Opinion & Analysis
R&A Chief toes the party line on men-only clubs
R&A Chief Peter Dawson toed the party line at a pre-Open Championship news conference.
Regarding the issue of single-sex golf clubs, Dawson laid out a buffet of dubious and predictable quotes in defense of the right of private clubs to exclude women as members and the R&A’s decision to hold championships at such clubs.
For the R&A in general and Peter Dawson in particular, this is a depressing reiteration of a tired and out of step posture.
Here’s a few gems from Dawson’s conference:
The whole issue of gender and single-sex clubs has been pretty much beaten to death recently … We understand that it is divisive. And it’s a subject we’re finding increasingly difficult, to be honest.
Single-sex clubs are in a very small minority in the U.K.
They’re perfectly legal.
In our view, they don’t do any harm.
We think the right of association is important.
We think they have no material affect on participation.
Needless to say, Dawson’s PR man-style parrying didn’t sit well with many on Twitter, including LPGA Tour player Paige Mackenzie and major championship winner Steve Elkington:
In response to a question about how men-only policies compare to whites-only policies, the chief replied,
Oh, goodness me…I think that’s a ridiculous question, if I may say so. To compare racial discrimination or anti-Semitism with a men’s golf club is frankly absurd.
That assertion in particular didn’t sit well with many in the Twitterverse, including Golf Digest Global Golf Director and columnist Stina Sternberg, as well as English LPGA Tour player Karen Stupples, whom she retweeted.
It’s a strange paradox that, on the same day that Mr. Dawson said all of the aforementioned, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II — symbol of grand traditions, established order and a rigid version of social conservatism — put her stamp on a bill legalizing same-sex unions.
Regardless of your stance on that issue, it’s a bizarre, almost surreal, day in the United Kingdom.
It’s a strange cultural moment when the Queen of England looks vastly more progressive and in-step with the modern world than the head of a ruling body of golf. Dawson is close to casting his lot with…what accurate parallel can we even draw here?
Really, choose from any number of historical examples of organizations who have fallen on the wrong side of an ideological divide and acted accordingly and you’ve identified the posture Dawson and the R&A have taken with their “we’ll talk about it later/it’s not that big of a deal” attitude and continued willingness to preserve the places of discriminatory establishments in the Open rota.
However, there’s hope yet! As Dawson indicated, the R&A plan to revisit the situation after the Open Championship. We’ll see how the English punters feel about the odds of Dawson taking a stand or cutting clubs out of the rota. But I can almost be certain that Todd Hamilton has a better chance at capturing his second Open Championship.
Club Junkie
Tour Edge Exotics mini driver review + TaylorMade Spider ZT Max first look – Club Junkie
On this episode of Club Junkie, I put the new Tour Edge Exotics Mini Driver to the test and break down the performance, forgiveness, distance, and where it fits compared to a traditional driver or strong fairway wood. If you have been curious about adding a mini driver to the bag, this one is worth a look.
I also dive into the new TaylorMade Spider ZT Max putter that was recently spotted and discuss the growing zero torque putter trend. Plus, there is a closer look at the new Project X Titan Yellow shaft showing up on the PGA Tour and what makes it different from other profiles currently out there.
Opinion & Analysis
AVL: We’re talking about practice! My best tips for taking your game to the course
With the beginning of June on the horizon and courses rounding into peak condition for the season, it’s time to hone the finer skills that often get rusty over the winter. More sunlight also means more time to get out on the course and work on your game.
Whether it’s the practice green or the driving range, there’s always something to improve—whether you’re enjoying the fresh air or preparing for a weekend game or tournament. You can work on drills or freestyle around the green, and friendly competition is a great way to sharpen your skills.
While there are endless ways to get better at golf, I’m going to focus on practicing around the green. Let’s take a look at a few things to keep in mind as we head into the summer months.
Drills
From the driving range to the practice green, it’s important to incorporate drills into your routine. Years ago, I spent a weekend working on my short game with James Sieckmann. He recommended doing drill work for 5–10 minutes, then returning to your main practice.
This way, you create a balance between structured drills and real-world scenarios, so you’re not confined to “perfect” situations. For example, hitting the same three-foot putt over and over is good for repetition, but after a while, it becomes less interactive for your brain.
My approach is to use a putting trainer with a narrow gate for the ball to pass through, or simply place tees just outside the width of the ball. I’ll hit a series of four putts through the gate for three sets. Then, from a similar distance, I’ll hit four putts without the training aid and repeat that sequence three times.
Next, I’ll hit a number of 15–25 foot putts in a random fashion, then circle back to repeat the short putt drills with and without the training aid.
This breaks up the rhythm of hitting short putts with the training aid. When you hit the same short putts over and over, it’s easy to get into a groove—which is great for the drill, but not reflective of actual course play. While finding a rhythm is fundamental for drills, I like to introduce variation with longer putts to keep things realistic.
Game Mode
Once you’ve established a foundation with drills, it’s time to simulate on-course scenarios. This is where a few practice games come in handy.
One that I’ve been enjoying lately involves putting 10- to 15-footers with two balls. If I make the putt, great! If I miss, I pull the missed ball back a putter length. Suddenly, that little tap-in becomes a nerve-wracking three-footer—at least at first. As you get better at this game, those three- and five-footers become much more comfortable and routine.
It may sound cliché, but each shot is just what it is—it’s how we react that makes the difference. I like this game because it blends the pressure of on-course putting with the consequence of leaving yourself a much longer putt than usual.
Another game I like is one I recently learned from Brad Faxon. Place three tees in a line at four different locations around the hole: one at 3 feet, one at 6 feet, and one at 8 feet. The 3- and 6-foot putts count as par, and the 8-footer is for birdie.
