(Woman golfer speaking here)

On a side note, I did a little research on Eliane Joyce and in an NY times artice - She brings up the old addage of the Michelle Wie excuse "The only way I can get better is if I play in men's tournaments." It's not like the tourist destination of Cape Cod doesn't have a strong women's gofling community she can't play against.



Female golfer presses Dennis for cash settlement


http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../NEWS/806020325


]smilton@capecodonline.com
June 02, 2008

DENNIS, MA — Town officials continue to deny they discriminated against Elaine Joyce when they refused to let her play as her father's partner in a weekend pairs tournament for men at Dennis Pines Golf Course in May 2007.

In a response to Joyce's federal discrimination suit, the town also said that Joyce, a 3-handicap golfer, suffered no harm by the town's refusal to let her play at the town-owned course where she and her father are both members.

Although the town gradually has changed its policies since the lawsuit — by opening men's golf tournaments to female competitors, who will adjust their handicaps accordingly and play from men's tees — the defense, outlined in the recent filing in U.S. District Court in Boston, is basically that there was nothing wrong with the town's previous separate but equal golf course policy.

"The defendants believe that women should be allowed to compete against women," the town response reads.

"Further, the defendants believe that allowing men to compete against men is perfectly legal as long as access to the golf courses is equal, as it was in the town of Dennis at all times."

The lawsuit names the town of Dennis, Town Administrator Robert Canevazzi and the top three golf officials — Dennis Penner, the golf director; Michael Cummings, the head golf course superintendent; and Russ Champoux, PGA head golf professional.

The claim said the three golf officials set the rules and eligibility for the May tournament. The suit seeks damages including punitive damages, and legal fees. It also seeks an injunction to stop the practice.




<H2 class=brkTitle style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; PADDING-TOP: 5px">Fighting 'historic custom'</H2>This court filing is the latest development in the lawsuit that Joyce, a Yarmouthport resident, filed in February.

In her suit, Joyce claims, the town's previous policy was "as unlawful as the once 'historic custom' of men's only bars or whites' only drinking fountains," her suit stated. "The practices perpetuate the social and economic inferiority of women and cannot be rationalized by any legal standard."

In the suit, she also said the experience left her feeling, "ostracized, marginalized, humiliated, embarrassed and denounced."

Initially Joyce sought damages, in excess of $75,000, costs and fees as well as an injunction to let her and other women play against men in town-sponsored tournaments.

Joyce is still seeking "substantial damages," town attorney Leonard Kesten said Friday and the town won't pay.

"The town is happy to make any reasonable accommodations to somebody who may be dissatisfied but we don't think asking Dennis to pay money is appropriate," he said.

In February, Joyce said the only way to make people pay attention is to make it cost a lot of money, adding: "I hope that the town of Dennis has to pay big so that people get the point and this serves as a deterrent to any other town or group. It's the way things seems to work in this world."

By e-mail Friday Joyce said: "Nothing has changed from my side. Nothing."

Her lawyer didn't return calls for comment Friday.

<H2 class=brkTitle style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; PADDING-TOP: 5px">Town won't admit guilt</H2>The town's response outlined its so far unsuccessful efforts to settle out of court by changing its policies without admitting discrimination.

Last summer the tournament committee refused to let women play in men's tournaments but did add women's sections to men's tournaments.

Until then, the town had five times as many tournaments for male members as for female members, Joyce said.

The town believed that change would resolve Joyce's complaint but it did not. In October, the committee reconsidered and voted to adopt U.S. Golf Association's policies, i.e. women can compete in men's tournaments.

Despite that change, Joyce still filed her lawsuit, the town said.

From Joyce's perspective, she had waited several months after contacting town and golf officials. The last straw was the town's response in November to her state discrimination complaint. It didn't mention the October policy and denied any discrimination.

Other than money, it's not clear what else Joyce wants, Kesten said, after repeated talks with her lawyer.

"They were talking about anti-discrimination training, but since there is no discrimination, how can there be training?" he said.

Had the same problem when I tried to enter a 2-day with the wife. One day scramble and the next day low-ball. I went to the committee and they complained she was playing from the women's tees nd some members were complaining. I explained to them the adage that a good women golfer should have the same club in hand on the second shot a man does ( 9 iron for example) and that gives them the same shot choice we all have. I didn't push it but I did tell them that next year they either had to let us play or exclude women from the tourney all together. They obviously don't have the stomach to play against women so we shall see if they have the stomach to exclude women in writing (did I mention one of my wife's golfing buddies is a lawyer and has written them a letter about next year).

