This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Afternoon all.
As no one actually answered MyTie: The dragon is a link to the Mist of Pandaria side of the Wowhead website. And no, there is no way to make it disappear.
Post by
xlanadenx
Afternoon all.
As no one actually answered MyTie: The dragon is a link to the Mist of Pandaria side of the Wowhead website. And no, there is no way to make it disappear.
Yes, there is. If you have adblock, mouse over the dragon, right-click and select "Block this Ad".
Post by
MyTie
Do you all think women should be allowed membership at Augusta National.
I think they should, personally. I will be much more upset with IBM, though, than Agusta National if they refuse to let the woman CEO join, and IBM refuses to pull funding. Part of the requirement of that funding is that they give membership to their executives. If they refuse to let her in...they need to take their money to a different golf club. Not that Agusta isn't being ridiculous, but IBM would be validating their decision by bowing to it.
Did you know they didn't even have a black member until 1990?
I believe it is against the law to compel an organization to offer memberships to a corporation based on monetary support of that organization. I think IBM gets advertising and face time for their support. Further, I don't believe that the club should be forced to accept women, nor should they if they don't want to. I don't think all men's clubs anywhere should. Nor do I believe that women's only organizations should be forced to take men.
I wasn't aware of their first black member being in 1990. Was there a white only policy? Did any blacks apply for membership before then?Afternoon all.
As no one actually answered MyTie: The dragon is a link to the Mist of Pandaria side of the Wowhead website. And no, there is no way to make it disappear.They're to sick of me and my hate spewing self to endure any more of the hateful abuse I dish out constantly. How are you today?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
They shouldn't be forced legally. But the article says that they have always offered membership to IBM's officers. If they specifically exclude a female officer, I feel that company should find a golf club that is more compatible with their changing demographic, and take their money there as well.
Post by
MyTie
They shouldn't be forced legally. But the article says that they have always offered membership to IBM's officers. If they specifically exclude a female officer, I feel that company should find a golf club that is more compatible with their changing demographic, and take their money there as well.
IBM gives them money for advertising, NOT membership. The membership has been a gift. It is illegal to expect such a gift. If IBM continues to receive its advertising, then why should they go elsewhere? Why should the male only golf club change its policy? Why should IBM expect a gift it cannot legally expect?
Post by
Interest
Ahhh. I love being able to relax a bit...
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Well then, since the country club has been illegally bribing them for years, they should turn over a new leaf and stop associating with them, for both of their sakes.
Post by
MyTie
Well then, since the country club has been illegally bribing them for years, they should turn over a new leaf and stop associating with them, for both of their sakes.
It isn't illegal to give membership to a sponsoring corporation's CEOs.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You don't have to legally have a right to something to decide that their reason for not giving it is not really something you agree with. For example, Agusta doesn't legally have a right to expect any corporation to HAVE to buy advertising, but they would probably feel slighted if IBM pulled advertising because THEY believed that the club should admit female members. You're allowed to boycott anything you want, right?
Post by
MyTie
So then the reasoning behind your belief that IBM should pull its funding is not because it isn't giving membership to the female CEO, but because you believe that they are wrong for not allowing women as members.
So, my question remains: Why should all male organizations offer membership to women? Should all women's organizations do the same?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Why shouldn't they? Other than the actual dressing and bathroom facilities, for the sake of privacy, why should an organization be able to discriminate based on gender? I'm not saying that for things like competitive sports where certain performance levels need to be reached, that they should compromise on those. But if a woman could meet those, then she should be able to play. If a person can meet all of the requirements of an organization other than arbitrary ones like gender and race, then they shouldn't be denied membership solely on that criteria.
We have pages and pages of laws about discrimination on the books, and the vast majority of people believe that you shouldn't discriminate against people based on their religion, race, gender etc. in most areas of life. It think since most of society recognizes that discrimination in and of itself is a negative thing, the burden lies in proving why they SHOULD be allowed to discriminate in this case than in once again proving that discrimination is wrong as a principle.