This game keeps you focused on scoring and helps you get into a competitive mindset. You can even think about this putting game while you’re on the course. I just started playing it, and last week I couldn’t get better than two under par.
Competition
Competition during practice is when drills and games come to life, and you start to see results. For me, nothing beats a putting contest with a friend or two. In the right setting, these contests can become talking points for the whole season.
Match play, a game of 21, or simply seeing who can make the most one-putts (with a small prize on the line) are all great ways to simulate real on-course pressure. Recently, I played in a putting contest where one competitor made back-to-back 30- and 50-foot putts. As they say, expect your opponent to make every putt—and he nearly did. That’s impressive, and it’s something you see on the course, too: you have to stay committed to your game plan, no matter what.
When it comes to practice, it’s important to blend feedback from recent rounds with the fundamentals you want to reinforce. Drills, games, and competition—from the driving range to the putting green—form the backbone of skills you’ll rely on during actual rounds.
Finding the right balance is something we’re all working on, one practice session at a time. With the beginning of June on the horizon and courses rounding into peak condition for the season, it’s time to hone the finer skills that often get rusty over the winter. More sunlight also means more time to get out on the course and work on your game. Whether it’s the practice green or the driving range, there’s always something to improve—whether you’re enjoying the fresh air or preparing for a weekend game or tournament. You can work on drills or freestyle around the green, and friendly competition is a great way to sharpen your skills. While there are endless ways to get better at golf, I’m going to focus on practicing around the green. Let’s take a look at a few things to keep in mind as we head into the summer months.
Drills
From the driving range to the practice green, it’s important to incorporate drills into your routine. Years ago, I spent a weekend working on my short game with James Sieckmann. He recommended doing drill work for 5–10 minutes, then returning to your main practice. This way, you create a balance between structured drills and real-world scenarios, so you’re not confined to “perfect” situations. For example, hitting the same three-foot putt over and over is good for repetition, but after a while, it becomes less interactive for your brain.
My approach is to use a putting trainer with a narrow gate for the ball to pass through, or simply place tees just outside the width of the ball. I’ll hit a series of four putts through the gate for three sets. Then, from a similar distance, I’ll hit four putts without the training aid and repeat that sequence three times. Next, I’ll hit a number of 15–25 foot putts in a random fashion, then circle back to repeat the short putt drills with and without the training aid.
This breaks up the rhythm of hitting short putts with the training aid. When you hit the same short putts over and over, it’s easy to get into a groove—which is great for the drill, but not reflective of actual course play. While finding a rhythm is fundamental for drills, I like to introduce variation with longer putts to keep things realistic.
Game Mode
Once you’ve established a foundation with drills, it’s time to simulate on-course scenarios. This is where a few practice games come in handy. One that I’ve been enjoying lately involves putting 10- to 15-footers with two balls. If I make the putt, great! If I miss, I pull the missed ball back a putter length.
Suddenly, that little tap-in becomes a nerve-wracking three-footer—at least at first. As you get better at this game, those three- and five-footers become much more comfortable and routine. It may sound cliché, but each shot is just what it is—it’s how we react that makes the difference. I like this game because it blends the pressure of on-course putting with the consequence of leaving yourself a much longer putt than usual.
Another game I like is one I recently learned from Brad Faxon. Place three tees in a line at four different locations around the hole: one at 3 feet, one at 6 feet, and one at 8 feet. The 3- and 6-foot putts count as par, and the 8-footer is for birdie.
This game keeps you focused on scoring and helps you get into a competitive mindset. You can even think about this putting game while you’re on the course. I just started playing it, and last week I couldn’t get better than two under par.
Competition
Competition during practice is when drills and games come to life, and you start to see results. For me, nothing beats a putting contest with a friend or two. In the right setting, these contests can become talking points for the whole season. Match play, a game of 21, or simply seeing who can make the most one-putts (with a small prize on the line) are all great ways to simulate real on-course pressure. Recently, I played in a putting contest where one competitor made back-to-back 30- and 50-foot putts. As they say, expect your opponent to make every putt—and he nearly did. That’s impressive, and it’s something you see on the course, too: you have to stay committed to your game plan, no matter what.
When it comes to practice, it’s important to blend feedback from recent rounds with the fundamentals you want to reinforce. Drills, games, and competition—from the driving range to the putting green—form the backbone of skills you’ll rely on during actual rounds. Finding the right balance is something we’re all working on, one practice session at a time.
For Korean golfers, we always look forward to the last of the kkot-saem-chu-I for the true start of a new golf season. The term refers to a cold snap, but literally translates as “winter being jealous of the flowers beginning to bloom, thus lashing out one final time before surrendering to spring”.
A rather poetic mouthful packed into a short expression.
Koreans can be like that. Understated, yet oddly expressive at the same time. And nowhere is this more true on the golf course and in our golf bags. In fact, I suspect many Korean golfers look forward to new apparel and accessory drops more than they do actual equipment launches each year.
At this point, Korean golf fashion may exist on its own timeline. (courtesy of @seonbi_golfer)
There is ample evidence to support that suspicion. Korea is the world’s third-largest golf market behind the United States and Japan, yet its appetite for golf apparel exceeds that of both countries combined. Recent estimates suggest that Korea accounts for nearly 40 percent of the global golf apparel market, placing it among the world’s most influential golf fashion markets and punching well above its size.
Simply, we care deeply about how new golf clubs look and feel, but enjoy looking good while swinging them even more.
Golfers in the West may laugh and say that golf is played on a course, not a fashion runway. Perhaps. But what’s the harm in trying to look and feel good, if the added self-confidence can help actual performance? It certainly seems to have worked for Jason Day, who may have unlocked a new stats category: dormant strokes gained. Coincidence?
