First, I think golf is a stupid game. My attitude is best summed up by the famous Michael Schumacher response to the question Do you play golf?: No, Im still young enough to enjoy sex. (I love taunting my brother the golf fanatic with that).
But the recent uproar over August National has taken a turn for the stupid.
First, the leading critic of Augusta, Martha Burk, deserves an abject apology from Porphyrogenitus (of Ranting Screeds), Instapundit and Kathryn Lopez of NRO, for their dumb-ass misreading of her Ms. Magazine article. In well-read society, prefacing something with A modest proposal is usually a dead giveaway that what follows is pointed satire, as her article obviously was. (I wrote an economics paper for a Marxist economist a long time ago entitled A modest proposal in which I suggested that we simply make being poor a capital crime. Dumbass didnt get it either, until I shoved Swift’s book under his nose.) Lopez then gives a half-apology here, in which she makes this profoundly wrongheaded statement:
I did, in fact, have the piece. I also suspected Burk didn’t really want to sterilize all men. However, Burk, a feminist writing that in Ms. was not the same as the likes Rod or Jonah writing the same thing on NRO. Ms. folks do believe men are the problem, and, frankly, anyone who has spent too much time exposed to feminist literature knows that.
So instead of relying on what Ms. Burk actually said, well rely on what Lopez thinks she knows about her audience. Stupid, embarrassing, and the apology itself requires an apology.
Porphyrogenitus is usually a lot better than this.
Instapundit missed on that one too, and I trust that hell be as quick at backing off as he is in stepping forward.
As far as Im concerned, Augusta has the absolute right to remain private and discriminatory. But they ought to have the decency to do so behind closed doors, and they gave that decency up when they started hosting a national, public (i.e. open to non-members) golf tournament.
If a bunch of old rich guys want to buy a golf course and go play with each other, Im all for it. But dont run a $10 million a year enterprise out of it and then keep claiming its a private matter.
Calpundit is all over this.
(added links)
(edited for tone and grammar)
I mentioned Swift at the bottom of my post; but the article didn’t seem to have that tone. Certainly didn’t seem to be the kind of satire a feminist would normally laugh at if the shoe were on the other foot (a major point in my own post, btw, likewise I put “modest” in quotes).
Point being, I think it’s fair to return serve (to use a metaphor involving another game) – Feminists like Burke love to misread what others would do, and make a huge fuss over it (thus we get things like Handmaid’s Tale in the first place). But I’m to appologize when it is the obverse.
Yes, I’m usually better than that. But, as with Tom Harkin a few weeks back, not always.
I’ll apologize to Burke when feminists appologize for asserting the Republicans want to institute something along the lines of A Handmaid’s Tale. Fair enough?
No wonder satire is dying as a form of comedy. People just don’t get it. I remember being at a party complaining about being stuck on the GW bridge before a Yankees game and during rush hour. I said I wanted to shoot myslef to have a quick death rather than starving to death on the bridge. Two cute psych PhDs said, “You were going to kill yourself because of bad traffic?”
For some reason I thought I was still in America, the last country where sarcasm and hyperbole is understood without explaination.
This reminds me of the scene from The Great Escape (one of the greatest “guy” movies ever) where Hendley, the American scrounger, told the Nazi guard that he was stealing the car when asked what he was doing. “Cooler!’ shouted the Nazi, until Hendley replied, “No, no, I was only joking.” “Ah, you must be American.” If a movie Nazi can identify sarcasm as a uniquely American form of comedy, why can’t real Americans. *sigh*
I added a link to Armed Liberal’s post and some commentary to the post in question.
One other thing:
Do the women’s colleges give up the right to discriminate in admissions when they open up their athletic events to non-members?
I know the arguments: if you give people freedom, they will abuse it and do things with it that we don’t approve of. But I don’t find those arguments very convincing.
I’ve actually been intending to pen a short satire on reproductive technology. Thanks to you all, I’ve gone and blogged it.
Porphy:
First, the feministes who insist that we’re months away from living ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ are morons, and you’re not. So it’s not a fair comparison…
Second, it may not have been great satire, but was obvious satire, and so when you bang on it, you have to do so in context, and itty bitty disclaimers at the end read more like defensive afterthoughts.
Finally, I’m not opposed to single-sex education at all (which presents problems for many feminists because while all-female schools seem to be OK, all-male ones aren’t), except that I believe that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander as well…so all-women’s schools presuppose all-male schools to me.
And I wouldn’t have a problem with an atheletic event at an all-women’s college; but I would expect them to take grief for it, and for the corporate sponsors to take grief for it, and at some point, the grief would be significant enough that it might or might not make sense to continue.
Augusta has every right to discriminate. THe PGA has every right to have a tournament there. And women annoyed by Augusta’s discriminatory policy have every right to hammer the sponsors who pay for the whole thing until either something changes or they go home.
A.L.
Ok, well there you make some fair points, and I apologize to you on that basis. If I was moronic in that post, I was moronic.
