The Masters and Me
by
Heather Koerner
on Apr 10, 2008 at 5:39 PM
The Masters started today. Gorgeous course. Great golfers. There's even an Amen Corner.
I was reading a bit of tourney news this morning -- Tiger's going for the grand slam, Els got a new swing coach, etc. -- when I was struck by something. Sort of like Sherlock Holmes and the curious dog, it hit me what was not in the news. No protests.
Five years ago, you couldn't get away from the protests. In 2003, Martha Burk and the National Council of Women's Organizations started a serious media firestorm to try to pressure the Augusta National Golf Club (where the Masters is held) to allow women as club members (the club has a men-only membership policy). It made for a lot of headlines, but the club didn't budge -- despite protests and an attempted advertiser boycott.
Since then, Burk has continued her protests. On her web site, she argues that since business is sometimes transacted on golf courses, Augusta's male-only membership keeps women below the "glass ceiling" of business leadership. She then goes on to equate it with businesses that entertain clients at strip clubs or have management meetings at Hooters.
Burk and other feminists want me, as a woman, to be offended by Augusta. But, I admit it, I'm not.
To me, these comparisons are just a little ridiculous. Males wanting a golf club to themselves is one thing. But it simply is not the same as forcing a woman, as a condition of her employment, to attend strip clubs. I may agree with Augusta or I may not. Either way, I have the option to vote with my pocketbook. But the fact is that Augusta is a private and optional recreational club, funded by private dollars. I don't want them to lose their right to associate with their own gender because I don't want to lose my right to do it either. After all, I don't want the law telling me that I had to let men into my college sorority or my ladies Bible study. I like that I have the option to work out at a gym for females only or to belong to a club that is exclusively for stay-at-home moms.
To be sure, I enjoy that I have equal protection under U.S. law and that I'm guaranteed equal pay for equal work. But I will also enjoy the azaleas as I watch the Masters this weekend, quite contentedly ... with the bonus of not having to hear about the protests.
1. BDB had the following to say on Apr 10 at 5:43 PM:
Should a SAHM watch the Masters?
Wait, I'm confusing this with the education thread...
2. JB had the following to say on Apr 10 at 6:58 PM:
I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that since a lot of business is conducted on golf courses, women executives are placed at a disadvantage when they're excluded from male-only clubs like Augusta. It's probably also not unreasonable to suppose that if a company has many executives who patronize such clubs, it may also have a company culture which does not highly value gender equality.
As a man, I am offended by Augusta's men-only policy. It shouldn't be legally prohibited, but I find it disturbing that this group of men think their enjoyment of golfing is heightened by the absence of any women. I wouldn't want to be part of an organization with a similar policy.
3. Andrew had the following to say on Apr 10 at 10:00 PM:
I agree completely. Private organizations should be allowed to make their own rules.
Similarly, I think that privately-owned companies should also be allowed to make their own policies for hiring, firing, promotions, operations, etc. (I apologize if the rest of this is a little too far off-topic. I think that it is only a slight tangent.)
Hold on... let me put on my asbestos suit before I state my flame-war-inducing opinions.
I think that sexual harassment laws and equal employment opportunity laws infringe upon the rights of business owners to run their businesses as they see fit. Some people will object that repealing these laws would take us back to the era when women had to sleep their way to promotions. This is a valid concern. Sexual favors should never be a condition for employment or promotions. However, these laws put a lot of power in the hands of judges and government agencies. These laws allow judges (who already seem to think they are just a step down from God) to play God by attempting to read the minds and hearts of employers.
Another point to consider is that employees are hired and promoted for all kinds of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with merit. If Congress can prevent employers from requiring sexual favors as a condition of promotion, then why not also ban nepotism and promotions for having a nice hairstyle? Why is Congress concerned with fairness some areas but indifferent to others?
There is also the issue of the "hostile work environment". This part of the law is frequently abused by easily-offended employees. I do not condone sexual jokes or dirty pictures in the workplace. However, I think that the only workplace whose conduct should be regulated by Congress is the U.S. Capitol. If Congress can regulate sexual harassment, then what is to stop Congress from regulating harassment on the basis of shoe size, sports team affiliation, hair color, or any other currently-unregulated attribute? (I should stop now before I give them more ideas.)
Similar arguments apply to equal employment opportunity laws, but I have talked long enough. Let the flamewar begin!
4. Tami had the following to say on Apr 10 at 10:44 PM:
General issues concerning the "men only" nature of Augusta aside, I believe Burk has a point. She may be guilty of hyperbole (I most definitely agree that doing business at a golf course should not be made synonymous with conducting business meetings at Hooters or a strip club), but if men do conduct business in a male-only environment, that does shut out their female colleagues from those informal business connections (which are just as important as those connections made inside the office). That part does seem illegal, or at least contrary to most corporations' codes of ethics. Does anyone know for certain?