During the COVID-era, estimates placed the market near $9 billion, an astonishing figure for a single country.
As a proud member of Gen X, I’ve witnessed the highs and lows of golf fashion firsthand. The pleated trousers and wing-tipped shoes of Jack Nicklaus, the stylish plus-fours and knickers of Payne Stewart, the baggy black trousers and fitted mock-necks of Tiger Woods, and the thigh-hugging athletic tailoring of Rory McIlroy. Golf fashion, like the golf swing itself, has rarely stood still.
But nowhere have those trends shifted, evolved, and been scrutinized quite as relentlessly as in Korea. Here, golf fashion moves faster than fairway gossip, and consumers dissect brands with a level of discernment that can be both impressive and mildly terrifying. New brands are studied, judged, embraced, or dismissed with startling efficiency.
The result is a consumer base with one of the sharpest eyes for quality and authenticity anywhere in the world. It is difficult to quantify, but easy to recognize. Clean lines without trying too hard. Luxury mixed with utility. Trend awareness balanced by restraint and purpose.
It’s golf fashion shaped by one of the world’s most style-literate cities, something I like to call Seoul Sensibilities, referring to the taste level forged by a uniquely competitive environment.
And increasingly, global brands have noticed.
Many golf brands in Korea have their own flagship shops dedicated to apparel only
Titleist understood this years ago, when its apparel business in Korea took on a life of its own under new ownership and local direction. What had once been a straightforward extension of an iconic equipment giant became something sharper and more premium. By going all in on the serious Tour-player look (I couldn’t even fit into their XL sizes), Titleist struck the right chord with Korean consumers and helped its fledgling apparel business break into the mainstream. Titleist became a household name even for non-golfers who wore its caps, shirts, and windbreakers in daily life. In many ways, it proved that even heritage golf brands could carry real fashion credibility when viewed through a Korean lens.
Several years later, PXG took a page out of Titleist’s playbook and followed suit. Korean consumers helped transform the brand from one known largely for irons and loud commercials into something broader and more stylish. PXG apparel’s growth in Korea was explosive, where it found an early audience and turned the category into something more than mere logo merchandise. It is still hard to walk anywhere in Seoul without seeing its palindrome logo.
Malbon’s meteoric rise in the United States was genuine, but its ascent into a global golf lifestyle brand owes much to Korea, where it was elevated by a market already fluent in modern golf style. Korea did not simply embrace Malbon. It pressure-tested the concept, refined its appeal, and helped push it into the global spotlight.
As such, new brands may arrive from abroad, but more often than not, their sharpest evolution happens here. If a brand can earn credibility in Seoul, it’s deemed to have passed one of the toughest style audits in the game.
That is why the next meaningful chapter may not come from outside, but from a Korean brand moving in the opposite direction, carrying those Seoul Sensibilities outward as K-pop once did.
Play young Stay dope.
From Seoul, With Intent
Khalhon is a label that feels less like a trend-chasing newcomer and more like the product of a market that has already seen everything. Golfers here have long been surrounded by luxury logos, technical fabrics, and tour uniforms disguised as lifestyle wear and vice-versa. In other words, novelty alone rarely lasts here, and the Koreans seems to understand that instinctively.
Its style language leans into clean silhouettes, relaxed but tailored proportions, muted palettes, and premium materials that speak quietly but confidently. There is a modern city aesthetic running through it all, with strong layering pieces, thoughtful textures, and subtle branding that suggests sophistication rather than demanding attention.
“Built for the course. Designed beyond it.”
Most importantly, the garments seem designed to blur the line between golfwear and everyday style. Shirts, trousers, knitwear, and outer layers move comfortably between a game of screen golf, a lunch reservation, an airport gate, or an afternoon coffee in Gangnam with friends.
It raises the question of whether this is golfwear that happens to look good off the course, or everyday clothing that performs beautifully on the fairways.
Personally, I have long appreciated Nike Golf for its clean, athletic modernization of golf attire. It also has the useful side effect of making me look like a more serious golfer than I probably am. But off the course, there are times when being instantly identified as the golf guy in a crowd of non-golfers can feel a touch self-conscious.
“Built for the course. Designed beyond it.”
That is part of what drew me to Khalhon, which seemed to blend golf and everyday wear naturally. While some of the outfits may be slightly beyond my personal confidence level, the brand also offers tasteful options for older guys like me who still want to express a little personality without regretting the decision later.
These are not simply flashy outfits worn on the course and then banished to the closet until the next tee time. They work surprisingly well off the course too, and I suspect many of the pieces will still look right a couple of years from now, which would certainly be kinder to my wallet than most golf fashion trends tend to be.
And perhaps that broader lifestyle positioning also helps explain why someone like Sean Wotherspoon would find Khalhon creatively interesting in the first place.
“Built for the course. Designed beyond it.”
“Korea is not only one of the most fashion-forward golf markets in the world, but one of the most fashion-forward markets globally. Korea is ahead, and I love to watch and try to catch up.” – Sean Wotherspoon, Creative Director at Khalhon
Seoul and Beyond
If Khalhon’s rise says something about where Korean golf fashion is today, its relationship with Sean Wotherspoon says even more about where it is heading.
For readers less familiar with Sean Wotherspoon, his arrival at Khalhon is not some routine celebrity endorsement or influencer collaboration. In design and streetwear circles, Wotherspoon is regarded as one of the more influential creative voices of his generation, particularly when it comes to blending nostalgia, storytelling, and contemporary culture into products that people can connect with.
He first gained widespread attention through his now-famous Nike sneaker collaborations, where his vintage-inspired designs and instinct for color helped turn him into one of the defining artists of the late-2010s sneaker era. His work gradually expanded beyond footwear into apparel, automotive collaborations, collectibles, and broader lifestyle design.