The funny thing is the really good golfers at this club play with us on occasion and asked the committee to let us play. It is the "wanna be" golfers that don't want her to play because they can't beat her. Having played with some "scratch" women I can tell you as with any good player they are a joy to watch.

Personally I hope she wins the lawsuit and kicks there tails ...............

hackin

Another person trying to scam some free money? Scumbag- IMO.

The club should have just said, "Sorry no jeans allowed, bye lady!" :P

Welcome to Massachusetts boys, there is no matter so small a lawyer won't demand millions for

Got a hang nail from your shoes being too tight?

5 million in mental anguish!

Gottta love it!

Already been covered a few months ago:

http://www.golfwrx.com/BagChatter/2008/03/21/unisex-golf-tournaments/

I think I'm ready to go to LPGA Q School. Think they'll let me in? Oh.....no...........they won't.

If it isn't a mixed event, then you don't get in. Want to play with the men? Join a league....lots of men will let you join their league but you'll play from their tees.

-mini

How much do you bet that after this suit goes through the Town will have to request a propostion 2 1/2 overide on the property taxes (2.5 percent hike) of the residents to pay for it. It's going to be either that or the town cries "poor" and has to lay off the teacher or police officers.

Or....the golf course has to raise the fees so high to pay for the suit that then end up having to close shop and no one will be golfing at any of the three course. Everyone looses.

Her law firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe called. They think she has a good chance to score some quick cash.

Laughable.

Absolutely laughable.

Hopefully it gets slung out of court and she ends up bankrupted by the legal fees to teach her a lesson and dissuade other moneygrabbers from trying similar pathetic scams.

For real - $75,000 in damages for not being allowed to play in a 2-day scramble? Give me a break. The only reason she has any claim at all is b/c it's a muni.

But the town was pretty stupid to not get this figured out when it came up. I mean, so what if dad and daughter play together? As long as her handicap is correct and she plays from the tees it's established from (or is adjusted properly) what difference does it make?

But PC America is a little irritating. Even in the private club where I play we've gone from a "Club Champion" 15 years ago to "Men's Gross Club Champion" today, because the ladies and the handicap players felt like they weren't being adequately recognized.

Which all could have been avoided if they had just let her play with her dad.

Why should a group of people be forced to do anything they don't want to?

If they don't want to allow women to play then they shouldn't have to let them play, it's their choice.

The government needs to stop wasting my money on ignorant crap to assuage some one's hurt feelings.

Oh, and for disclosure purposes, Golfnutz07 is my fiance

To answer your question: because it's the law. If you don't like the law, write your congressmen and senators and try to get it changed.

And how exactly is the government wasting your money on this? From what I read, the government isn't involved at all. She hired a lawyer herself.

I don't get it. I've always been under the impression that some tourney's you can enter, some you can't. Just to level the playing field. If she wants to get better, why doesn't she try posting the lowest possible score? Does she not do that already? Is she consistently winning all the lady tournaments in her area? If so, why doesn't she expand her playing area and play in regional lady tournaments. Men tourney's...are for men. Women tourneys are for women. Same with Juniors. I don't get what's so hard to grasp for different people.

If a group of guys want to hold a tournament and don't want women playing in it they should be able to, the law doesn't prevent them.

And as for the government wasting money, isn't the town involved?

And a town has a government none the less, so, money that is suppose to go to providing one service or another is now being wasted by lawyers in the courts, so yes, it is government waste.

Because we have one group that understands that there are inherent differences physically between men and women.

Then we have those that refuse to face simple biological facts and demand that standards be changed to allow the field to be leveled so that women can compete against men.

The second group always goes out of it's way to toss it's beliefs on you, by force if necessary.

You know the old saying, if you can't beat them, sue them

I could compete better in women's tournaments than in the top men's, so I think that's what I want to do! I wish my name was Pat, or something equally unisex so that my entry wouldn't be automatically rejected.

Simple solution to all of this - No Men's OR Women's tournaments. Just tournaments with no divisions between men and women. If you want equality, you would now have it in full.

That would be a reasonable solution.

How would that be reasonable?

If we eliminated the gender wall from all golf tournaments and let men play in women's events and vise versa then we'd run into a little issue that everyone seems to overlook, the majority of women can't compete against men in a straight up tournament where everyone plays from the same tees.

So, if a woman knows she doesn't stand a chance against guys then she wouldn't go into the event, and we would see less and less women playing in events.