In my minor but not excusing defense, making hundreds of posts I am bound to make boners.
As far as the issue of Augusta National goes, well, lots of groups discriminate in their membership and derive commercial and/or financial benifit out of it, and I for one am not sure we should go after them.
How about the AARP? They convince/cajole businesses into giving discounts to AARP Members – but they won’t let me join (I’m not 50). Should we stop the discrimination based on age that AARP engages in (moving beyond that, they also are a public group in the way the members of Augusta National, even by hosting a PGA event, are not: they advocate, very publically, public policies that are invariably skewed to benifit the most wealthy age segment in this society. One could say, to paraphrase yourself, that it’s fine if a group of {relatively} rich old men and women want to get together and receive Modern Maturity, but when they run a multi-million dollar concession benifiting their members out of it, AND have significant impact on public policy, they should stop discrimination based on age – one of the things they’re supposedly against, anyhow).
And what about those Girl Scouts? I mean, it’s fine if a bunch of young women want to get together and learn stuff and play around and whatnot, but when they run a multi-million dollar cookie enterprise, they can’t claim their group’s membership is a “private” matter, either.
I don’t think intercollegiate athletic events involving women’s colleges, which are, no doubt, in part underwritten by corporate sponsorship (for which the atheletes get butkis – perhaps a pair of shoes – but the college gets cash. Dittoes with any ticket sales), are going to be in for any grief – and the difference of opinion between us is that I don’t think they should come in for any, either. There I don’t think I’m being a moron, and in part for the reason why I don’t think making grief for Augusta is good, even if they have, shall we say, a horrible history on these matters.
It’s because it’s becoming increasingly difficult to see where a proper line will be drawn. For example, some will say “well, the Girl Scouts and the AARP, well, that’s different” – but it will be hard to describe how it is different in a clear, principled way (one that doesn’t require the ideological equivalent of Ptolmaic Elipses).
It’s not clear that women in a position to actually care, beyond ideology, are on Burk’s side anyhow:
http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/20021006lopez.html
http://www.golfdigest.com/gfw/gfwfeatures/index.ssf?/gfw/gfwfeatures/gfw200212augusta.html
But even if they did, it wouldn’t change my position, which is based on a principle. Yes, people will join together to do all sorts of things that are abhorent (I for one don’t really like how companies are profiting off selling Emnem dolls to kids, but whatever). I’d rather have these people in their own club, when it comes right down to it. I can’t really see any social harm that comes from the PGA holding an event there and then moving on (especially since, as I recall, every year there is a segment that the network airing the event does which highlights Augusta’s past in an unflattering way. I admit I hardly watch Golf religiously. It’s not Packer Football, for heaven’s sake. But I do remember such segments. I don’t condemn the network for running them, and I don’t condemn the network for airing the Master’s, either).
Anyhow, that’s my screed. Spelling errors and malapropisms and all.
One other thing. This: And women annoyed by Augusta’s discriminatory policy have every right to hammer the sponsors who pay for the whole thing until either something changes or they go home.Would seem to give control to a group (perhaps small but vocal and irritating enough that a company wouldn’t want to bother opposing them) regardless of the merits of their argument. Are you sure you want that to be the basis for how things are decided? Think about it. I’ve seen how these things can end up (there’s a reason I started my post with the comparison I made with her methods and that of another person’s), and that’s not the way I prefer to see things unfold. Not any further. I think that kind of thing has already gotten way, way out of hand..
But that’s just my non-humble opinion, and perhaps that, too, is why we have an underlaying disagreement.
To help out: Think about some of the PC policies that 90% of the people (which is to say, including the vast majority of sensible Liberals) know to be absurd and ridiculous but can’t get rid of because they’re spurred on by people who have no life outside The Cause.
When the rest of us get done bemoaning and/or ridiculing these things and then go home – go about our daily life – the people who have no “home” to go to outside of The Cause busy themselves implementing and/or expanding these things.
They do so on the very grounds you set forth. Yes, people have every right to advocate a policy. But until the rest of us insist upon evaluating that policy on its merits and effects rather than just letting the squeeky wheel get its way because they won’t stop haranguing us over it, we’re not going to resolve some of the growing problems we have.
Advocate a position? Yes. You’re right. They have every right to push their cause. But we’re going to have to start having higher standards about what we let people get away with. I think we shoult start drawing the line now. I think it’s past time we did. People don’t have a right to get their way just because they’re the most obnoxious in pressing it, won’t go home until they get what they want, regardless of its impact on such things as freedom of association and other things that we all should value even while noting how some (rather small in this case – Augusta National has how many members? This is a national problem? It is? We should do what Martha Burk says should be done, regardless of whatever unforseen – or even the forseeable – consiquences it might have? Augusta National’s membership practices are that big a deal?) might use that freedom in ways we’re not proud of (just as I’m not exactly happy about how Emnem uses his freedom of speech sometimes, but I’m opposed to censoring his records or insuring they aren’t published).