Modern golf style now extends well beyond the fairways, where performance and functionality are largely expected by default. And while plenty of brands already make technically competent golfwear, Khalhon seems more focused on designing clothes people would genuinely want to wear even after the round ends.
And when guys at Wotherspoon’s level show genuine interest in working with a Korean golf brand as its new Creative Director, fashion circles tend to sit up and pay attention. There’s already a huge buzz among the fashion-conscious here about upcoming collabs with iconic sports stars and brands.
“My creative direction for Khalhon is disruptive, colorful, nostalgic, and modern. My goal is to blend these avenues seamlessly within each collection.” – Sean Wotherspoon
In chatting with Sean, what stood out most to me was how genuinely energized he sounded about the project itself. Despite having already worked across and countless other creative spaces, he described golf as a completely fresh category for him, saying that Khalhon “will be an amazing vehicle for my design work.”
At the same time, his enthusiasm seemed tied just as much to Korea itself. He spoke openly about admiring Korea’s fashion culture while repeatedly insisting he is still a terrible golfer.
There was something oddly refreshing about that humility. Rather than sounding like a celebrity parachuting into golf simply because the category suddenly became fashionable, Sean sounded genuinely curious about what Korea might do with the category next.
And perhaps that is what makes Khalhon feel interesting right now. The brand feels less like a trend-chaser and more like the natural result of a market now confident enough to export its own point of view.
For years, global brands came to Korea to sharpen their image against one of the most discerning audiences anywhere. Now, a Korean label appears ready to send those Seoul Sensibilities outward instead.
Which brings us back to kkot-saem-chu-i.
That final cold snap before spring always arrives with a reminder that seasons are changing, whether we notice it immediately or not. Golf fashion feels a little like that right now as well, as the old boundaries between sport, streetwear, luxury, and everyday style continue to soften.
And somewhere in Seoul, a Korean golf label already seems prepared for whatever season comes next. I just hope they have everything in my size.
Justin Rose WITB 2026 (April): Full WITB breakdown with new McLaren irons
What’s the story behind Webb Simpson’s custom-stamped irons?
Cadillac Championship Tour Report: Spieth’s sizable changes, McLaren Golf launches, and more
Russell Henley’s winning WITB: 2026 Charles Schwab Challenge
Kristoffer Reitan’s winning WITB: 2026 Truist Championship
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2026 Cadillac Championship
Aaron Rai’s winning WITB: 2026 PGA Championship
Nelly Korda WITB 2026 (April)
Justin Rose on the switch to McLaren Golf, learnings from previous equipment moves
Details on Jason Day’s latest prototype Avoda iron setup
Chris Gotterup WITB 2026 (June)
Chris Gotterup had >14 clubs in his bag when photographed prior to the Memorial Tournament. Drivers: TaylorMade Qi4D (8 degrees), Ping...
Jason Day WITB 2026 (June)
Jason Day had >14 clubs in his bag when photographed prior to the Memorial Tournament. Driver: Ping G430 LST (10.5 degrees...
Nastasia Nadaud WITB 2026 (June)
Driver: Titleist TSR4 (9 Degrees) Shaft: Project X EvenFlow Riptide CB 6.0 S 3-wood: Titleist GTS2 (15 degrees) Shaft: Graphite Design Tour AD DI...
Keith Mitchell WITB 2026 (June)
Driver: TaylorMade Qi4D LS Shaft: Project X Titan Yellow 6 X 3-wood: TaylorMade Qi10 (16.5 degrees) Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Blue 90...
-
News3 days agoRussell Henley’s winning WITB: 2026 Charles Schwab Challenge
-
Whats in the Bag2 weeks agoAaron Rai’s winning WITB: 2026 PGA Championship
-
Equipment16 hours ago
Details on Jason Day’s latest prototype Avoda iron setup
-
Tour Photo Galleries2 weeks agoPhotos from the 2026 CJ Cup Byron Nelson
-
Equipment2 weeks agoCJ Cup Byron Nelson Tour Report: Koepka and Kim’s newest putters finally get hot
-
News6 days agoCharles Schwab Challenge Tour Report: MacIntyre, Åberg and Spaun all switch putters, TaylorMade launches new Spider
-
Equipment1 week agoDetails on J.J. Spaun’s surprise putter switch
-
Popular Photo Galleries1 week agoPhotos from the 2026 Charles Schwab Challenge
Conrad MacDonald
Jul 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm
This truly shouldn’t be a big issue. Clubs are exclusionary groups of people that generally share a interest, now people are complaining its not fair. It is a private and can do what it wants to as long as its within the law. There are many women only clubs in the UK as well just to put that out there, and you don’t see men complaining about that.
Blanco
Jul 19, 2013 at 4:35 am
The golf world and the media (notice the amount of CNN, Huffington, etc. in attendance) unfortunately fail to point out the “discrimination” that is actually AFFECTING THE GAME.
I believe that feminism, like most “isms” in life, lost its credo due to those in power dictating the issues as opposed to letting the grassroots voices of women dictate the definition of a feminist.
The golf issue being talked about (sexism, discrimination), and the ideology (more women in the game, more participation, less stigma surrounding golf) should not be focused on THE HONORABLE COMPANY OF …. and their membership but instead the economic issues that continue to paint golf as a “stuffy” and “old fashioned” sport.
Let the media talk about poverty and the world’s “new middle class” being wholly unable to afford a sport like golf… This is a game dominated (largely) by those upper-class kids and their parents… those who grew up with the silver spoon that comes with belonging to the most expensive/exclusive country clubs in the world.
