Because You Never Asked

COED AUGUSTA? 

            Every so often, for a clear thinking mind, an issue comes along that seems to be so irrationally in existence that one has to wonder why anyone is talking about it at all. Whether to allow Tanya Harding's participation in the Olympics after what her entourage had done to Nancy Kerrigan, was just such an exercise in absurdity (see essay, "Tanya and Nancy"). For this clear thinker, the answer was so obviously "no", that the debate itself, regardless of the outcome, was more an exercise in societal sickness than fair play. I get a similar feeling with regard to the squabble over whether the aristocratic blue bloods at the Augusta National Golf Club, site of perhaps the world's greatest golf tournament, The Masters, are morally obligated to permit female membership in their club. The answer seems to be so obviously "no", it is hard to understand how it has become a part of our national dialogue. And yet, the debate is heated as media punditry generally brands the all male practice as Neanderthal. At the conclusion of this essay, I will theorize as to why such ludicrous "political correctness" has infiltrated the vaudeville of American life, but for now, let's get to the nuts and bolts of the "issue".

            First of all, just for the record, everyone agrees that the actions of the membership at Augusta National are legal. It is a private club that does not rely on taxpayer money for anything and, within the law (they can't lynch women at their club), can do whatever they finger lickin' please. There are men and women's clubs all over America that exclude the opposite sex without a zephyr breeze of controversy. But the membership at Augusta has engendered such a splendid accomplishment with their golf course and their tournament, that it has become a multi-million dollar commercial extravaganza that, if only for one week, attracts the eyes of the world. For those who partake in the commercial ramifications of the great event, there is a degree of leverage that can be applied by those who feel slighted by the Club's all male policy. Ironically, the membership, due to the depth of its old wealth, are the one's least affected by this economic blackmail. It is the media purveyors, advertisers and players that have the most to lose here. With this in mind, the feminine groups most responsible for this issue's life support have tried to pressure Tiger Woods, a man of color and probably the world's most marketable athlete, in order to push their "grievance". Although people like Tiger Woods-Michael Jordan, et al, might not be sufficiently involved from a socio-political standpoint, I can only applaud Tiger's abstention in this case. 

           What we are talking about is a purely moral issue. There is no obligation. The people pushing this agenda are simply saying that the policy at Augusta National is wrong. They look at it as an issue of discrimination. They see it as an insult, a put down, as an act that, legal or not, is an indication of retro thinking that should be censored by the rest of society. They try to put it in the same category as racial, ethnic or religious discrimination.

            If there had never been the expression comparing "apples to oranges", this would be a perfect moment to invent it.

            Certainly, there are instances of gender and homosexual discrimination, but such behavior should be legally sanctioned only in situations of equal access to employment, pay, education, and facilities provided for the public. No mainstream thinker would deny women and gays the ability to make a living and enjoy the fruits of this labor and the tax revenue engendered by such on an equal footing with men and straight people. (I don't believe in gay marriage or adoption, an attitude that does not contradict the previous sentence. For more, see essay "Homosexuals"). Being that no legal malfeasance is in play here, the debate must revolve around the moral aspects of the case. Is this practice of gender exclusive clubs something the rest of us should be offended by? Does it contradict our enlightened ideas of freedom, opportunity, democracy and blah, blah?

            There are many organizations that exist as a means to celebrate one's ethnic background or cultural heritage --- the Knights of Bocce Ball, the National Society for the Advancement of Mah Jong, the Sons of Frijoliland, the Pirogue Sisterhood, on and on ad nauseum. I'm not particularly fond of these self-glorifying agglomerations of nationalistic or ethnic pride (see essay, "Shindler's List"), but, if we don't let ourselves be drawn into some egghead malaise dealing with the "big picture", these organizations are relatively harmless manifestations of pride that don't mean to offend anyone. By proclaiming your pride in yourself, you are not necessarily proclaiming your dislike for others.

