Not another sex discrimination thread

[sunshine]

If he goes off near the end of that (i.e. just before the first ladies reach the 10th), would the easier solution not be that he starts on the 1st just before the ladies? Unless the ladies start at the crack of dawn.

Dawn is a good golfer and she likes to go out early.

 

[backwoodsman]

These things have been going on at golf clubs for over a hundred years or how long it’s been open.
The men won’t give up Saturday.
The Ladies won’t give up Tuesday.
Getting anything changed in golf clubs is not easy.
Most give up because of frustration it’s a minefield.
Truth is most men don’t want to play with the women.
Most women don’t want to play with the men.
This is true at my club anyway after asking quite a lot why “ I just don’t “ was the feeling.
Until that changes nothing will happen unless it’s forced on them with all comps being mixed.

.


Which is why I said that it would be a rare soul who can sort it . But it ought not prevent the attempt.

 

[Swango1980]

Well it was implied that the first tee wasn't available untill midday. At this time of year it will be light somewhere between 7:30-8:00 depending on weather, exact location etc.., so the ladies could in theory have this fully booked, with no chance to sneak off before them.

So, if teeing off the 1st is not an option, then the last possible moment one could tee off the 10th would be just before the first ladies arrive at the 10th. So, if multiple golfers wanted to play, they'd have to tee off the 10th before this. It makes it more and more likely that those that tee off earliest off the 10th, and those after, will end up getting to the 1st as ladies are still teeing off.

The OP says the ladies tee off from 9am to 1:15pm. I'll estimate the first ladies could reach the 10th by 10:30 / 11am, depending on how quick they are. So, to be safe, maybe the last opportunity in teeing off the 10th for a man would be 10:30am. If that group of men take 2 hours to play back 9 (could be quicker), they get to the 1st at 12:30. So, they then have to wait 45 minutes / 1 hour before playing the front 9. Of course, if any other men want to play, they need to get out on the 10th before 10:30, and their delays will be even greater.

I don't think it will work.

 

[Dibby]

So, if teeing off the 1st is not an option, then the last possible moment one could tee off the 10th would be just before the first ladies arrive at the 10th. So, if multiple golfers wanted to play, they'd have to tee off the 10th before this. It makes it more and more likely that those that tee off earliest off the 10th, and those after, will end up getting to the 1st as ladies are still teeing off.

The OP says the ladies tee off from 9am to 1:15pm. I'll estimate the first ladies could reach the 10th by 10:30 / 11am, depending on how quick they are. So, to be safe, maybe the last opportunity in teeing off the 10th for a man would be 10:30am. If that group of men take 2 hours to play back 9 (could be quicker), they get to the 1st at 12:30. So, they then have to wait 45 minutes / 1 hour before playing the front 9. Of course, if any other men want to play, they need to get out on the 10th before 10:30, and their delays will be even greater.

I don't think it will work.

I think it has more chance than getting the ladies tee booking removed. I am pretty sure that however many 5 day male members inconvenienced by the ladies comp that there are, they will be outvoted by the approximate 70+ female members who apparently play every tuesday, and noone else would be that bothered, especially as most other members would see the risk of losing Saturday mens only comps as the potentially price to pay for this.

It is also a lot easier than taking legal action, as if the club can claim there is a legimate aim of the discrimination its not illegal. Presumably that aim would be to encourage women into golf, which will be valid as the demographic data shows women are a huge minority in golf.

So given the choice of fighting these battles, or being able to enjoy 18 holes with a short lunchbreak in the middle, I know which option I would choose. Either that or leave and move to another club, however if you like pushing water uphill take on the battle!

 

[Swango1980]

I think it has more chance than getting the ladies tee booking removed. I am pretty sure that however many 5 day male members inconvenienced by the ladies comp that there are, they will be outvoted by the approximate 70+ female members who apparently play every tuesday, and noone else would be that bothered, especially as most other members would see the risk of losing Saturday mens only comps as the potentially price to pay for this.

It is also a lot easier than taking legal action, as if the club can claim there is a legimate aim of the discrimination its not illegal. Presumably that aim would be to encourage women into golf, which will be valid as the demographic data shows women are a huge minority in golf.

So given the choice of fighting these battles, or being able to enjoy 18 holes with a short lunchbreak in the middle, I know which option I would choose. Either that or leave and move to another club, however if you like pushing water uphill take on the battle!

If a vote was put to the club, and 95% said they wanted to keep Men Saturdays, 5 % did not. And 95% said they were happy with having a ladies day on Tuesday, 5% were unhappy. Would the club be charged with discrimination if one of the 5% decided to take on a legal challenge? If so, should the club do away with these men and lady days completely, even if it is the least preferred option for 95% of members?

I don't know the answer btw. But if current members are generally happy, and there is not a mass of non-members who are unhappy and would join if it wasn't for these restrictions, then surely the club are acting in the best interest of its members as it stands? Albeit, I understand that 5 day members may rightly feel they are not getting what they pay for. Therefore, if that is an issue, perhaps a review of the membership grades available requires attention.