PARTICIPATION IS DOWN not because certain private courses exclude women, but because those young ones who wish to start playing, and whose household income is not approaching the high five figures, has no financial means in which to learn, practice, and play at even the local muni let alone a private club.
The knock on the game (it’s “stuffiness”) has more to do with the lack of golf programs in public schools, the expense of equipment, coaching, and facilities. I would love to see how much the PGA is using those charitable dollars on promoting golf in our public school system or pumping cash into struggling munis with a history of advancing the junior game.
To the author, the LPGA players, and the media at large: these are clubs so exclusionary simply in their expense that talking about a small minority of single-sex clubs within that group is silly IMHO.
Yes, USGA/R&A– get smart and stop holding Majors at clubs with a history of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, and other less-overt forms of “discrimination”…
Media– get smart and start finding the real stories in golf as opposed to the same old recycled headlines year after year. By the way– journalism will be OFFICIALLY DEAD if we stop teaching it in schools and let the bloggers permanently redefine its definition and importance. LONG LIVE THE NEW NORK TIMES.
J
Jul 18, 2013 at 8:17 pm
There’s all kinds of ” clubs ” that have exclusionary membership.
There are thousands of ” clubs ” dedicated to women, minorities, sexual orientation…. All kinds of women’s only clubs.
It’s a simple principle.
You either agree with or disagree with exclusionary practices.
You don’t get to disagree with the ideal of a Men’s Only Golf Club if you think it’s ok for women to have their own gym.
Stop focusing on the details…. IT’S CALLED A PRINCIPLE. 🙂
james
Jul 18, 2013 at 3:37 pm
Why do people feel the need to force their beliefs on others? It’s a private club! They can do what they want in a free society. There are plenty of golf courses women can join, and if you think it’s unfair start your own club, women only.
They don’t need a legit reason, it’s PRIVATE. There are lots of women only organizations in the world and you don’t see men up in arms about that.
Forcing them to open to women is absurd. Just another thing for feminazis to latch on to.
JJ
Jul 18, 2013 at 4:27 pm
Well said James, I totally agree. Women could care less about being a member of these clubs. They only want to because they are being told “they can’t be.” Any private club should be allowed to make it’s own rules, hence the name “private.” Most clubs don’t allow denim to be worn anywhere in the club. Should jean manufacturers being going crazy about boycotting these clubs? Maybe a bad example, but an example none the less.
H.
Jul 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm
Legally speaking, privately owned entities generally have the right to discriminate however they choose, but what is right legally should not necessarily be conflated with what is right ethically. Perhaps there are legitimate reasons for male-only clubs, but I’ve yet to read one here. Sorry, but “guys need a place to escape from women” is not sufficient. And statements like “why don’t the groups that don’t like these same sex golf clubs start their own?” smack of the separate-but-equal doctrine that justified systems of segregation for far too long. Further, equating women’s exclusion from membership at golf clubs with men not being allowed in women’s locker rooms is patently absurd. If “some of the players never come to the media center for interviews,” that’s an issue that should be taken up with the player (as I’m sure accommodations could be made if the player so chooses); it is not a justification for allowing men in women’s locker rooms. As for Allan’s comment, the author of this article never makes the claim that there are no differences in the respective natures of men and women (though some feminists would likely take you to task on that point). However, a difference in nature, if acknowledged, certainly shouldn’t be used to justify discrimination. The mention of Ms. Saxonhouse’s book seems a bit misplaced given its focus (ancient Greek life and texts), but considering Saxonhouse criticizes the Greeks’ fear of the feminine, argues that the exclusion of women is detrimental, and sees unity “not as a seamless and homogenous whole but as a method of incorporation,” it’s unlikely she’d be on your side of this argument. In all, most of these comments merely serve to illustrate the far-too-prevalent opinions that undergird the discriminatory practices (gender-based and otherwise) of our culture. Thanks to Matt M. and Ryan for showing some thoughtfulness regarding the issue at hand.
Gregory Moore - PGA
Jul 18, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Reading (completely and comprehending) is lost on most people these days.
My comparison was women members of the media being allowed to do their job on the PGA Tour and male media members not, on the LPGA by way of full equal access to the players.
Allan
Jul 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm
The author does not make the claim, hence “my guess is…” Of course, if the author did believe there to exist differences in the natures of men and women, differences that made them dualistic beings as opposed to identical beings with different genitalia, then he would admit that there are sufficient grounds for having gender-based clubs. So my guess is likely to be somewhat accurate, whether the author is aware of what is driving his moral indignation over gender-based clubs or not.
My main issue with Ben’s article was its complete lack of acknowledgement or awareness of other alternatives, not necessarily where he fell on the issue. He frames the entire situation in such a way that he shuts the door on alternative ways of thinking about the issues. My allusion to Nietzsche’s Last Man gets at the underlying sentiment of Ben and all people like him; rather than make an effort to understand people of the past as they understood themselves, it’s easier to cast all the instances in the past of everything that currently is considered a prejudice in our modern, enlightened, progressive world, as antiquated insanity or prejudiced bigotry. Every society and epoch has a tendency to think of its own ways as the most natural, and just (or at least as moving in the direction of justice); they each look to history and laugh at the follies of the past, but articles like this only exacerbate the difficulty we have in seeing ourselves in the same way.
