Will Augusta National Stand Its Ground?
March 30, 2012
HENRY E. McCULLOCH writes:
Remember the feminista kerfuffle early in the decade just past about forcing the Augusta National golf club to go co-ed because one Martha Burk, CEO of something-or-other, thought membership somehow was her due? Augusta stood its ground, and Martha and her legion of perpetually aggrieved Amazons eventually went away. Well, they’re baaack, this time because IBM has appointed a lady CEO, Virginia Rometty, who must be A Very Serious Person, because she is “a 31-year veteran of IBM who has been ranked among the “50 Most Powerful Women in Business” by Fortune magazine the last seven years. Rometty was No. 7 last year.”
What won’t these people try to mess up? Is there any limit to the furia feminista? Or is this a fit of grief-fuelled aggression brought on by the timely demise of Adrienne Rich? As for Adrienne, when she found herself before the Pearly Gates, I hope she didn’t find Saint Peter too misogynist for her taste (although how could she not?).
Laura writes:
Once you accept radical equality in corporate management, all-male recreational activities for executives become unacceptable, a sinister barrier to upwardly-mobile women.
As a result, these recreational activities become less fun for men. And the wives of corporate executives must spend time alone while their husbands are at business-related social events with other women.
None of this is in the interest of ordinary men and women. It’s all geared for a small minority of aggrieved feminists who probably could care less about golf.
In its refusal to give in, Augusta National has been a beacon of hope.
— End of Initial Entry —
Robert writes:
There may be other factors that make the women return to the subject of work. Women who make it to executive positions often don’t have much in common with the men, who tend to have more conventional familiy lives.
Marky Mark writes:
Your commenter, Robert, said that when female colleagues were part of outings outside of work, that they’d always talk about work. I think that this is, at least in part, because the women want to ‘be taken seriously.’ They think that, by focusing on work, that they are showing their male colleagues that they’re being ‘serious’, and thus are to be taken seriously. This is the kind of garbage women are taught all the time.
Buck writes:
This is fascinating and it ties in with your next entry. It’s fascinating to me, also, because I’ve had no hands-on experience with it. The last job that I held was in an all male work force 35 years ago. In my subsequent construction business women assumed traditional roles, with only the rarest of exceptions. But, you only have to be awake to intuit that all of this rings true.
Read what the lead blogger Maggie regulary writes about her career and associated life. Note her photo. She seems to approach her work as if it is her life’s battleground; on which, at all cost, she must succeed and where she must lead others to victory. It’s her against the world as the superwoman even as she demures that she is not. She’s a warrior, life her foe. She takes on all comers and vanquishes one after the other. She mentions a husband and child as if they are routine logistical requirements that any good commander must manage well, along with admin, comm and intel. She makes it clear that she is focused on her mission and some victory, though it isn’t clear who the mythical foe or what the mythical prize is. Perhaps full autonomy and self-actualization?
I just went to get a link and came across this new blog; A Girls Guide To Law School. You have to read this. Diane, in the first comment nails it. Then Alison and Joe add support. (This is not an April fools joke.)
