Conference 7.286::golf

    Sounds like Sky Meadow's management has followed Horace greeley's
    advice.

re .1    
> No shorts, no pants. 

Well, over this side of the pond, pants have another meaning , and I would
certainly enjoy this rule . I would even go further, and I would always make the
girls putt out ;-))

On the serious side, I believe the clothing etiquette is really outdated and it bugs 
me. At one club I play, ladies can wear what they like, skimpy shots , no socks etc,
but men have to wear knee length shorts and knee length socks. On the other hand, I 
can wear my old decorating trousers full of paints stains no problem.

I can also rememeber reading a recent article about a Scotish Lady Pro, who wears 
mini skirts and a low cut tops, causing real headaches on the pro circuit.

The problem with golf, is that it is run by too many old pensioners, who can't hit a
ball for love nor money, and see it purely as a status symbol

Ady

    Lad's,
    
    	Its the same at the WLGC in Scotland,well it might be slightly
    worse all the men have to wear skirts period......
    
    
    Dav............

    A word of advice, attendant to this sartorial madness, that might save
    y'all some hassles - if you plan on playing a private club, check on
    the dress code first. Everyone knows enough not to show up in jeans
    and/or a t-shirt, but some clubs have unusual requirements. For
    example, some allow shorts - as long as they're knee length bermuda
    type. None (that I know of) require high socks to go with 'em. Some,
    like Winged Foot, stipulate "slacks only." Well, it's their club, and
    I'd rather show up prepared than have a hssle, or not be able to play.
    I don't make judgements, I just do as I'm told - and if the course is
    good enough, I'd probably play it in a nightgown, if they wanted me to.
    
     One more note on L.A.C.C. - it offers the worst $9 hamburg I've ever
    had, meaning that at $2 it would be bogus... Pretty weak logo, too -
    just a flag with L.A.C.C. on it - kinda like those guys you see with
    baseball hats with 2 crossed golf clubs over a green with a little
    flag, or those bumper stickers that say "I (heart) Golf." Yikkk !! What
    the hell, for $100 K initiation, I guess they can be as goofy as they
    want...
    
    __Jack 

    We're in the same 90's that has most courses only offering women's
    leagues on Thursday mornings at 10:00. I don't know about you but most
    of the women golfers I know are at work at 10:00 in the morning.  

    Recently there has been a lot of attention paid to discriminatory
    practices at golf clubs, like that described in .5. Personally, I think
    you have a valid "beef," albeit with some reservations:
    
    1. If it's a private club, and you're a full member, you should have
    equal access to the course as male full members. If you're not, and pay
    reduced membership fees, you shouldn't have the same privileges - BUT _
    I don't agree with a club using gender, etc. as a basis for conferring 
    full membership status. Some clubs consider a "male, head of household"
    as the only person to be construed as a full member. Since they're
    private clubs, it's tough to change this, because you have to get full
    members to effectively vote themselves out of privilege. It can be
    done, but it ain't easy.
    
    2. If it's a public course, they make decisions based on revenue. If
    they think they can make bucks by filling Thurs. with a women's league
    that would otherwise be "dead," so be it. If there was sufficient
    demand for a league at a different time, they'd probably do that too -
    unless they figured it would have a stronger economic backlash by
    discouraging frequent male players. They might not schedule your league
    just when you want it, but they are required by law to let you schedule
    a time exactly as males do, and for the same fee.
    
     The most effective way to change things at clubs like these seems to
    be to successfully petition the town to change their tax status from
    "recreational land" to "restricted access land." Taxes are a lot higher
    on the latter, and frequently the club will cave in to reason, rather
    than paying a higher price to continue to limit access. Clubs like
    Burning Tree and Longmeadow have taken a lot of heat in this manner.
    
     Having belonged to private and semi-private clubs, as well as being a
    teaching professional (wish I could help myself...) and playing at a
    lot of restricted (as well as unrestricted clubs), I've pretty much
    seen it all. I firmly believe that golf needs more women players - they
    spend money at the club, they love the game, they're (generally) better
    versed in golf etiquette, etc. We have a responsibility to insure that
    female play is encouraged in every way. Having said that, does this
    mean I won't play Garden City, Burning Tree, The National Golf Links,
    L.A.C.C., Olympic etc. ever again ? Hell no - I love the courses, and
    as long as I do what I can where I can to help the ladies it doesn't
    make me morally bereft to miss out on some of golf's best courses.
    
    __Jack 

    
    	Re: -1
    
    	I firmly believe that golf does not need ANY more players, men or
    	women. The public courses I play are crowded enough... thank you.
    
    	More players also drive up the price, make for longer rounds, etc.
    	I say let's keep it a secret... what those who don't play golf
        don't know won't hurt um.
    
    		.... :^)
    
    		Smitty