Your belief that my mentioning Ms. Saxonhouse’s book is misplaced likely stems from your not having read it (despite pulling quotes from somewhere). Had you read even the first 5 pages you would have come across a sentence that encapsulates what makes her discussion of issues of diversity and unity terrific and what is missing from Ben’s article (granted, a different piece of writing here on GolfWRX, but it does, nevertheless, matter): “Are the divisions that place men, but not women, in political power natural? Or do regimes such as the one Praxagora institutes, which effaces all such distinctions, destroy artificial boundaries? I do not propose to answer such broad questions. Rather, this exploration of Greek thought is to draw out the various ways of considering these problems, as well as ramifications of one view or another.” Even a modicum of such a sentiment cannot be found in Ben’s article, which is designed to prosthelytize and lead people to believe there is only one right way of thinking rather than to genuinely explore the issue. The fact that you find Matt M and Ryan’s comments to be the only thoughtfulness in this forum might demonstrate your own personal unwillingness to consider ideas other than the ones you already believe. You suggest that there may be genuine arguments for male-only (and don’t forget women’s only) clubs, but that you’ve yet to read one here; my guess is that you have never and will never read one anywhere, simply because your mind is already made up on the issue. You’re like an atheist who says “I’ll believe in God if I see a miracle;” but nothing can be a miracle for such a man, everything has to have an explanation, his understanding of the world simply doesn’t allow for things such as miracles. The problem, of course, extends well beyond the question of gender-based clubs. Such a way of thinking tends to pervade all questions in the world, questions which have been debated and discussed for centuries but which for you and Ben seem to have obvious answers. The answers are neither obvious nor unavailable, but they do require an openness to considering alternatives which go against the grain of our time.
Nicole
Jul 18, 2013 at 7:34 pm
Allan, you keep referring to these “alternative” ways of thinking and viewing the subject, yet you mention none. I’d like to hear of these sufficient grounds for having gender-based clubs, because I agree with H, I haven’t seen any on this thread.
Yes, private clubs can do as they wish, no one here is disputing that… but by denying someone wearing jeans, the club is suggesting your average Joe in cut-offs doesn’t look good enough to join. By pricing memberships obscenely high, they suggest people who make 30k a year aren’t rich enough to have a membership. And so on what grounds are they denying women membership? For one reason: because they are women. Please share, on what grounds is this okay? On what grounds is this not discrimination based on sex? I anxiously await your response, since you so clearly have the answer.
It may be true that societies “look to history and laugh at the follies of the past,” but don’t imply that everyone of that society views history in such a narrow light. Many of us do attempt to get close enough to the past to see their world a bit more like they did and understand that some things that are not okay now were okay then… Those of us who are capable of viewing the past in such a way are also very capable and often do view our modern world with the same critical eye. But that doesn’t mean we should automatically look at issues that our societal progression has deemed unethical and dismiss them as ethical simply because are able to analyze them objectively. So we take a step out, we view the alternative ways of viewing a subject–– it’s perfectly okay for us to circle back around and say “yep, that’s still discrimination.”
And lastly, more generally speaking, these answers that you claim are neither obvious nor unavailable… sure, they may not be obvious (so how can you fault anyone for creating a dialogue about such difficult questions, sharing perspectives and provoking people to re-examine their stance, however open or unopen their mindfulness is); however, these answers are most certainly unavailable, because you say yourself, every society thinks itself most natural and just. These answers are most unavailable because these questions and issues are subjective and 100% dependent on each individual’s experiences. If you think you have the answer to this debate, then I eagerly welcome you genuinely explore the issue, to share your knowledge, which we so clearly are all in need of.
Allan
Jul 19, 2013 at 10:25 am
Surely you can’t believe that “these answers are most unavailable,” that “these questions and issues are subjective and 100% dependent on each individual’s experiences.” Were that the case then you wouldn’t have any more basis for claiming Peter Dawson’s position is wrong than you would in claiming that his position on which ice cream flavor is the best is wrong. But of course this is not the case. You believe gender-based clubs are examples of discrimination and that this type of discrimination is unethical and wrong. You have a claim to something higher than your own personal preference, preference only creating for a situation where everyone does their own thing and has the tolerance of everyone else. But that isn’t the situation here in this article, nor do I believe it to be situation in general. You want Muirfield and all clubs and people who stand for those principles to understand their injustice and end the discrimination.
My sense from your tone and words is that you do not anxiously await my response and have not completely understood my posts as you believe I “clearly have the answer.” I never made a claim to having an answer, nor do I feel my posts insinuate I do. My posts were directed at the way Ben’s article approached the issue, not with where he fell on the issue. I was only looking for a fair presentation of the issue. One alternative understanding of the question would require one to entertain the idea of something like masculine and a feminine natures, and concomitantly, virtues which correspond to these natures. Entertaining such an idea (which has largely existed since antiquity) would require one to be comfortable with stepping outside of our world today where gender roles are a big no-no, where men and women are confused about who should act how, nay, are completely opposed to the idea that anyone should act any particular way, with our age’s prime virtue being freedom and self-expression. This is what I meant when I said that Ben cares only to understand the issue on his terms; he assumes from the outset that gender-specific virtues do not exist and that men and women should have no interest or freedom to gather amongst themselves without the presence of their counterparts, where men can be men without the presence of women and women can be women without the presence of men. Now of course, it may be the case that such virtues do not exist or that they do exist but are insufficient grounds for gender-based clubs, but by ascribing bigoted beliefs to people who support gender-based clubs Ben and his kind manage to by-pass any consideration of another understanding of the issue, any difficulty in grappling with a very difficult question, and make the whole problem into a non-problem, or a supposed problem with an obvious answer.
Of course, it is not easy to take seriously ideas that were taken seriously in the past and requires a genuine doubt about knowledge and the precepts of one’s own time. But Ben and his supporters (and to be fair, many of his dissenters as well) do not strike me as people who feel they lack knowledge.
