golfs flagship event.

But why? There must be enough people that want to be part of these single sex clubs for them to keep running. What gives you the right to take that choice away from them? It's a free market. If enough people protest by not joining, then the clubs won't be able to make enough money to survive. Whilst they are still capable of running due to sufficient interest, I don't see why anyone has the right to say they should be forced to do otherwise.
 
So your line of reasoning is other clubs discriminate by gender too so it's OK? I say it's not, in any case. Women only or men only clubs.

Clubs that discriminate on gender are outdated and should be phased out. Certainly should not be rewarded with getting to host golfs flagship event.

Well if clubs of both sexes are doing the same then how can it be so wrong? Add to the fact its a private club means what you or anybody else thinks doesnt matter. Like minded individuals often do things in groups, its been the way of the world for years.

If somebody came in your house and started saying you cant do this and you cant do that would you listen? Would you buggery!

You dont like it then dont go to it, dont watch it. Easy
 
To me the argument is not whether a club should or should not be single sex, that is down to the club and its members. The point to me is that this is European Golf's only real global event and as such the wider factor of the image and expansion of the game should be taken into account. The simple fact is that there are sections of the media that want to burden golf with the elitist, sexist image that it has had in the past and there are readers and viewers who want to believe that. As such, playing the Open at a course that restricts membership of grounds of sex is always going to produce headlines and comments whether accurate or not and there will always be members of the PC brigade who will shout loudly about it etc. At a time when golf needs as many new members as it can find from both sexes, this cannot be seen as a good thing and the media trying to emphasise stuffy stereotypes may well go some way to distracting people from taking up the game.
So, in my humble opinion, there is no problem with members clubs applying whatever rules they wish but, based on the fact that this is the one time that the world is watching golf in this country, it may not always be the best idea to hold the event at a club with rules that could be used to create sensationalist headlines or be applied, rightly or wrongly, to denigrate the image of the game.
 
But that's not the end of the debate, because it's more subtle than that. The private members' club is one element of it, the other element of it is should the R&A take the flagship event to clubs with discriminatory membership policies?

On the first point, I agree that private members' clubs should have the right to set their own membership criteria. I personally wouldn't join a club that didn't admit female members but if some people want to, that's their lookout. (And if you think about it, all clubs' membership policies are discriminatory, on cost, if nothing else - if you can't afford to join, then you can't join.)

On the second point, I think it's a bit more difficult. I agree that The Open should be played on the best courses available. Some of them belong to clubs with discriminatory membership policies and taking The Open to clubs which don't allow women leaves them open to the kind of accusations we all know about, that they effectively condone these policies by awarding the tournament to the clubs in question.

My own view is that the R&A has a responsibility to not just put on the best tournament they can but also to develop and grow the game. Part of that, in my mind, is to present golf as an equal and inclusive sport as far as it's possible to do so. Having said that, I change my mind on this on a day by day basis, as I can't work out which of the R&A's responsibilities takes precedence - that to the tournament or that to the wider game. If it's solely to the tournament, then they should take it to the best course irrespective of the policy of the club. If it's to the wider game, then they be better not to give it to discriminatory clubs, IMO. If it's both, which I think it is, then it's a very difficult thing to answer.

I would much rather have the event hosted at somewhere like Muirfield where anyone (within reason) can play than say the US Masters which is totally exclusive and Joe Public has no chance of ever getting to play the venue. In fact, even getting to view the event is an achievement in itself.
 
Well if clubs of both sexes are doing the same then how can it be so wrong? Add to the fact its a private club means what you or anybody else thinks doesnt matter. Like minded individuals often do things in groups, its been the way of the world for years.

If somebody came in your house and started saying you cant do this and you cant do that would you listen? Would you buggery!

You dont like it then dont go to it, dont watch it. Easy

For many years lots of countries didn't allow women the vote. They were all doing the same, were they all right? After all how could they all be wrong?

Mcbroon summarises it well.
The fact that clubs with non-inclusive membership policies will continue to exist is a shame, but probably inevitable at least in the short to medium term. It is rather a question of whether the r&a should award those clubs a prestigious event and in doing so effectively condone it's policies in the eyes of many.
 
For many years lots of countries didn't allow women the vote. They were all doing the same, were they all right? After all how could they all be wrong?

Surely this analogy would only work if there were other countries that ONLY allowed women to vote.

And you also had a completely free choice about whether or not you wanted to live in either country, or a country that allowed both sexes the right to vote.

Completely different issue with the one being discussed IMHO.
 
Top