 

[Dibby]

If a vote was put to the club, and 95% said they wanted to keep Men Saturdays, 5 % did not. And 95% said they were happy with having a ladies day on Tuesday, 5% were unhappy. Would the club be charged with discrimination if one of the 5% decided to take on a legal challenge? If so, should the club do away with these men and lady days completely, even if it is the least preferred option for 95% of members?

I don't know the answer btw. But if current members are generally happy, and there is not a mass of non-members who are unhappy and would join if it wasn't for these restrictions, then surely the club are acting in the best interest of its members as it stands? Albeit, I understand that 5 day members may rightly feel they are not getting what they pay for. Therefore, if that is an issue, perhaps a review of the membership grades available requires attention.

There is no blanket answer. Discrimination is legally not as black and white as people like to think it is. It is legal if it has legitmate aims. Both these examples could probably be argued as legitimate aims, one would be encouraging women into golf, and the mens Saturdays could be something like increasing revenue for the club - if it can be shown this happens.

 

[Bdill93]

I'm surprised that, when the days are short, the end time of a morning/early afternoon block tee reservation isn't pulled in to enable others not playing in the reserved times to get a full round in. And that should apply to ANY and ALL tee reservations for specific 'groups' of members.

Not sure I follow you here... might have misunderstood

If the comps arent full they do open back up tees for booking.. is that what you meant? The system we have never causes issues to be fair!

 

[Newton]

So, if teeing off the 1st is not an option, then the last possible moment one could tee off the 10th would be just before the first ladies arrive at the 10th. So, if multiple golfers wanted to play, they'd have to tee off the 10th before this. It makes it more and more likely that those that tee off earliest off the 10th, and those after, will end up getting to the 1st as ladies are still teeing off.

The OP says the ladies tee off from 9am to 1:15pm. I'll estimate the first ladies could reach the 10th by 10:30 / 11am, depending on how quick they are. So, to be safe, maybe the last opportunity in teeing off the 10th for a man would be 10:30am. If that group of men take 2 hours to play back 9 (could be quicker), they get to the 1st at 12:30. So, they then have to wait 45 minutes / 1 hour before playing the front 9. Of course, if any other men want to play, they need to get out on the 10th before 10:30, and their delays will be even greater.

I don't think it will work.

Exactly that

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Not sure I follow you here... might have misunderstood

If the comps arent full they do open back up tees for booking.. is that what you meant? The system we have never causes issues to be fair!

If the 1st tee is reserved for a period for a particular group/roll-up/comp and the reservation normally runs into early afternoon - say from 10am to 1pm then at this time of year maybe the reservation should be pulled back to end at say noon to enable ANYONE to book at tee time from noon. This does not stop anyone normally playing in the rollup/comp from playing in the rollup/comp - they just take their chances with every other member wishing to book a tee time.

If there might be empty tee times in a reserved period at this time of year then that's not great - and it would be better for the reserved period to be reduced to ensure all reserved times are used.

 

[Newton]

If a vote was put to the club, and 95% said they wanted to keep Men Saturdays, 5 % did not. And 95% said they were happy with having a ladies day on Tuesday, 5% were unhappy. Would the club be charged with discrimination if one of the 5% decided to take on a legal challenge? If so, should the club do away with these men and lady days completely, even if it is the least preferred option for 95% of members?

Nail on the head.....and therein lies the problem

I think those percentages would probably be not far from being accurate should a vote be taken.

So, from comments received, it seems there is a discrimination case to answered but I guess I (we) have to decide whether its worth being part of the 5% that upset the status quo by taking the matter further.

 

[Dibby]

Nail on the head.....and therein lies the problem

I think those percentages would probably be not far from being accurate should a vote be taken.

So, from comments received, it seems there is a discrimination case to answered but I guess I (we) have to decide whether its worth being part of the 5% that upset the status quo by taking the matter further.

I am not following, what do you think the grounds of the discrimination case would be?

As per my previous post, discrimination doesn't work like most people think it does. It is legal if it has legitimate aims, which both of these instances could be argued to have.

 

[Newton]

If the 1st tee is reserved for a period for a particular group/roll-up/comp and the reservation normally runs into early afternoon - say from 10am to 1pm then at this time of year maybe the reservation should be pulled back to end at say noon to enable ANYONE to book at tee time from noon. This does not stop anyone normally playing in the rollup/comp from playing in the rollup/comp - they just take their chances with every other member wishing to book a tee time.

If there might be empty tee times in a reserved period at this time of year then that's not great - and it would be better for the reserved period to be reduced to ensure all reserved times are used.

It used to be that a midday tee time was possible as the pro released tee times back for general play if, say, the last ladies were off at 11.30.
But the growth in the ladies section has impacted on this arrangement.
That said, there are some gaps in the start sheet, which if condensed, would reduce their allocation by 30 minutes or so.

 

[Newton]

I am not following, what do you think the grounds of the discrimination case would be?

As per my previous post, discrimination doesn't work like most people think it does. It is legal if it has legitimate aims, which both of these instances could be argued to have.

Put simply, as a 5 day member, I pay exactly the same fees as my female equivalent, BUT, due to my gender I have less access to the course compared to a lady golfer.