5. Leah had the following to say on Apr 11 at 12:56 AM:
yeah i hate it when i hear about women/feminists protesting men-only clubs etc. I mean, it's not like we don't have our share of women-only things! Why should men be forced to allow women to compete in their competitions or join their clubs when women are not forced to do the same for men? Talk about INequality.
6. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Apr 11 at 6:48 AM:
There are many "women-only" clubs in America, so the premise of an "all-male" club is hardly preposterous.
Quite frankly, if a business wishes to exclude a substantial portion of the potential market, then that is their risk to take.
Ergo, I have no dog in this fight.
7. J.T. had the following to say on Apr 11 at 8:53 AM:
Great post. I'll be going to Passion 07 Regional in Atlanta this weekend! Looking foward to what God is going to do. It's going to be big - really big.
8. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 11 at 10:35 AM:
Because of the business-relationships angle, I can see good points on both sides of this issue. It disturbs me, though, how widely men are discriminated against in issues like this.
At my college gym, there was a co-ed weight room and a women's weight room, but no men's weight room. I found that a little fishy. I've also read that female reporters are allowed into male locker rooms at certain times, but if a male reporter wants to enter a female locker room, it is generally off-limits, and of course he risks being thought of as a pervert. (The solution is obvious -- give all our athletes privacy, for heaven's sake!)
I think that our society has become so concerned with women's rights that it has actually started treating men with less respect in many ways. This problem has become even more apparent to me since being married and observing a man's life up-close and personal for a while.
9. Eliza had the following to say on Apr 11 at 11:09 AM:
Perhaps Martha Burk is simply mad at the fact that there are men-only organizations, but I think she's actually angry at something much deeper. I think she (and the N.O.W.) is reacting to the systemic de-valuation that women have felt and experienced for centuries. Like latent racism, there still is a cultural latent sexism which sees women as being inferior in intelligence and drive. Today's businesswoman is naturally disadvantaged because she is operating under rules created and maintained by men, who enjoy the comfort and advantage it gives them (e.g. business conducted in male-only clubs, long hours not conducive to family relationships, promotions based on aggressive behavior, etc.).
I totally identify with their frustration--it is an awful feeling to be locked out and laughed at. However, I think that the N.O.W. is shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force themselves into these man-made conclaves. Burk and others just end up looking whiny. If business women really want to empower each other, they should become CEOs of their own businesses and firms where THEY make the rules. No one is stopping them from having their own golf course where they make decisions with their own powerful female counterparts.
************
Andrew, have you ever envisioned exactly what sexual harassment would be like in relation to yourself? Women are not the only victims. It is not unreasonable to expect yourself to be at the unpleasant end of sexual advances by a future boss--male or female--in exchange for a business deal. And if you can imagine that, you can also imagine the hell that boss can make your life, regardless of what job you take after that one.
In any case, if anyone does not understand the difference between sexual harassment and shoe size, we have bigger issues to deal with.
10. Tanya Middleton had the following to say on Apr 11 at 12:20 PM:
There are still plenty of opprotunities for the ladies to congregate and get ahead. I actually work with Microsoft, and right now I’m really excited to spread the word about the “Vision to Venture” tour they’re having between April and May, which will consist of five live events. Featured speaker, John Jantsch is a marketing and digital technology coach, award-winning social media publisher, and author of Duct Tape Marketing: The World's Most Practical Small Business Marketing Guide, as well as many other speakers offering industry tips. The tour is fully geared towards women entrepreneurs and savvy web gals.You can see more and register at http://smallbusiness.officelive.com/v2v/ so let me know what you think! And if you have any questions, I’d be more than happy to answer them
11. shanka had the following to say on Apr 11 at 2:26 PM:
lol andrew...can hospitals refuse treatment? that's illegal. go with the club idea; i think that's a better route for you. but since everyone in the south is christian anyway, i'm not sure it'll pan out. :)
anyway, the club finally opened its doors to african americans in 1990 after years of protest. if they had not, would you think that their fight to gain admission would have be frowned upon since there are (probably) "african american only clubs" (or maybe it was one such reason given...i wouldn't have cared since i was only 9 at the time)? would the argument "allowing blacks to enter is, in fact, a form of discrimination against whites" be a sufficient enough reason to continue to refuse? some people decided that it wasn't, as it's blatant racism. how exactly is burk's argument different? we endure a country with a system of institutionalized racism, and sometimes we get the courage to consciously fight against it, yet we allow sexism to go on, declaring the protesters to be nothing more than "whiny." and the bones of elizabeth stanton just rolled over [alas, she had her moments of racism, too, in her belief that the fight against inequality (in her case, sexism) was more important than the fight against another inequality, racism. tsk tsk on her and on us who would dare hold the same view.]
