Augusta admits female members at last

Augusta National has decided to admit female members at last - but they are no ordinary women. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and South Carolina financier Darla Moore will become the first women in green jackets when the course opens for a new season in October.

With women now sitting in the Pavilion at Lord's, is this the end of male chauvanism in sport or will Royal St George's continue to keep women members out?

Sadly LP I fear this is just a bit of a publicity stunt. I wonder how many times Condoleezza Rice and Darla Moore will actually play there. One game for the cameras perhaps and that will be it. I'm sure ANCG will be happy to take their green fees though

We just need a LPGA Masters event at the course.

Coni Rice will be running for president, once the latest republican tool loses the election. Augusta are choosing sides early, and the other lady will be paying a hefty price in donations somewhere.

Sadly LP these ladies don't use 2-for-1 vouchers

Terrible news. They'll have to build another toilet now

LadyPutt wrote:
With women now sitting in the Pavilion at Lord's, is this the end of male chauvanism in sport or will Royal St George's continue to keep women members out?

The Penguin English Dictionary wrote:
Chauvanism n undue belief in the superiority of one's own group, cause, etc.

Could you explain to me how any male-only members club's decision not to have a woman as a member is an act of chauvanism, because from the definition above, I don't see it.

Merc - I think you missed the point, due to the evolution of language.

The dictionary definition you give is absolutely correct; from memory (and I could check this up but can'tbe bothered at the moment), the word comes from Louis(?) Chauvin a lieutenant of Napoleon who possessed said "undue belief" in hi sown country's superiority.

The word however has mutated over the years into specifically meaning "male chauvanism" and in fact LP did qualify her comment with the word "male". Perhaps if you had underlined and bolded both words it may have made more sense

Au contraire, I think you've missed my point.

How is any club of whatever gender being chauvanistic simply by choosing not to admit members of the other sex?

The clue is in the definition you posted. "undue belief in the superiority of one's own group"

Davie wrote:The clue is in the definition you posted. "undue belief in the superiority of one's own group"

How do you work out that it's due to a feeling of superiority of man versus women?

Why is it not simply that a mens club didn't want woman members because they just wanted it to be a mens club? How does that equate to a feeling or belief of superiority?

Merc - I've no problem with the idea that a private club can choose whoever they want to join. I just don't understand why you pick on the use of the word "chauvanist" when it clearly fits the situation, using the current concept of the word

Leave it Davie - it's not worth it.

Davie wrote:Merc - I've no problem with the idea that a private club can choose whoever they want to join. I just don't understand why you pick on the use of the word "chauvanist" when it clearly fits the situation, using the current concept of the word

Chauvanist is clearly not the appropriate word.

All definitions of chauvanist I've seen include references to 'superiority' with no mention of being applicable to a specific gender. There is no evidence that a belief of superiority has anything to do with the Augusta or Royal St George's members long-held position.

I don't understand why you are finding this so hard to accept.

LadyPutt wrote:Leave it Davie - it's not worth it.

You could always explain your use of the word. I'd like to hear it.

Sorry Davie, but you have completely missed Mercurio's point. It has just gone swoosh right over your head.

I understand Mercurio's point about choosing to be a member of a single sex club. I have another more practical observation. Cricket pavillions, and to a lesser degree golf club houses, originate as changing rooms. So it logically follows that for a men's cricket match the pavillion should be for men only, as essentially it represents the men's changing rooms. Equally for a women's cricket match the pavilion should remain out of bounds for men. Most cricket pavillions consist of 2 changing rooms with sweaty men walking around in jock straps so this does make sense. Of course this argument falls down a little when you get to the grander pavillions such as Lord's and you have a number of dressing rooms (so large I have got lost twice walking back from the pitch up to the away team dressing room and then a few years later the home team), but the point is that this has nothing to do with superiority and all to do with tradition, heritage and custom.