A perfect example of the way is SHOULD work would be the college clubs in my school. We had clubs called the Black Student alliance, the Latin American club, Himalayan Club, etc. to celebrate those backgrounds. However everyone and their mother was in the Latin American Club- in fact, I'm pretty sure they the president of that club was from Eastern Europe at least one year. I had friends who were in BSA who were of Asian and Caucasian descent, because they were planning activities with their friends. I personally worked for a total of like 4 different countries at some of the international festivals. We knew the clubs were to celebrate certain cultures, but the membership policies were nondiscriminatory.
Is your argument that discrimination isn't wrong, or that even if it is wrong that it's their right to do it? Or do you not consider it discrimination?
Post by
Adamsm
Blarg, Beta log-in servers are down.
Post by
Interest
Time to stop mah downloads for a bit then. Hurtin' my ability to play on live.
Post by
MyTie
Is your argument that discrimination isn't wrong, or that even if it is wrong that it's their right to do it? Or do you not consider it discrimination?
I consider it discrimination. I don't think discrimination is automatically wrong. In this case, I see it as neutral. It is their golf course, and they don't want women as members. I think that is their decision to make. Is it wrong not to let women play golf on your golf course? I don't really think it matters. It's just golf. There is no harm here. If there were harm, it would be negative.
The Church is something that is very sexist and discriminatory, and I belong to it. We believe in archaic things like, traditional marriage, which is very sexist. We have other things we choose to do that are sexist. The ladies of the church get together once a month for a ladies lunch. I'm not allowed to go. I asked once because I like to eat. They laughed at me. The men go to the men's business meeting once a month. We make sure the electricity is paid for, and discuss boring things like getting new gutters and replacing the bathroom sink. I don't think a woman has ever been to the men's business meeting. I don't know why they would want to. Before we make any "large" decisions we adjourn, and it is understood that we all go home and ask permission from our wives. lol.
I would never join a golf course that didn't allow women. Anything recreational I do, I do with my wife and my kids, daughter included. It wouldn't make sense for me to go golf without my family.
However, if a bunch of old guys own a prestigious men's only golf course and want to keep it men's only, then that is their prerogative and they aren't hurting anyone. Would I do it? No. But that doesn't mean I think they are wrong for doing it. I think they are silly.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Then the level at which we disagree about discrimination is so much more basic than just this issue that I'm not sure I can find enough common ground to form a debate on this topic. If you believe discrimination is fine as long as no one gets hurt, then I imagine that this would appear fine to you. I happen to believe that the social inequalities and perceived worth of people created by discrimination spill over into areas where is does hurt, even when the acts of discrimination themselves are relegated to recreational activities.
Post by
909566
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
life*
Post by
909566
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Then the level at which we disagree about discrimination is so much more basic than just this issue that I'm not sure I can find enough common ground to form a debate on this topic. If you believe discrimination is fine as long as no one gets hurt, then I imagine that this would appear fine to you. I happen to believe that the social inequalities and perceived worth of people created by discrimination spill over into areas where is does hurt, even when the acts of discrimination themselves are relegated to recreational activities.
I firmly believe that discrimination isn't bad. I think you and I probably agree on your understanding of discrimination, and we probably agree on my understanding of discrimination. But, I think we are using the same word to describe two different things. People discriminate every day. I've never met anyone who didn't. You'd be unable to survive if you didn't. If you treated everyone as equal, you'd never make it. The truth is, that everyone isn't equal. Men aren't equal to women. Neither is better than the other, but they aren't "equivalent". Black people aren't equal to white people. Again, neither is better, but they are different. Black culture is very different from white culture. The differences is what makes us stronger. Discrimination is what makes society function. We'd never get anywhere if we treated sex offenders the same as day care providers. We must discriminate. The question is, how much is acceptable. I think it is acceptable to allow people who own a golf course to discriminate against women. Is it right? Sure, if they don't want women around when they golf. I don't understand that, but I see nothing wrong with it. Same goes for all women organizations. They want to hang around their own sex for a while. A girl's night out. I get it.
Post by
rageahol
The problem with discrimination is that it's arbitarily defined. It depends on many things like ethics and culture, all of which are not tangible things. I mean, a few thousand years ago hanging out with slaves would have been just as socially acceptable as hanging out with your imaginary friends is these days. If you're going to argue your point, you can only realisticly win over someone from the same culture, the same background and the same ethics and morals as you, because other people simply won't see what your point.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.