What’s your take on this?

[Lump]

What’s your take on this:
Thats nigh on £1.1k cheaper for your first year if your female.

 

[Backsticks]

Its a great deal, certainly, and an excellent move to draw more women into golf.

 

[Hobbit]

Wish I lived closer. Not played Strensall for many years and would have loved to have been a member there. Stunning course and a great deal for those who are a distance from there. Wouldn’t mind full membership at that price too.

 

[backwoodsman]

Oh dear, I'll get the popcorn ...

IMO, a good idea if the club thinks women are under represented in the membership.

 

[Jamesbrown]

Nice prices! Cheap enough already without undervaluing it and I see no age category’s either.

 

[Wabinez]

No dramas. Try and encourage new players into a struggling demographic at the club.

one of my memberships was taken up as it was for ‘under 40s’ and offered a great rate and no joining fee. Absolute no brainer

 

[pauljames87]

How dare they have it cheaper.. next they will want equal pay and the vote..

Nothing wrong with targeting membership where your numbers lack

 

[evemccc]

Ideology..
The bizarre problematising of every quirk in society

Different people are drawn to different things, but people confuse social problems with sociological quirks

And the conflation with equal pay 🤪🤪🤪🤪

It’s not a social problem that 50 yr olds and above don’t tend to listen to drill and grind music, it’s not a social problem that boxercise and Pilates classes are generally overwhelmingly full of women and it’s not a social problem that grassroots cricket in England and is ‘overrepresented’ in terms of overall demographic trends, by south Asian heritage kids…likewise

Eg
“Is women’s golf too East Asian???”

Sociological quirks don’t equate to social problems, but the prevailing ideology seems to think it is something that ‘must’ be done 🤪

 

[Mel Smooth]

No clubs should have different rates and options for females.


The club is discriminating based on gender. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[IanM]

It is great as an initiative to increase participation.

I'm sure the women only gyms in my town will be offering similar deals to men soon!

And therin lies the amusement. Sexist policies are bad, but only some are bad

 

[Wabinez]

No clubs should have different rates and options for females.


The club is discriminating based on gender. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

it’s not discrimination. It’s ‘positive action’ whereby a club can target people with a protected characteristic (in this case, gender), with reduced membership fees if they see low participation from said group.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...quality-law-means-your-membership-association

 

[Mel Smooth]

it’s not discrimination. It’s ‘positive action’ whereby a club can target people with a protected characteristic (in this case, gender), with reduced membership fees if they see low participation from said group.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...quality-law-means-your-membership-association

No problem, I'll identify as a woman and save myself a thousand quid then.

 

[Mel Smooth]

Oh dear, I'll get the popcorn ...

IMO, a good idea if the club thinks women are under represented in the membership.

They have 100 female members, I'd say that's a pretty healthy number - now is it a result of the club being a great place for women to play golf, or is it because it's cheap - I don't know the answer to that myself of course.

 

[Imurg]

Although it's great to have thriving, mixed sections within a club, does it really matter to the club if no women or juniors want to be members at the going rate but the men can fill the gaps.?
From a business perspective, the club want to maximise income.
If the, say, 50 women who take up the half price offer are replaced by men paying full price..isn't that, financially, better for the club?
If the product is good enough, appealing enough and available enough then people will use it.
Does it matter if they're men or women..?

 

[pauljames87]

No problem, I'll identify as a woman and save myself a thousand quid then.

Want to hope they don't have men only comps as you will be locked out.

 

[BiMGuy]

No problem, I'll identify as a woman and save myself a thousand quid then.

Do let us know how you get on!

 

[Wabinez]

No problem, I'll identify as a woman and save myself a thousand quid then.

crack on with that.

god knows what you’ll do in the 2nd year when the membership goes up to full cost.

re-identify as a man?

 

[Mel Smooth]

Want to hope they don't have men only comps as you will be locked out.

Well that would be sexual discrimination also.

From the link that Wabinez posted.


For example:
A tennis club cannot charge a woman a higher joining fee than a man even if it has a reason for this, such as saying that women are likely to use the facilities more often. This is likely to be direct discrimination because of sex. A better approach would be to charge members different rates according to when or how much they use the facilities.
If the club does decide to set up a cheaper class of membership for people who use the club less often, then both forms of membership must be open to everyone on the same terms. It would not be acceptable to have one type of membership for women and a different, lesser type of membership for men, or the other way round.

So, you can't have men only comps if you have different rates for different genders.

 

[Mel Smooth]

crack on with that.

god knows what you’ll do in the 2nd year when the membership goes up to full cost.

re-identify as a man?

Obviously - although it shouldn't matter.

 

[Hobbit]

I missed the bit where it’s says “women.” Clubs are in transition with some having comps open to all and some still having separate comps. It’s a ‘backdoor’ return to different fees based on gender. I don’t disagree with affirmative action(positive discrimination) with some issues but in this case it discriminates against some men based on affordability.

If a man wanted to join there but can only afford £600 in the first year he wouldn’t/couldn’t join. But a woman who could afford the full joining fee + annual subs(£1600) gets in for £600. It’s elitist in that respect.

I’m not arguing for or against, I’m genuinely not interested, I’m only pointing out its elitist based on affordability.