12. Ben had the following to say on Apr 11 at 2:38 PM:
Amir (6),
Letting market forces dictate this sort of thing sounds good in principle, but keep in mind that segregated hotels, restaurants, and so on were successful business models in the South until integration was legally forced on them. If excluding black patrons, forcing them to get food from a back door, etc. had carried any serious financial repercussion from lost business, the activism of the Civil Rights movement would have been largely unnecessary. At the risk of bringing up a potentially inflammatory example, if an airline today enacted and publicized a "no passengers with Middle Eastern names or appearances" policy, I suspect the increased patronage from those who equate Middle Easterners with airline hijackings would offset the decreased patronage from Mid-Easterners and offended liberals.
I'm not suggesting that racial integration is a good analogy for gender integration, and I agree with the consensus here that if Burk succeeds, she could set a problematic precedent for women's-only groups. I just think that shrugging the whole issue off and saying "Let the market take care of it" might not be the best solution.
13. BDB had the following to say on Apr 11 at 2:42 PM:
You know something? Golf is a lot more expensive than lunch. Many companies are putting gift restrictions on these days - about $50 in some cases. That's enough for a nice lunch or dinner, but some rounds of golf are more than that. In other words, many decision-makers can no longer accept them.
Alas, despite working in advertising for 7 years, I never learned the game. My boss for the last 6 years was an avid golfer - and there was a golf course across the street from our office. Again, I never got around to learning. But we went to lunch with a lot of vendors.
The advantage of golf is that you have a lot more time to discuss the details of something. Either on the course or at the bar later. But there are so many other ways to have those conversations.
As for discrimination...I read a Wall Street Journal article once that noted one big area of discrimination that was not protected: weight. There are almost no Fortune 500 CEOs who are overweight - far less than the general population...
14. Andrew had the following to say on Apr 11 at 3:46 PM:
Eliza,
With regard to the shoe size comment, I was pointing out that some forms of harassment (sexual harassment) are forbidden, while other types of harassment (including my silly shoe size example or maybe just harassing somebody for no particular reason) are ok. In this regard, Congress (and probably most people in general) are inconsistent.
I imagine that it would be unpleasant for me to be in the position you described - being forced to fend off sexual advances from a boss. However, we live in a (somewhat) free-market society, and I can take my skills elsewhere. The days of indentured servanthood are over. Also, public opinion has turned against harassment and companies which support harassment. Therefore, it is in a company's interest not to allow sexual harassment.
Ultimately, the solution to the problem of harassment and discrimination is for individuals to treat other people with respect.
Eliza, try to place yourself in the position of a business owner. After you have invested your own money to build up your company, is it fair for some outside party to have the authority to tell you how to run your company?
My main point is that nobody is wise enough or knowledgeable enough to know for sure the reason that somebody was hired, fired, or promoted. Until Judge Jesus Christ is on the bench, there will be no judge who can enforce this law correctly.
15. Nicole had the following to say on Apr 11 at 7:01 PM:
As a woman I am not offended at all. I believe they should have the right to be a men's only club. It is privately funded. Of course, despite the fact that I don't smoke and have asthma so I can't be around people who do, I think businesses should have the right to choose whether or not to allow smoking.
Back on the discrimination thing. I personally went to a women's college and think that's it is pretty terrible that men can't have the same experience (if they wanted it) because so many have protested men's only colleges. If Augusta can't be men's only then my alma mater should have to allow men into the undergraduate studies.
16. BDB had the following to say on Apr 11 at 9:11 PM:
Tami (#4) wrote:
>>That part does seem illegal, or at least contrary to most corporations' codes of ethics. Does anyone know for certain?<<
Well, the law for discrimination focus on whether or not an entity is a "public accomodation." This is tied to the civil rights legislation that was authorized by the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution which requires "equal protection" for all citizens. That Equal Protection Clause is used as the basis for much litigation and case law to try and eliminate discrimination either in statute law or even when the effect of something creates a dispropotionate impact.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
(Oh boy, this is going to be too long. My Master's Paper was on the Supreme Court Decision NAACP vs. Claiborne Hardware which enshrined the right to nonviolent civil disobedience. I can go on for days on this topic.)