My sense from your tone and words is that you do not anxiously await my response and have not completely understood my posts as you believe I “clearly have the answer.” I never made a claim to having an answer, nor do I feel my posts insinuate I do. My posts were directed at the way Ben’s article approached the issue, not with where he fell on the issue. I was only looking for a fair presentation of the issue. One alternative understanding of the question would require one to entertain the idea of something like masculine and a feminine natures, and concomitantly, virtues which correspond to these natures. Entertaining such an idea (which has largely existed since antiquity) would require one to be comfortable with stepping outside of our world today where gender roles are a big no-no, where men and women are confused about who should act how, nay, are completely opposed to the idea that anyone should act any particular way, with our age’s prime virtue being freedom and self-expression. This is what I meant when I said that Ben cares only to understand the issue on his terms, not on the terms of those who may believe gender-based clubs are okay; he assumes from the outset that gender-specific virtues do not exist and that men and women should have no interest or freedom to gathering amongst “their kind” without the presence of their counterparts. Now of course, it may be the case that such virtues don’t exist or that they do and are insufficient grounds for gender-based clubs, but by ascribing bigoted beliefs to people who support gender-based clubs Ben and his kind manage to by-pass any consideration of another understanding of the issue and make the whole problem into a non-problem, an obvious answer.
Of course, this is not easy to do and requires a genuine doubt about knowledge. But Ben and his supporters (and to be fair, many of his dissenters as well) do not strike me as people who feel they lack knowledge, that sense there is more to learn. Such self doubt is what leads one to question the most obvious questions and answers of their time.
Allan
Jul 18, 2013 at 10:02 am
Ben – Clubs are naturally exclusionary and thus “discriminatory” in some sense; my guess is you have a particular problem with men’s only (and for the sake of logical consistency, women’s only) clubs because you feel there is little difference between the natures of men and women, and thus insufficient grounds for allowing people the freedom to establish clubs based partially on gender. You’re surely wrong on this point, though the modernity you so highly praise in your article has done much to blur the difference. Arlene Saxonhouse’s book The Fear of Diversity has a wonderful chapter titled Women and The Tragic Denial of Difference; reading work such as Ms. Saxonhouse’s would contribute to your understanding of the issue at hand far more than scouring the “twitterverse” for the opinions of profound thinkers such as Steve Elkington and Paige Mackenzie. I was compelled to comment on your article, my first post after many years of visiting the WRX site, because I was struck by the way you unfairly cast Peter Dawson (and those who happen to share his opinion that private clubs should have a right to be gender based) as an outdated, traditionalist bigot whose interest is to discriminate against certain groups. You care only to understand the argument for gender-based clubs on your own terms, making no effort to understand it on the terms of those who hold the opinion. This makes it quite easy to knock down the opposition, but as a writer you do have a certain responsibility to your readership to present the argument fairly and not deny them the awareness that there are other alternatives. I can only imagine that you have completely ignored the alternative view point because (a) it was more expedient to set up a strawman and knock it down, or (b) your understanding of the issue is bereft to the point where you genuinely believe there to be no other alternatives worthy of consideration. For you, I imagine excluding women from a golf club is as groundless as (to use a very famous example from literature) excluding bald men; with thinking like this its very easy to jump on board with your so-called “progressive” ideas, “in step with the modern world.” Needless to say, I strongly encourage you to reconsider the issue, or at least cease writing articles that lead people to believe it’s a black and white case of sexism. The idea that gender-based clubs are akin to race-based clubs is mistaken, despite what you and Ms. Sternberg, and demonstrates a profound lack of reflection on the role of gender vs the role of skin color.
Of course, a different issue with your article is that you make believe having men’s-only clubs makes the game as a whole less accessible, which is patently untrue as the poster Joe above points out. Luckily for you no organization can escape the pressure of public opinion, and Murfield will eventually go the way of Augusta National and just give the issue up, not finding it worth it to endure the opprobrium of sexist.
“Formerly all the world was mad,’ say the most refined, and they blink.”
Gregory Moore - PGA
Jul 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Allen, very well stated.
Joe
Jul 18, 2013 at 7:49 am
Paige is way off base. Clubs like Muirfield, Burning Tree, and Pine Valley excluding women has nothing to do with how accesible the game of golf is or is not. If you aren’t weathly and connected you’ll be excluded from these clubs as well. There are probably well less than 1000 people that would even be CONSIDERED for membership at clubs like these.
When well less than 1% of clubs worldwide have these policies don’t tell me its bad for the game. Most of the courses she plays to make a living on I don’t have the connections to get on nor could I afford the green fees, but I can go down the street and play a Muni that Sam Snead won the 1948 PGA on for $25…..
nb1062
Jul 18, 2013 at 10:58 am
Joe is 100% right. It isn’t any different than having a private club of any type. They get to say who and who cannot play at their club. Many times they exclude people by simply having extremely high membership dues. This is definitely a case of political correctness and the media fanning the flames to get some sort of a story out of it.
james
Jul 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm
exactly.
aaron
Jul 18, 2013 at 3:28 am
In his presser he was spot on in the fact that this is only an issue because of the Media…what a distraction from one of the most exciting tournaments of the year..
Magnumpl
Jul 18, 2013 at 1:42 am
When did Augusta allowed women to join? This article sounds like in US you dont have men only clubs for at least 40 years already…
Flip4000
Jul 18, 2013 at 1:09 am
I would actually like to see the numbers on how many women actually would pay to be members of the club if they opened their doors to women tommorow
steven
Jul 17, 2013 at 10:33 pm
nothing wrong with signle sexx clubs, i prefer to have females playing however just like some gym which are female only, if you dont like it form your own course.
people worry too much about these little things, just dont support the club (which you cant anyway) and goto a club that does support it.
Next will be women playing on saturdays, again nothing wrong with this but i cant see it happening at all clubs. i believe some clubs allow it. Everyone has a choose, and do you really want to be a member of a club that does not welcome females. just look at augusta, the black and female members just to please the world.
