Butler National Eyes 21st Century Membership Stance
Teddy Greenstein reports that all-male Butler National is so desperate to return to the tournament stage, they might welcome Women-Americans. Strange times indeed!
If those governing bodies say yes — and industry sources believe they will — then the club's board would make a recommendation and be poised to take a vote among its members. A strong majority, believed to be three-quarters, would have to approve the change.
A U.S. Open could be worth $5 million to the club, industry analysts say, easily offsetting a migration of members who want the club to remain all-male. But that's just an estimate, given that the next available U.S. Open is in 2020.
Ed Sherman wonders, however, if this'll really happen with no near-future major dates available, no guarantee of anyone clamoring to return to Butler National, and that pesky problem of what to do with a clubhouse designed with grown men in mind who work out their unresolved issues by walking around naked.
The lavish clubhouse features big picture windows and the interior is mostly open without walls separating the various areas, such as the locker room. It's fine for an all-male membership, but not with women walking around.
Needless to say, having women on the grounds would fundamentally change the feel of Butler. Not that guys are snapping towels at each other's behinds, but there is a certain male vibe to the place.
Oh don't sell them short Ed, I'm sure there are some tremendous slouches there too.
Also, any bid to host a tournament would open up the club to scrutiny about its membership policies. You'd have plenty of people poking around the place.
For all those changes, what is the benefit for the club? The chance to host a major championship 12 to 15 years from now?
Thursday, February 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Reader Comments (37)
Perhaps to not be included on the list with ANGC of dinosaur institutions is one. Or maybe the return of the BMW far sooner than a major.
You don't apply to join Agusta. You are invited. That is the members choice.
Obviously they have not, as yet, found a suitable female invitee.
Second, St.Andrews is a public golf course. so who cares about anything else.
third. why would anybody want the BMW? maybe a sole-owner club--its advertising. maybe a big family club--they need 20+ new members every year. A club with a small budget and a strong membership that need 5-10 guys a year? maybe the president or the board wants it, but the guy who has gotta find another place to play for two weeks to a month, and live with the damage done--he doesnt care.
And we wonder why more women don't play golf, you don't go where you clearly aren't wanted. Earth to golf, women aren't second class citizens to be avoided in order to have quality time. You want to go have an all male foursome for guy time - cool, but you don't exclude people from clubs.
Mysogynistic posts and childish banter are not what this site is about. While I keep my chuckles to myself when the talk turns (as it always has here) about the sanctity of the game, it's the churlish infantile sexist behavior that bothers me here.
Grow up or get out of here. You add nothing to the discussion or this site.
On reading this again, sounds like the m'ship is made up of a bunch of deviants!(lol)
My apologies for offending you, and perhaps others. However, I was trying to make a point about ANGC, which is arguably the most famous golf club in the States, as well as other "exclusive clubs". There has been significant time and discussion on this site and others about the health of amateur golf. I believe that the status quo at ANGC and other clubs, such as Butler, which proudly proclaim that they affirmatively choose to not want 50% of the population as members, simply because of genetic make-up, is a significant part of the problem. Such policies, accepted by the PGA Tour and USGA, clearly signal to women golfers that they are,at best, second-class, and discourage their participation. I also believe that the "exclusiveness" of the sport discourages men, because of class or race, to take-up the game. In my opinion, as long as the golfing world celebrates ANGC, and other exclusive clubs, participation at the local amateur game will continue to drop.
The golf club I want to join is one that will not let in slow players.
Obviously there are a great number of wonderful women in the game but the fact remains that an inordinate percentage of women golfers have a hard time functioning in the game and create a disproportionate part of the problems at clubs and courses. Finally, it is the growing power of women to prevent men from playing that is one of the primary reasons for the decline in the number of rounds of golf played. At the same time, this newfound power of women to lord it over their men is not matched by a corresponding use of such freedom by women to take up the game or use the time to play more golf.
The golfing world has been celebrating ANGC since at least the 1950s and yet that did not prevent the explosive growth of the American game in the 1960s through 1990s. Any celebration of Augusta National has little to do with causing the supposed decline of the game in recent years. The decline of the game is much more due to the growing attack on success in this country, the absurd time required to play at so many courses that are too difficult for many (read Nicklaus-type architecture) and general economic difficlties in recent years, to name only three reasons among many others.
Why do people play the game? There is no simple answer and some of the answers show that, remarkably, the game can accomodate people with completely conflicting reasons for playing. Some like the young Venturi loved the game in his early days because of the isolation it provided in pursuit of conquering the game and getting away from personal problems. On the other hand, one could argue that golf is the greatest of social games in part because there is so much time available during the course of a round to get to know one's companions.
There is also the fact that almost all golf clubs/courses, from ANGC, Seminole, Cypress Point and Pine Valley, on the one side, to the most apparently modest of munis, on the other side, have great people among their players and some of these people can form their wonderful little groups with common interests at each of the places. There is not enough attention given to these little groups at the wide range of public courses. Contrary to those who want to homogenize Butler National, these little groups do not tend to warm the hearts of the utopian advocates of diversity, most of whom rarely spend any time with people much different from themselves anyway.
http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-digest-woman/2012-03/women
I love your posts and keep on sending them as it is your right for what little time we may have left in this country. Nevertheless, if you talk to people who staff private clubs and run public courses, they will confirm what I have said on the subject of many - not all - women in the game. Of course, these staffers and operators will not make such statements publicly - well, except Jackie Burke, Jr. - because the truth is increasingly not a defense from the deluded and utopian.
Hugh -
For the time being, offending people is not a crime and should not be a crime. There is a difference between offending people and physically harming them. The ease with which so many people are so easily offended is a significant reason that rational discussion has declined and that college campuses are no longer places of freedom of expression. Keep your posts coming and do not worry about offending Pete. There is hope that he like so many other posters will begin responding with discussion rather than personal attacks.
Get a life.
I was only stating their policy.
It does not mean that I agree with their position.
Although I must admit that it is their Club and neither you nor I have any say in how they procede.
This is about how a PRIVATE club operates. It's their club and they can run it as they see fit. If the membership TRULY wants to have a big pro event there and vote for it...then they will have to adapt their membership polocies. If they don't...it's their deal and not our place to say "good" or "bad".
Problems start when you get a minority of professional committee sitters who make decisions on behalf of the majority.
Surely, the purpose of a club is to create a place where people with a common interest can get away from the outside world and spend time with kindred spirits. If that happens to be a men-only situation, what business is that of anyone else?
That statement makes too much common sense...surely there must be something wrong with it.
And a Junior League and a ladies garden club in every town in the US, large and small.
Women seem to want different types of single sex clubs than men--probably a real shock to the left wing liberal elite.
When did Butler National become a collectivist entity that must follow the wishes of those who have no stake in its purchase or upkeep (i.e. self appointed members of the PC movement)?
However, if they voluntarily choose to host an event (such as the US Open) then of course they must comply with the wishes of that organization.
Lets not confuse these two issues - the Butlerinians have every right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (apparently by walking around with other naked males in the privacy of their building). But the USGA has every right to have a set of rules to conduct their business (by requiring certain equality standards).
Personally I recall attending a Western Open at the place when it became a bathtub after some rain passed thru. The odds of that swamp getting a US Open are about the same as Phil and Rees collaborating on a redo of Cog Hill.