We would even probably have fewer women playing golf.

And if a women wants to play in a men's event she should have to play from the men's tees, if you want equality you should get full equality.

If you're not ready to play against the men with all things equal, then don't ask to play.

Trying to cash in on something like this makes me sick. It's one thing if a person was monetarily hurt by something like this, but seriously! File a lawsuit involving to get a court order to play....that was the ultimate goal right?....to play in the tournament.

Golf itself has separated women and men from the start. Women's tees vs. Men's tees different course ratings for the two. Sexist, illegal, or not....what does her demand for money change anything.

I'd look at it differently if she were going for a court order to allow her entry in future tournaments, but even then I think she'd be better served to put in a request with interested party signatures for a coed tournament.

Either allow one women to play in a men's tournaments, which leads to everyone being allowed to play in every tournament....or just let it be. I wouldn't have thought of entering a women's tournament until now.

I personally don't have a problem with a woman playing in any tournament that I'm in, but I wouldn't be part of a club that wasn't able to evenly distribute mens, womens, and coed tournaments. Therefore, I think it's a bad idea to combine tournaments.

Men: Do you want women to play from the back tees with you?

Women: Do you want men playing from the front tees with you?


I'm a man....and I think that it wouldn't benefit most by allowing everyone to play in every tournament. In no handicap tournaments....there is a clear disadvantage to one party over the other. It would eliminate my "lefty" tournaments and also the "father-son" tournaments. If I wanted to get beat by a lot of the women golfers at my course....I would play in a "coed tournament".

What does everyone think?

You've gotta be sh!tting me! If her fragile ego can't accept this, how is she going to handle tournament pressure?

EDIT: Wow! That's one's not in the filter!

What a bunch of crap. The problem is this decision will probably be made by non-golfers.

The club has all the rights in the world to hold a mens only tourney if they want to. Same they can hold an only womens. Same as you can hold junior or senior events. This lady is in the wrong plain and simple.

Well since public funds are involved and some members think it should be all inclusive - let's just add the wheelchair category to the tournament and see how it effects play time.

Personally, I think that my dogs should be allowed to play too - in the interests of an all-inclusive policy. Why should they be excluded simply because their faces are hairy and their ears stick up? It's blatant speciesism to exclude them from a 'men's' golf event in my opinion.

A bit silly I grant you, but really, letting dogs play is only marginally less daft a suggestion than a woman lobbying to play in a men's event and then claiming tens of thousands of dollars for supposedly feeling 'ostracized, marginalized, humiliated, embarrassed and denounced' after not being allowed to in my book. We've got service personnel coming home from abroad with life changing injuries and being awarded paltry sums as compensation, and yet the courts are wasting time looking at this sort of silliness for a woman who's essentially been confronted with a blatant display of common sense.

Why are these ludicrous lawsuits allowed to even see the light of day? They're an utter waste of time and detract from genuine cases of discrimination where legitimate grounds exist for a grievance. If this nuisance of a woman gets a red cent, then it'll finally convince me that the world has indeed gone mad.

There's too much of this state-sanctioned PC idiocy going on and the sooner these people are told where to go, the better.

I completely agree, worst part, this is happening in my state.

The PC liberals take control and try to force their beliefs on you through the court systems.

Waste of time and money.

Why is there money involved? It should either be, she gets to play or she doesn't. Lawsuits are getting more and more ridiculous

Conservatives have been and are using the US legal system in an attempt to enforce conservative values. The courts provide a two-street serves traffic for both the right & the left.

You better be careful, gjones77, as you're grinding your anti-liberal axe to the point that you'll soon have no axe left.

I am staying out of this one.

somebody had to play the liberal card.....seriously!? Credibility given for an open-minded argument.....now gone!

Both sides want the system to benefit society...sometimes it doesn't work out that way for one side or both. Most of middle(politically) agree that this is a little outrageous, but playing the blame game on a political party that is split pretty much down the middle generally eliminates any open minded thought of a poster. In other words...no one is listening now.

Example of two way street:

Social Conservatives want their religious rights in public places. Need court to settle argument with school/courthouse/government building....

Social Liberals want free speech and prevention of this in public places. They also need court to settle argument.

Both need a court system to argue their ideas.....extreme or not. This court case will probably/hopefully be thrown out or ended quickly. One easy way to eliminate ridiculous court cases is to increase court costs for the person bringing suit and this has been done.

LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
[trumpets]

MattB,

You have no idea what has been going on in this one party state - Massachusetts. It has really been turned into a cesspool by the one party liberal democrats that are out of control with this state budget and "Cadallic" Deval Patrick (DTS)- governor is by far the worst. It's like having the former Royal family of France running the show in the "let them eat cake, (and if they can't afford it, we'll just by it with the taxpayers dollars out of the welfare system)" Again, basically it's like having Nancy Pelosi free reign to do what she wants and to hell with all the laws. If those get in the way we'll just rewrite the state constitution.

If it wasn't for family here, I'd be transfering to another state with my company (Fortune 100). FYI Registered as "Unenrolled Party voter" - i.e. independant

lmao......"unenrolled party voter"

No offense, but you call yourself independent, but you're not even close to independent. At least by the way you talk.

You're right that no one except those in MA can truly know what's going on in MA, but why play a blame card on a group of people who represent near 50% of the population....not just in MA, but in the U.S. They aren't at fault for some crazy woman is filing a lawsuit seeking 10s of thousands of dollars for not being allowed in to a golf tournament. The crazy woman is!

It's not a political topic at all so don't make it that way and specifically don't attack a group of people for it. I'm a registered independent in Iowa, but it just means I don't want to receive all the f***in mail from the candidates. I am moderate college student who leans liberal on social issues, but I still think this is crazy. It's offensive to stereotype a group of people and your points are completely off topic.

No, actually they don't. Because this club is a municipal golf course, i.e. owned by a governmental agency of some level, they must abide by the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights which the Supreme Court has interpreted to create certain protected classes of people, one of which is female people.

This matter is not as ridiculous as it seems because this woman, or actually her attorneys, are pressing a very important matter here, one of freedom from gender discrimination. And it appears that this golf club did discriminate on the basis of gender here.

Also, remember that 'separate but equal' also was abolished by the Court right around the time of Brown v. Board of Education.

Those allegations of mental anguish and north of $75k in damages are fluff to bolster the point that these attorneys are trying to make. Unfortunately, to get your day in court to argue that the golf club should have let her in, she needs to allege everything, including the seemingly minuscule bs claims.

Good to see that nothing has changed in the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

Actually it's not stereotyping, it's a fact.

Political correctness wasn't started by the conservative wing of politics, that's a known fact.

So you'll have to excuse us here in Mass if we're a bit bitter seeing we have to deal with the results of liberal policy on a daily basis.

We have a government complaining about being short on cash all the time as the Governor went out and bought a new Cadillac Limo, we have a group of people int he city of Boston that basically decide all elections for us based on who is going to give them the most hand outs, taxes raised all the time to cover basic town services yet they refuse to cut costs on non-needed services.

We have to live with the results of liberal policy every day of our lives and pay out the nose for it, so yes, we can point out that this was all created by the a political belief.

Judging by the picture, it's debatable it's a woman anyway...

And I don't agree with them either, quite frankly I don't think the government should legislate morality, there are laws that are reasonable and then there are laws that are unreasonable (research Title 9 to see a really unreasonable PC law).

And as far as my ax, as I stated in another post I live in a state where we get to see the results of liberal policy and social experiments first hand, and we pay a heavy price for it.

So yes, I'm not a fan of liberal policy since when ever they've implemented their ideas they always seem to cause more problems, cost the tax payers money, and fail.

So in truth, I think the government needs to keep it's nose out of everything where a person's life or livelihood isn't being affected.

Demanding gender equality from your government is not the same as political correctness. Also, the asserting of liberties afforded under the Bill of Rights isn't the same thing as asking for a handout, nor does it equate to higher taxes.

I'm sorry you're miffed about the state of affairs in Mass. But that really has nothing to do with this case. This case would have been just as ripe in Texas or any other right-leaning state.

Gender rights means that she shouldn't be prevented from playing at the muni course, it means she shouldn't be prevented from gaining employment because she's female, it has nothing to do with allowing women to play in a men's tournament.

She is free to create or play in a women's tournament at the course, there's nothing stopping her there, but she wants to play in a men's tournament and I don't think the government should be forcing a group of guys to let some one play they don't want to play.

Here's a question for you, do you think a guy should be allowed to play on the LPGA?

If not why?

No. Because the LPGA does not allow it and since it is not a governmental agent the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to it!

I'm not saying I'm an advocate of gender crossing in sports. I am, however, a huge advocate of civil liberties. And where there is a government agent involved, civil liberties under the BOR apply.

