Is This Really Necessary?

You’ve come a long way, baby. It goes without saying that the twentieth century was an era of tremendous, and needed, advancement for the cause of women in American society. Take, as one example among many, the arena of politics. Entering the century, no woman had ever been elected to Congress, due in large part to the fact that it was not until 1920 that the 19th Amendment was passed, granting to women the right to vote. Now our House and Senate are populated by a growing number of women, and two sit on our Supreme Court; women, both Republican and Democrat, serve as governors and state legislators—these things are no longer unusual to us. Personally, I’d not shy away from voting for a woman for any office in this country should I deem her the best qualified for the job. When Madame Hilary makes her run for the presidency, it won’t be because she is a woman that I’ll cast my vote for someone else; there are, of course, no shortage of other reasons not to vote for her. I fully expect, if I live to a ripe old age, to live in a nation presided over by a woman, and this fact won’t bother me at all. Frankly, I won’t hesitate to tell my precious seven-year-old daughter that, if she so dreams, she too can one day be president.

All of this being said, can we talk? Does equality between the sexes really mean that every institution in this republic must be fully sexually integrated? Will certain segments of the feminist movement not be satisfied until such is the case–and more importantly, will we acquiesce to such self-appointed moral busybodies in their insistence that this take place?

The most recent battleground, of course, involved Augusta National Golf Club, for many decades a proud bastion of blue-blood maledom, a club exclusive to men, but even then, not to all of the male sex; I harbor no illusions that I’d ever be allowed to sniff membership, despite sufficient biological qualifications. Ah, but this represents sacrilege to ardent feminists, who’ve vowed not to be satisfied until such time as Augusta should accept a member of the “fairer sex”…wait, that’s probably a patronizing term in the eyes of these wommyn. One Martha Burk, chairman of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, has gone on the offensive, demanding that the good ole boys accept women into membership. Augusta, home to the Masters, has entrenched itself in its position, declining to accept sponsorship for the telecast of next year’s tournament so that corporate sponsors can shield themselves from pressure from the rage of the feminists. But the ladies have fired back, indicating a willingness to harass, intimidate, boycott, pressure, and agitate any and all, including tour players, CBS, and sponsors, who dare not to march in lockstep with their demands and join the bandwagon of their “moral” crusade. Granted, they are exercising rights which we all enjoy; I don’t deny them the freedom to launch such an endeavor. At the same time, I’ll exercise my prerogative as an American and politely suggest that they are misguided in their goals, and then pose some questions:

$ Do we really want a society in which private organizations cannot make decisions about whom to let in and whom to keep out? I fully understand that this allows freedom to some abhorrent groups to do some morally repugnant things; the Ku Klux Klan, racist cowards that they are, ought to be free to determine who they let wear their clownish bedsheets. But would we really be better off in society if we eliminated sex-restricted organizations? Instead of the “Boy Scouts” and “Girl Scouts”, do we really want the “Whoever Scouts”? Is this not again another example of liberals attempting to impose their sanctified views upon others by threats and coercion?
$ Do these women not risk a victory that is Pyrrhic in nature? For whatever “good” might come out of this, even if they achieve what they consider victory, does this not have the potential to paint their sex in a negative light? I have wondered, for instance, what the real effects will be of the tiny group of Native Americans who have agitated for sports teams to change their nicknames. Do their efforts to change the “Atlanta Braves” to the “Atlanta Carrots” have the unintended consequence of labeling, in the minds of Americans, all American Indians as petty and silly (oops, “American Indians” is probably not politically correct either)?
$ Would the Martha Burks of the world be nearly as concerned that their version of justice be done were the shoe on the other foot? Perish the thought, but where would her umbrella organization, which includes the post-Zippergate-thoroughly-discredited NOW gang, come down on the subject if, for whatever reason, a man wished to join the LPGA? Yeah, I think we all know the answer to that one.
$ Instead of feeling as though they have a need to crash every party that is male-exclusive, why not develop a woman-exclusive private golf club and then deny us guys membership? Tap into Oprah’s millions, or Rosie’s fortune, or Streisand’s coffers. Ask these ladies to ante up so that a suitable estrogen haven be constructed, and then tell men to get lost.

So come on, ladies, we get the point, loud and clear. We brutes know clearly that there is equality between the sexes—God created us that way. We ought now to be past the point of having to prove such things. And so I ask, as regards the Augusta National brouhaha, is this really necessary?

Leave a Comment