 

[Grant85]

Apologies.
I know there’s another similar titled thread on the forum at the moment but I feel the subject matter is a little different to this one.
I’ve been a member at my local club for around 10 years now.
We have 3 categories of membership:
7 day – gents only, includes Saturday competition day
5 and 6 day – open to gents and ladies
I am 5 day member. I am only able to play midweek golf due to family commitments at weekends. My fees are the same as a lady 5 day member.
Likewise the 6 day membership fees for gents and ladies are the same.
We have a thriving Ladies section and they have a longstanding arrangement of a block booking on Tues mornings for their own competition.
Previously, gents could have expected to access the 1st tee just after 12pm on Tues but due to the expanding lady membership this block booking now runs from 9am through to 1.15pm.
In summer this does not present a problem, but at this time of year, it’s going dark by 3.45pm, and therefore impossible for my midweek 4 ball to play anywhere near a full round.
We feel we have in effect lost 20% of our playing privileges as we can no longer access the course on Tuesdays.
I don’t want to appear as some kind of misogynist. I have welcomed the growth in the Ladies section at our club. But in pure black and white terms, I am paying the same fees as a lady 5 day member but enjoying considerably less access to the course than my female equivalent.
I’m pretty sure there would be cries of “sex discrimination” if the shoe were on the other foot and ladies were being asked to pay the same as gents but for less playing access.
A lady who I broached this with retorted “but gents have their Saturday competition day”.
But surely that’s an irrelevance and not ‘comparing apples with apples’? 7 day members pay a considerable premium for their extra day’s golf.
Is it unreasonable to either look for parity with a lady who pays the same fees as myself or an adjustment to membership fees to acknowledge different playing privileges?
I’m pretty sure this issue must have cropped up elsewhere. Any observations would be welcomed.
Thanks.

Personally think when demand outstrips supply, there must be a fair way of giving everyone a shot of the 'peak' tee times.

I believe my course has ladies groups slotted in on Saturdays so that they are not resigned to teeing off after 3pm when a gents competition has gotten through all tee times.

 

[Dibby]

Put simply, as a 5 day member, I pay exactly the same fees as my female equivalent, BUT, due to my gender I have less access to the course compared to a lady golfer.

Which the club could argue is intentional discrimination with a legitmate aim - to encourage more women to play golf. Given women are a minority demographic in golf this would be perfectly conceivable and likely lawful discrimination.

 

[DanFST]

Which the club could argue is intentional discrimination with a legitmate aim - to encourage more women to play golf. Given women are a minority demographic in golf this would be perfectly conceivable and likely lawful discrimination.

I hate that, But I think you are right.

My friend missed out on representing R.S.A at the olympics because of their quota system.

 

[Newton]

Which the club could argue is intentional discrimination with a legitmate aim - to encourage more women to play golf. Given women are a minority demographic in golf this would be perfectly conceivable and likely lawful discrimination.

Thanks. When I asked for observations in my original post, this was the kind of counter argument I had in the back of my mind.
I don't want to back myself into a corner on a discrimination agenda, if this doesn't hold water from a legal standpoint.
I figured the subject matter must have been debated up and down the country at some point, so it's interesting that yours is the first post that effectively says "yes, it's discrimination but it's legal".

 

[Dibby]

Considering they don’t allow women to play on Saturdays I think that particular argument would be dead in the water.

How so?
Each event is independent of the other, providing facilities for women on one day, and not on another doesn't necessarily negate the first provision of those facilities.

If only allowing men to play on Saturdays provides more revenue for the club, that could also be considered a legimate aim, completely independent of the clubs other aim to encourage women to play golf.

Therefore the club lawfully discriminates multiple times to achieve 2 legimate aims.

 

[Dibby]

Thanks. When I asked for observations in my original post, this was the kind of counter argument I had in the back of my mind.
I don't want to back myself into a corner on a discrimination agenda, if this doesn't hold water from a legal standpoint.
I figured the subject matter must have been debated up and down the country at some point, so it's interesting that yours is the first post that effectively says "yes, it's discrimination but it's legal".

Just to be clear, my main point was that discrimination is not as black and white as people think and it can be legal to discriminate against protected characteristics in certain circumstances.

The actual outcome of any legal action would depend on all the facts and how the judge interpreted them. Whilst encouraging women into golf is a legimate aim, it would be considered whether the method of doing it was proportionate. For example chargine women £1 for the same membership that a man pays £1500 for would likely be considered not proportionate. However I think it's likely that allowing a womens only competition during a single weekday morning is considered reasonable to achieve this aim.

I would suspect that only offering 7 day memberships to men is far more at risk of being perceived as unlawful discrimination.

 

[Dibby]

Don’t know if you’re a lawyer (I’m certainly not) in which case I’ll bow to your greater knowledge. But it’s hard to reconcile that it’s ok to discrimate against women on Saturday and for them on Tuesday and vice versa for men.

It's not that it's ok to discriminate equally, it’s that each act of discrimination is independent. It's possible either, both or neither could be lawful. One being lawful doesn't automatically make the other lawful or unlawful.

In actuality I would suspect that not offering a category of membership to women whilst offering it to men the most likely unlawful discrimination that is happening here.