
|
If you both bring home the bacon, who fries it?
20 comments
Are SAHMs the next "cheap labor?"
17 comments
The Price of Motherhood
15 comments |
|
|
In 2002 a woman named Martha Burk burst into our living rooms and challenged everyone to decide if private country/golf clubs that exclude women were discriminatory. Many responded with a quick no. They are private! was the largest chorus in the responses. Of course, our 15-second media didn’t allow for much discussion of why Burk thought that these clubs were discriminatory.
For her stance, Burk was harassed and threatened - The FBI were called out to ensure her safety when she protested outside the Augusta National Golf Club for not allowing women to be members during the 2003 Masters. Her suggestion that Tiger Woods should be taking a stand upset a lot of golf fans on top of criticizing one of golf’s most revered tournaments. I fielded a press call as a board member of a local NOW chapter with this quote:
“Woods underestimates his power as a spokesman for golf. “He would be like a sponsor of a TV show,” Arreola said. “If a TV show was racist, the advertiser could force change or pull its sponsorship. Tiger Woods has that kind of power. He doesn’t have to pull out of the British Open or the Masters to get a reaction. He just needs to take a stand.”(Chicago Tribune, 7/17/2002 “Woods finds hazard; organizations upset at his lack of stance on Augusta’s exclusion of women”)
I stand by my quote just as I stand by Burk today.
Over the weekend the NYTimes ran a piece on a Phoenix country golf club that does not allow even married men and women to eat together in the grill room. At the heart of this case and Augusta is not even the basic fairness of allowing women access to the same facilities as men, but that companies are subsidizing this inequality.
Because while some felt that Burk’s protest was a one-time publicity grab, they missed the big picture, she says. And they underestimated her tenaciousness. Burk’s “Women on Wall Street Project” targets companies that have CEOs and other executives who are Augusta National members. The organization has filed class-action gender-discrimination suits on behalf of female employees of those companies.
And they’ve won nearly $80 million thus far in settlements. Last year, the Women on Wall Street Project reached a $46 million settlement with Morgan Stanley on behalf of eight female employees. Recently, they reached a $33 million settlement with Smith Barney.
Both settlements contained a provision that the companies will cease reimbursing expenses related to Augusta National or other clubs that base membership on race or gender. Burk estimates the number could reach more than $200 million before it’s over.
If men want to belong to an all-men’s club, fine. But I don’t want companies that make a zillion dollars and get plenty of tax-breaks to underwrite the clubs. I think we all know that country clubs are not created for men to get away from the family. They are vital aspects of business.
Why else would the National Hispana Leadership Institute run a Latina Golf Clinic at their 2005 conference? It is because people in business know that many relationships are created, developed and cemented out on the golf course.
Yes, a woman trying to court a man for business could suggest jumping in the car to drive into town for a steak and drinks to finalize a contract, but really, how realistic is that? I am sure that some women try to steer their clients from suggesting a discriminatory club for where to meet, but I’m also sure they don’t always want to insert, “Look, Bob. We want your business, but you know that we can’t grab a steak together after golf because the Phoenix Country Club doesn’t like that I’m a woman.”
These clubs may not have to be fair, but the companies that we work for do. They should not be allowed to pay for memberships to any group that discriminates and certainly should not encourage workers to take clients to discriminatory places either. We’re not that far from the time when business meetings were held at strip clubs too.
Let’s stop talking about this issue like women are ganging up on men for even playing golf. I want us to be honest with each other. Business happens on the golf course and if that golf course makes women eat in a separate room, excludes them from being members, or keeps people of different ethnic groups out, they are discriminatory and not a proper place for work to occur.
Readers: Have you ever had to deal with holding business at a discriminatory place? An improper location? And what have you done to get through it?
June 30th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hmm. How about framing the question a bit differently, so that you’re not forcing an answer. You know, not everyone who reads here is a pity-party-throwing feminist. So, with that it mind, here is my answer to the question you should have posed:
I don’t care who is or is not allowed at a golf club, or any kind of gathering. It simply doesn’t matter to me. I will find other places to go. If I insist on being a go-getter careerist, I’ll have to take with that what comes.
Simply put, I’d rather be feminine than feminist. I relish in being a woman, not in being a woman trying to be a man.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Great post!
June 30th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Callie—-you have issues. I think if corporations/businesses wish to make money off of female consumers then the female consumers should be allowed to frequent where they meet and make business deals. There is no such thing as separate but equal facilities either.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I’m not sure how I “have issues,” as it is not I who is earnestly indignant about silliness such as Augusta. But if that means that I “have issues,” then so be it. I don’t cavalierly slap the “discrimination” label on something just because.
And what about this: Aren’t country clubs inherently exclusive? There are extensive membership fees associated with belonging to a country club. Aren’t you all in a rage about that? Because, you know, one could quite easily make the argument that country clubs and the like discriminate against lower-class people. Something to think about isn’t it? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and so it goes for “equality.”
June 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Private clubs can determine who they admit. However, a business should not subsidize a discriminatory club any more than they would discriminate in their own business. If the business reimburses their employees or clients for costs of deals cut on the course, then by all means the club better not be discriminating. If “silliness” prevents a woman from doing her job, it’s not silliness. It’s discrimination.
June 30th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I read the article too. There were many points that alluded to the inequalities to women members who were also business women. I think that it’s almost a bigger issue than just discrimination at the club. It’s about where and what social circumstances business takes place. What if you don’t play golf? Don’t drink? Don’t go to clubs? As a businesswoman you’re probably missing out on many conversations outside this sexist club just because of your hobbies.
July 3rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Callie, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, your life is better because there are feminist like Veronica and Martha Burk working so hard on your behalf.
Think of it this way … because of these courageous women you can go shopping to your hearts content with your very own credit card!
BAC
July 7th, 2008 at 7:07 am
[...] Sara brought up a very important overarching issue to my post last week on men-only country golf clubs: I think that it’s almost a bigger issue than just discrimination at the club. It’s about where and what social circumstances business takes place. What if you don’t play golf? Don’t drink? Don’t go to clubs? As a businesswoman you’re probably missing out on many conversations outside this sexist club just because of your hobbies. [...]