But the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution also guarantees the freedom of assembly - people have a constitutional right to choose who they associate with.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Agusta is a private club, hence protected under the 1st Amendment.
So, from what I know of business, a protocool emerged that male-only clubs had to choose to either admit women, or not discuss business. Some, like Kiwanis, chose to admit women because a) more and more women owned businesses and b) membership was declining and they needed more civic-minded busines owners.
Augusta kind of skirts this issue by allowing women to play as the guest of a member. If you assume that business is discussed on the golf course, then this helps get around some of the problem. So, it's really the $25,000-$50,000 annual fee that keeps most people from playing there. If you're already wealthy enough to know one of the 300 members, chances are you can talk to them about business in your private jet just as easily as on the golf course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusta_National_Golf_Club#Membership
17. Eliza had the following to say on Apr 11 at 10:12 PM:
Andrew,
From my perspective (and the Supreme Court's), Congress is completely consistent in drawing a line between discrimination based on sex and discrimination based on shoe size. That is because sex is a protected class under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment, whereas shoe size isn't. Congress and the Courts have decided that there are certain large classes of people that cannot be discriminated against: race, sex, religion, and nationality. Shoe size or hair type or accent or personality (or weight) are not "suspect classes", and therefore employers can discriminate on those bases. Although harass and bully they cannot and should not.
The 14th Amendment only applies to public employers. Private employers are prohibited from discriminating against suspect classes based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Distinctly private organizations are not prohibited from basing membership upon whatever criteria they wish, so Augusta National is within its (federal) rights. Some states have laws specifically targeting private clubs and societies.
It is not difficult for me to place myself in the position of a business owner, since I am on the cusp of being one myself, and my father was the owner of several small businesses. Yes, it is completely within the authority of the government to keep me, as a business owner, from violating another person.
Sexual harassment is never acceptable and never should be tolerated in the workplace.
I am generally in favor of laws protecting individual rights over laws protecting corporate rights, since corporations are only entities in a legal sense and not actually people. I'd rather protect the people.
18. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Apr 12 at 7:56 AM:
Ben says:
Actually, racial integration is a bad example here.
That is because there are plenty of "women-only" clubs out there, and neither Burk nor any of her friends in the feminist ranks have a problem with that. It's a matter of consistency.
19. BDB had the following to say on Apr 12 at 11:36 PM:
Eliza (#17) wrote:
>>That is because sex is a protected class under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment,<<
>>The 14th Amendment only applies to public employers.<<
I'll give you full credit - it took me an hour of rooting through Supreme Court decisions to figure out why those statements bothered me.
The 14th Amendment applies to all activities of public entities, not just public employers. It is ALL public services that are covered - everything from soup to nuts, water service to voting to employment.
See also:
U.S. v. Morrison (2000).
Sex and Gender is not constitutionally protected under the 14th amendment - that amendment only applies to race. But the equal protection clause 14th amendment is used to apply rights to all citizens. But the equal rights amendment was defeated so it is not part of the Constitution.
But there are a variety of other statues that relate to discrimination based on sex.
20. Ben had the following to say on Apr 13 at 5:27 AM:
Maybe it has been said maybe it hasn't, but Augusta National allows women to play golf they just cannot be official members. Just wanted to point that out.
21. Eliza had the following to say on Apr 14 at 9:50 AM:
BDB
I agree, I should have been more specific. I think the actual language is "state actor" rather than "public" whatever. So, all "state actors" are subject to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause (which does include sex under an intermediate scrutiny standard according to Craig v. Boren (1976)). US v. Morrison was about the Violence Against Women Act, portions of which the Court found unconstitutional because Congress was trying to reach private actors under the Commerce Clause or the Equal Protections Clause, which was beyond its reach. Those clauses only concern state actors, like you said.
You're right that there is no Equal Rights Amendment. However, employers (only excluding Indian tribes, religious groups and non profit organizations) are all prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with some exceptions including that the classification is a "bona fide occupational qualification".
Thanks for calling me out on that :). If I'm going to make claims it's important that those claims are accurate!
22. BDB had the following to say on Apr 14 at 1:43 PM:
Eliza (#21)...
Are you an attorney or a PhD student?
Just wondering...
23. Eliza had the following to say on Apr 14 at 5:07 PM:
Hi BDB,
I'm an attorney with a brainless legal temp job, who desperately needs an outlet for her education, as you can see ;).
24. BDB had the following to say on Apr 16 at 11:00 PM:
Eliza (#23) wrote (briefly)
There's always pro-bono appellate work...you could volunteer to write letters-to-the-superintendent for those kids who get in trouble for praying at school...