First published in Column Eight on the 13th
April, 1994 [our twentieth wedding anniversary!]
Golf (to quote Mark
Twain) is a good walk spoiled. Wordsworth claimed it was a day spent in
strenuous idleness.
I was interested,
therefore, to consider last week’s reports of the wimpy prizes given to the
girls participating in the PostBank Golf Tournament.
After an earlier
report we were present on Saturday with a gloomy photograph of a young ladies’
quartet (accompanied by towels) expressing all the injustice of coming second
in a ‘male’ world. There was no sign, however, of the jubilant males with their
barbies (barbecues, that is, not Barbie dolls).
Everyone would
agree that a set of towels appears to relate in no way value-wise to a barbie
or a CD player. Towels do have the advantage, however, of not needing the additional
purchase of a range of overpriced CDs or a couple of steaks before they can be
of use.
Towels, in fact,
could be seen as showing practical value, while CD players are frivolity. So maybe
the boys were worse off than the girls, since the boys’ effort was undermined
by frivolous prizes.
The young ladies,
ever creative, suggested golf-orientated prizes would have been more sensible.
Did they mean something appropriate like Tee-shirts? Or electric irons? Or lessons in how to make green tea using a caddy?
Ironically, this
little sage of pathetic prizes brought an inequity of a different sort out into
the open, the kind that rears its divot-shaped head not infrequently in
relation to areas which have tended to be mostly the fairway of males.
In this particular
case the inequity is in regard to the fees male golfers pay compared to those
handed over by females.
The theory is that
lower fees for females will encourage more women to participate in the sport. Thus
we have a schoolgirl paying $22.50 at the Otago Golf Club while a boy pays $33.
A female student pays only $56, however old she is. But 24-year-old male
students, for example, pay anything from $66 to $420 a year.
Politically I am
incorrect to speak of such things. But why the fuss on one hand, and not on the
other? To be truly objective, we should have had a photo of a quartet of boys
expressing bewilderment at being charged a higher rate of membership because
they happen to have been born male.
I appreciated the
comments made by Otago player, Shelley Duncan, who said she didn’t recall
feeling the prizes were unfair when she attended national high school
tournaments. Prizes, she said, have to
be kept in perspective. She added that women’s golf is now very strong.
If that’s the case,
why are the gents still subsidising the ladies?
And talking of gentlemen,
a couple or three came to the fore in this prize foray, two of them fathers who
made up the lack of value in prizes through their own generosity. (I have to say
something commendatory about this: one reads my column, and long ago we played
Suzuki violin together with our youthful female prodigies. Whoops! Old Boys’
network.)
Isn’t it
interesting that the spokesperson for the PostBank people was a woman who
seemed to have little sympathy for the unfairness caused to her sex, while men,
who were on the side of those getting the flak, came to the rescue?
Why should I wonder?
Such generosity towards daughters is just normal for us blokes. (Ask my
daughters. Ask Alan Duff!)