We can’t really wonder why some PCish, Leftist stuff gets foisted on us (and then blaimed on Liberalism as a whole) regardless of the fact that hardly anyone thinks it’s a good idea (and often – very often – has nothing to do with Liberalism properly understood, but is Cultural Marxism of some sort masquerading as “Liberal” in order to pull support from quarters that otherwise wouldn’t be so passive about it) if we’re going to accept the formula you put forward as the way of determining things.
Unfortunately, Glenn is still missing the point, even posting an excerpt from a CNN transcript featuring lots of accusations from the hosts, a wise-ass comment from Burke — and no direct quote from her after that point. He does mention afterwards that she claimed it was a spoof — but he is still claiming that “with the likes of her” it’s tough to tell sometimes. Bloody. Hell.
>> If a bunch of old rich guys want to buy a golf course and go play with each other, Im all for it. But dont run a $10 million a year enterprise out of it and then keep claiming its a private matter.
If it was a $1M enterprise, would it be okay? How about $100k? $100?
Andy —
The difference is between an explicitly private event…something between friends and associates…and something sponsored by major corporations and broadcast on national TV. One is clearly “private” and one “public”. Once you move into the “public” sphere, different rules apply.
Now there is a lot of space between the two…and many cases where we have to do ‘gut checks’.
But I have no problem calling this a “public” event…
A.L.
>> The difference is between an explicitly private event…something between friends and associates…and something sponsored by major corporations and broadcast on national TV.
Okay; now I understand the rule.
Major corps can’t pay private groups for services rendered. Or, if they do, said groups have to give up their freedom to act as a private group. policies. And, if a TV camera shows folks using facilities owned by private group doing something, said group has to give up their freedom to act as a private group.
This rule would make a lot more sense if it was applied to the Masters’ Tournament and its participation instead of the facilities that the tournament uses. But, it’s the rule, a general principle…
Of course, we’re going to go after other privately owned suppliers whose ownership is discriminatory. Right?
This rule sure is going to play hell with and every other private group that chooses to exclude certain people, such as women-only colleges, but we are taking general principle here.
BTW – One of the nearby stores has single-gender ownership while another is owned by folks of a single race. Is it wrong for me to buy from them?
Andy –
Not even close.
The law expressly differentiates between discrimination in a public accomodation – a hotel or restaurant – and a private one – my home.
I’m not suggesting that what Augusta does – that their membership practices – are illegal, nor that they should be.
But if they, and the companies that pay them, want to go stand in the light of public regard, they have to take the public heat that goes with it.
If they want a private, discriminatory club, I could care less. The Bohemian Club is private, and highly discriminatory. But they don’t try and run a large public event out of it, and they don’t accept sponsorships from corporations – who may be embarassed by doing so. And if someone wants to embarass one of those sponsors, have at them.
A.L.
>> The law expressly differentiates between discrimination in a public accomodation – a hotel or restaurant – and a private one – my home.
That’s an argument about participation in the Masters Tournament or as an employee of the organization that puts it on. However, that’s not the issue at hand.
The furor is over discriminatory OWNERSHIP.
Many, if not most, ownership organizations are discriminatory. A huge fraction of public events use facilities owned by such organizations. A huge fraction of spending by “major corps” goes to biz owned by such organizations.
If it’s wrong for major corps to sponsor the Masters because the course is owned by a discrimatory group, is it right for me to patronize stores owned by discriminatory groups?
If I’m okay, what is the distinction? TV coverage? The amount of money spent? The opportunity for embarrassment? The fact that it’s golf?
I’m not objecting to anyone’s right to protest, I’m asking about the standards they’re using.
Andy –
Examples??
A.L.
>> Examples??
Of what? Privately owned biz where the owners are self-selected by arbitrary criteria? The majority of small stores are owned by racially homogenous groups. Many are also owned by single genders.
I’m unaware of any restrictions on the criteria that potential owners of private biz can use to determine their co-owners.
Suppose that I had $100M and I wanted to become a minority owner of a given private biz. Are the current owners obligated to accept my offer? Is there anything stopping them from rejecting me on any basis that they choose?
Porphy,
That’s just ridiculous. There is no peak body of feminists from which you can extract that apology. Why should the rightness or wrongness of Burke’s satire (and thus whether or not you owe her an apology) be contingent on statements of other people over whom she has no control?
If it makes you happy, as someone who is a lesbian, a feminist and a (mainstream macro) economist who considers Handmaid’s Tale to be one of the most important books I ever read, let me offer the following:
“There are clearly Christian Identity types out there who would love to implement a world order not unlike the regime described in the Handmaid’s Tale. Those people probably vote Republican if they vote at all, and gravitate to the GOP when they decide to lobby politically instead of hiding out in Montana. However, their views are not those of the vast majority of registered Republicans. Feminists know this. On behalf of all feminists, I apologise if this fringe association is sometimes overblown. This exaggeration occurs largely because the Handmaid’s Tale regime would be so destructive that we must be highly vigilant against even fringe moves towards it. I apologise if this vigilance results in unfair tarring of others with the same brush.”
— freetles