            But when organizations not premised upon any ethnic or patriotic affiliation systematically exclude races or religions or nationalities or ethnic groups, there is something inherently denigrating in such an action. It is a way of saying, "you know, we don't want you people around. There's something about you we don't like . don't ask us to explain . maybe it's your odor, or your gold chains, or that music you listen to. Maybe you've never read Shakespeare and watch Pro Wrestling. Sure, you're all great athletes and terrific dancers but . it's not that I don't think you're good people, but . somehow you'll never be what we are. We'll do business with you and put up with you in public places but please . on our own time, unless you are serving the hors d'oeuvres, we don't want you around."

            If this is the posture of a private organization, we all agree they can be whatever they want to be. It's legal. But the morality of such a stance is a relevant question and when a private club is involved in a public event like The Masters, such practices should be brought into play. Augusta National has already had to answer for its racially exclusive practices of the past. Perhaps the "tokenistic" response to the problem might still be considered insufficient, but it is a real issue that needed (needs?) to be addressed. I would hope that Tiger Woods, as part of a minority group, would be sensitive to discrimination of this kind, regardless of the race, religion or ethnic group involved.

            But the real differences dividing men and women present a far different set of circumstances than the often falsely perceived differences attributed to races, nationalities, religions and ethnic groups. Many of these differences are confusions having more to do with social class than racial or ethnic questions. They are stereotypes used to erect barriers and hold people back. Many of these perceived differences are exaggerations that cloud the fact that all human beings possess the same capabilities for good and evil, triumph and defeat, intelligence and stupidity; that all human beings have the same size sexual organs and the same appetite for passion and debauchery. 

             But there are undeniable differences between men and women that cannot be minimized. No matter what your religion, race, nationality, blood line; no matter what neighborhood you live in, what school you attend, what books you read, clothes you wear, movies you watch; whatever it is that puts human beings into whatever group we put them in, the difference between men and women is universal. Men are men and women are women. A black woman is more like a white woman than a black man. There is no passport to cross this frontier. This is the true "iron curtain". Even the infinitesimal numbers of human beings who opt for a "sex change" do not really cross this border.

            Men and women have a chemical effect on each other. Coed environments are different from gender exclusive environments. Attractive hip hopping black women give stuffy white men hard ons. Attractive white women shopping on Rodeo Drive give ghetto-dunking black dudes hard ons. Have you ever noticed what happens to men when a woman in tight shorts steps on a tennis court? Regardless of your race, creed or social class, if you are a man those tight shorts will work its magic. An oncoming double fault should not surprise you. (I'm being politically "incorrect" by not mentioning the minority status of other sexual preferences. But you know what I mean).

            When men or women decide to set up sanctuaries free from this sexual tension (and we all need a break sometimes. For more, see essay "Feminism"), it is nothing that has to do with discrimination, sexism or "machismo". It is not a put down nor anything snobbish or degrading. Quite frequently, the presence of women imposes an unwritten code of conduct on men. Maybe the old farts at Augusta want to sit around in their underwear and scratch their asses? Maybe they want to drink cascades of beer and tell dirty jokes? Maybe they want to belch and fart at will? Maybe they want to smoke smelly cigars 'til their eyes burn? These are things you don't need women for. Sometimes we don't want them around. This does not make a woman a "bitch" in the same way we might denigrate "niggers", "kikes" or "Dagos". Leave the old codgers alone. It's their club.

            I see something in this exaggerated "political correctness" that is not healthy. It is beginning to cloud our idea of common sense. When you let Tanya skate; when you won't let the old fellas' have their boys club . this could be the kind of posturing used to hide something more sinister. Perhaps there is a bit of guilt involved here? Our national rhetoric --- freedom, democracy, blah, blah --- has been so overly romanticized that it has become almost impossible to live up to its hype. America is perhaps the world's first imperial power that claims to be doing everyone a favor by conquering them. "We're doing it for you . for democracy and free pizza delivery . so you can be just like us." But our motives are beginning to become more transparent. Our rhetoric does not live harmoniously with our CIA shenanigans. At home we are seeing our "democracy" turned into a one party state controlled almost exclusively by financial interests. It's good theater but not true democracy. But we live with it because we are rich. We are contented cows. Our "freedom this-democracy that" rhetoric has become a smokescreen for the dirty deeds that make us rich. Instead of trying to do something politically correct, it's easier to play at "political correctness".

            It is not healthy to ignore hypocrisy. Karma goes round and comes round. It always has.        

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info