You're too ignorant to understand the meaning of stereotyping and fact.

Definition of Stereotype:

Stereotype

By arguing that liberals are the entire cause for ludicrous lawsuits you are stereotyping.

Definition of Fact:
Fact

Now after reading a factual account of over 100 websites defining stereotype and fact.....you'll realize you are in FACT wrong. You are stereotyping all Democrats when in fact not all PC democrats believe that all of theses lawsuits are positive!

I go to one of the most liberal colleges in the nation. The University of Iowa....the 2nd per capita gay and lesbian population is located here only behind San Francisco. Liberal politics are a standard here and you are shunned if you present a Conservative opinion so give me a break about your petty complaints of living in MA. It must be so terrible....MOVE.

So you'll have to excuse us here in Iowa for being educated. Your equation of All Democrats or PC Democrats = Welfare loving, tax raising, hippies, who think that everyone should eat granola, and drive electric cars is a stereotype...plain and simple. The government has a system preventing things like this to happen. A private bar, private club, private corporation or association can permit, and deny any and all in their establishment as long as they are not a public establishment(will not explain).

I am also a fan of civil liberties, but not where it's a private group of people having their own right infringed by the government.

Don't these guys have a right to have a mens golf tournament?

Her rights are not being infringed, no where does the bill of rights mention golf or any other sport.

No one is stopping her from playing on the course, from playing in a women's tournament, or from creating her own tournament, so her basic rights are not being infringed.

The rights of people have a simple rule, your rights end when they infringe on my rights.

These guys have a right to play in a men's only tournament, she is infringing on those rights because she wants to cause a scene.

What are your feelings towards ladies night at a golf shop or ladies night at a bar?

Did I ever say all?

If I did say all please point that out, and I could care less about your college or Iowa quite frankly.

And make no mistake my friend, I'm quite educated, now you're the one making assumptions here.

And political correctness has always been a liberal policy, so that my friend is fact.

What you are saying holds very true. You are saying the mens' rights are being violated, she's saying her rights are violated. Both can be true at once. However, in order to not have to split the baby every time, the Supreme Court decided that the female gender will be the protected class. Love 'em or hate 'em, they're the ones who interpret the law.

By so doing, the Supreme Court didn't say that men can't have a men's only league, they said that if you want a men's only league it has to be played on a privately owned course.

But I would leave the whole "where does the bill of rights mention golf" argument to the rednecked troglodytes. The Bill of Rights is not an exhaustive list of your rights. It doesn't make specific mention of a lot of things that you wouldn't want the government depriving you of.

Right, they always fail. Those pesky liberals that opposed slavery and got it abolished, what a total failure that was. And then the crazy ones who thought women should have the right to vote. Some were actually institutionalized for their beliefs in order to try to quiet them down. You can see what a failure that's been, allowing women to vote. Oh, and don't forget those crazy liberals who thought people of different races should be able to marry (that was still illegal in some states only 40 years ago). What a failure that's been.

If you want to discriminate against women, go ahead and start your own private club. You can keep out anyone you want. But you just can't have a public club that plays on public courses be discriminatory. It doesn't matter what you think, it's the law. If you don't like it, try to get it changed.

Political Correctiveness is created in our constitution and amendments(BOR) and the laws we create...not a single political party. You're ideas are closed off and set in stone....not open minded. If you weren't a political majority would you be in the same position? Thank God I'm a white Christian Male living in the Midwest.

When has the economy been in a worse position than it is now? Fundamental differences are getting out of hand and people with closed minds like yours are what is causing this country to lose international value, economical value, and any credibility to the people. People aren't going to sort everything out on their own.

It's not a private group. That's the whole point!

Ah, since I'm a constructionist I am there for a "red Neck" and a "troglodyte"?

The Bill Of Rights isn't exhaustive since it doesn't need to be, the rights that are listed are there because we are born with those rights, the government doesn't give us those rights are their leisure.

The main reason it's there is to prevent the government from writing laws that would infringe on those rights, beyond that the government if free to create what laws it deems fit.

And you're also right, women are the protected class, but that doesn't mean men should have to be subjugated to the whim of every lawmaker.

Like I said, a group of guys on a muni or private course should be able to have a men's only tournament if that's what they want, now if the tournament is being run by the public muni course that receives state or town funding, then no, they can't excluded women since her tax money goes to keeping that course open, but if it's being run by an independent group that's paying to play their tournament on that course then no, she shouldn't play since government money is being used to fund that private event.