Ryan
Jul 18, 2013 at 9:08 am
I don’t know what is so hard to understand about this issue. It isn’t about men’s only clubs it is about men’s only clubs hosting these big tournaments. Golf wants to be in inclusive sport and grow yet the perpetuate the belief that it is okay to discriminate because they have been doing it that way for years.
Matt M
Jul 17, 2013 at 8:26 pm
These sediments are at the end of their lifespan. No matter how you look at it, discriminations is discrimination. Once again with numbers of rounds played dropping why do all of these exclusionary ideals still hold merit with the controlling bodies?
yo!
Jul 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm
it’s obviously discrimination on the basis of gender
i bet the don’t have nonwhite members either, but i’m not sure
it’s a private club so they are well within the law definitely in the UK and also if they were in the US
making the argument that because we have different bathrooms for men and women then we can have different environments is ridiculous
the only response is to boycott the open, the r&a, and muirfield
but many european institutions as the are today accept racisms and sexisms that is otherwise not tolerated in the U.S. Anyone who has experience, dealings, and lived in Europe and perceptive enough realizes this.
… as they say, when in rome …
pablo
Jul 17, 2013 at 7:57 pm
I agree with Greg, especially regarding the gyms. And come on, guys need a place to escape from women, and seriously if there is such a demand, then where are the women only golf clubs!?
Greg Moore - PGA
Jul 17, 2013 at 8:07 pm
There are some women’s only “clubs” in Scotland though not sure if there are women’ only golf courses. The R&A is a member’s only “club” that has a building at St Andrews. The courses at St Andrews are open to anyone. There are only male members of the Royal & Ancient club.
Muirfield is a male on golf course.
Greg Moore - PGA
Jul 18, 2013 at 10:25 am
Rarely, if ever do the players change clothes in the locker rooms. Change shoes, maybe.
Some of the players never come to the media center for interviews. Some media may be doing a specific story on a player and there isn’t any interest by the rest of the media corps to interview that player. So a meeting in the locker room is a quiet place to get a few quotes.
So basically you’re trying to justify years of discrimination (by gender or race) by saying reverse discrimination is okay to make up for past wrongs?
Greg Moore - PGA
Jul 18, 2013 at 10:26 am
Meant to post this under Ryan’s post. Sorry Pablo
Sam
Jul 18, 2013 at 11:25 am
I agree with you Pablo, if this is such an issue, why don’t the groups that don’t like these same sex golf clubs start their own, then they will have some place to get away from everything??
I don’t understand why it’s such a big deal, when there are groups that have memberships all over the world and there are certain requirements to join, but no one cares. If you don’t meet all the requirements, then you can’t complain. This one just happens to be that you have to be a male to join.
I mean, the PGA let’s females try and qualify for their tournaments or even give sponsor exemptions to play. Will the LPGA let male golfers try and qualify or hand out sponsors exemptions for their tournaments? I’m sure they won’t, so isn’t that discrimination?
There are bigger issues in the world, then to focus on these same-sex golf clubs, like when they were trying to hammer away at Augusta National, they can do whatever they want, as long as they follow the laws (and they did).
Greg Moore - PGA
Jul 17, 2013 at 7:53 pm
It is interesting to read what an member of the LPGA has to say about exclusionary practices (to be totally honest, I have know Paige since she was 9 years old), when the LPGA itself has exclusionary practices when it comes to male members of the media with a tour media credential.
On the PGA Tour, any member of the media who is credentialed by the PGA Tour with a photo id badge is allowed access into the player’s locker room. Male or female media are treated exactly the same in this regard.
On the LPGA Tour the player’s locker room is off limits to any male media, even if they have a photo id badge. This practice also limits the ability of the male equipment company reps from doing their job of putting the player’s weekly allotment of caps, gloves and golf balls into the player’s lockers.
The women equipment company reps have access to the LPPGA locker room to complete their jobs.
Seems like their is a disconnect when it comes to standing up for equal rights.
Don’t even get me started on the women’s only gyms!!!
Greg
Ryan
Jul 17, 2013 at 9:08 pm
I have been around enough meat heads in gyms to know why there are women’s only gyms. They want the ability to work out without getting gawked and hounded over.
I don’t think the main argument against men’s only clubs is because women don’t want them to have their own place. I think it is mainly the support of tournament dollars and prestige going to these clubs. I believe the PGA has a rule regarding their tournaments not being held at clubs that are exclusive based on race or sex.
It would probably be wise to read up on women’s suffrage it may give you a clearer picture on men’s vs women’s rights.
Greg Moore - PGA
Jul 17, 2013 at 9:47 pm
Okay, so you have a reason (not saying it’s a good one) for there being women only gyms. Have any response as to why men are not afforded the same access as women to do their job on the LPGA?
Ryan
Jul 18, 2013 at 9:14 am
Same reason they have women only gyms, comfort. They can’t be comfortable in a locker room with men around because of the long history of being treated like a possession rather then a human being.
To tell you the truth I think all press should be banned from locker rooms there are better locations to interviews athletes other then when they are changing their clothes.
I can’t believe it is that hard to understand. Women were only allowed to vote less then a 100 years ago that should give you an idea of how they have been oppressed, as well as the violent crimes that are perpetuated against women on a daily basis by men.
It would probably do you good to take a hard look at what women and minorities have been through to get to where we are today and how much further we/they still need to come.
RER
Jul 18, 2013 at 3:17 pm
If being ogled by men is the problem then why do the women dress the way they do on the LPGA Tour? If you have watched any LPGA event you can’t help but notice the small revealing skirts and shorts. Perhaps men wouldn,t gawk at them if they dressed in modest clothing say 1903 era.