A law suit filed today by Margorie Baker alleges that a local golf course and country club in her small Mississippi town has been discriminating against women. The country club, it’s said, charges women significantly higher greens fees than men, and has been doing so for years. Men also get “discounts” on equipment, meals, and other amenities. That’s not the worst part, though. Consider this quote from the Mayor: “Baker might be right about the discrimination, but she’s probably not a lot of fun to hang out with.”
This sort of subtle coercion has been a foe of the civil rights movement for years: the little jabs at people who step out of line and questioned accepted norms. The hope is to shame them and others into just going with the flow and being good little women. Frankly it’s absurd.
Are you perturbed? Mad? Want to call a congressman?
Well, the golf course story… is pure fiction. Although it’s analogous to this story… only in that one the discrimination works the other way around.
It’s an interesting thought experiment. Shouldn’t we be equally outraged, no matter who’s being discriminated against?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
You’re the to-be lawyer, but aren’t both cases just third-degree price discrimination that I learned about in economics? No different than charging separate prices for adult and child admission to movie theaters?
July 30th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I can’t speak intelligently on the specific laws that might be violated, my main point was that a lot of people get angry when women are discriminated against, but don’t particularly care when men are.
This wasn’t even the best example of it, as I’m not sure people would be particularly outraged if bars had a “Men’s Night” … but we play the hand we’re dealt.
I was most put off by the NOW woman’s comment at the end, to be honest. “Yes, it’s discrimination, but gosh… what a buzzkill!”
July 30th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Sigh.
Yes, that extra jab is offensive, and she should be ashamed for having made it… But it’s offensiveness is overshadowed by just how ridiculous the suit is. I can’t be certain of its legal merit without knowing their theory, but it seems dubious. More to the point, whether or not it is legally discrimination, in reality the beneficiaries of discounted club prices for women are men. He should be smacked upside the head, not encouraged.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
“in reality the beneficiaries of discounted club prices for women are men.”
I’m not sure I agree with that. Presumably the benefit is that more women will go to bars. I don’t really think that’s true. I’ve never met a woman who has said “I really don’t want to go out, but since it’s ladies night…”
More likely, this just concentrates women in one bar, thereby allowing that bar to gouge the guys because that’s where the ladies are. Add competition to that mix and you end up with no change from a no-ladies-night situation except that men are paying more than the ladies are.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:26 am
I’m not so sure it doesn’t make a difference. Consider a slightly different scenario: general bar specials. Sports and Bluebird managed to create an extra weekend night through ridiculous specials. I doubt nearly as many people would go out on Wednesday nights if everything wasn’t half-off.
So ladies’ night on a Friday or Saturday? Probably just moves the same number of women bar-goers to different bars. Ladies Night on Wednesday or Thursday? That might increase the overall number of women out on those nights. Although it might simply be moving women bar-goers not from bar to bar, but from one day to another.
July 31st, 2007 at 11:32 am
When and how did those bars “create” an extra weekend night and what is it?
July 31st, 2007 at 9:52 pm
When I say a “weekend night,” I mean a night where large numbers of people go out to bars. I just can’t imagine anywhere near the same number of people going out on a Wednesday night, unless bars did one (or both) of two things: big specials and good music.
So Sports decided to make everything half-off. The Bluebird brought in popular acts like Mike & Joe and Hairbangers’ Ball on Wednesday nights, and started their own half-off night. So you have a fourth night now where a large number of people are going out. Whether or not it’s just taking people from another day? Not sure. I’m sure for some people, that’s what happens, but my bet is that there’s an overall increase.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:49 am
Apples and oranges, I think, John.
Bars are, ultimately, social settings. I don’t think Ladies’ Night on Wednesday would have anywhere near the same effect because, honestly, what reason do the guys have to go? Sure, there will be women there, but the women will be out the next night, too. Unless, of course, those guys just want to go out on Wednesday.
I think people take the efficacy of Ladies’ Night for granted. Does it actually bring in a significant number of women and, if so, why doesn’t everyone do it? We’ve been conditioned to respond to “Ladies Night” with the thought “Awesome… there’ll be a lot of women there.” but I’ve never heard any anecdotal (or academic) evidence in support of it, nor have I heard any with regards to guys trolling ladies’ night.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am
I think the bigger issue is that when women hear “Ladies’ Night” they don’t think “Wow, a great opportunity to go meet men and not spend a lot.” They think “Wow, time for Girls Night Out.” I’ve heard of guys trolling ladies’ nights but you never hear about success.
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Forgetting the law - which I don’t think was the point of your post - let’s just look at “what ticks people off” - which I think was the point of your post.
What ticks me people off in these cases, in theory, is discrimination. But there is more to what is bothering the people than just the overt action - there is also the intent, or the motivation.
In the gold scenario, a reader gets the sense that the golf club is trying to drive women away through discriminatory pricing in order to preserve a “boy’s club” in a traditionally male dominated social setting. The actions seem to be motivated by a determination to enforce an antiquated social order, in which men and women are not seen as equal.
In the bar situation, that kind of motivation by animus or perceived inequality simply doesn’t exist. We can debate the economic efficacy all we want, but the fact remains that bar owners do this becasue they think it works. And the argument that bar owners do it in order to punish or ostracize men or out of some type of disdain for men is simply untenable. Many bar owners probably are men, if not most.
So people can ticked off at one, where they see actions motivated by chauvinism, and yawn at the other, where they see actions motivated by perceived economic forces. I don;t really see a contradiction here, as far as people’s reactions to scenarios are concerned.