It’s a funny coincidence, but something tmagchesspgh brought up in the USCF Issues forum relates directly to a conversation I was having the other day:
I was talking with a local master who was adamant in his belief that a club should offer a lower dues rate for women, as an undisguised incentive. He’s far from the first person to come up with this idea – another local club does, in fact, offer lower dues for women, though I’m not aware that any women have taken that club up on its deal. Frankly, it always struck me as a little bit skeevy. Not to mention the first step on a slippery slope: if I want to increase diversity in my club, should I also offer a special “Latino rate,” for example? I think anyone would be weirded out by that.
Anyway, that evening, I ran the question past my girlfriend. Without being told who’d taken which side, she almost immediately recapitulated the master’s argument – then paused, said, “On the other hand . . . ,” and recapitulated mine! The next day, she e-mailed me: “Was thinking again about your question regarding discounted rates for women at a chess club and I do think it could come across as condescending. If you really want to attract women (or any minority) you should get them involved in the organizing process.”
Has anyone else out there tried offering a special dues rate to women, and if so, has it been received mainly positively or negatively? Has anyone had success recruiting women into club leadership positions, and if so, has that had any appreciable effect on women’s participation? What other ways have people employed to increase diversity of membership and participation in chess clubs?
For years, the Western Open and the North Central Open in Milwaukee always had plenty of women, with no discounted entry fees. One year (I think it was about 1975), they offered women an entry fee discount. No women played in the tournament that year.
I’m not sure there’s a cause and effect, though. Pearle Mann’s reign might have been ending about the same time.
I think Harkness believed that in order to get their participation, it might be necessary to lower the fee for kids or women or offer a family fee. His main point was that it was good to have women in a chess club.
In 1956, the attitude toward women was paternalistic, and too much so. The idea of equality was still a matter of political debate.
I have seen several clubs where women were involved in administration as well as in playing games with other members. The clubs functioned more smoothly, the social atmosphere was better. The women officers paid attention to details more than their male counterparts. The kids watched and taken care of. The records were organized. Events were run with precision. The behavior of the players was more civilized. In one club I attended, a woman came in and started to work on some files. Then she watered the plants and checked to see that the fridge was filled with drinks. She put on a pot of coffee. She played two games. Then she straightened up the tournament flyers and took some with her to make copies. The kids flocked to her to get chess puzzles to do. She made the guys clean up a spill. Played another game. None of the guys moved from their games to do anything. They teased a little kid who cried when he lost. She comforted the child.
When it is an all male club, things get a little rowdy at times, a little profane. Teasing goes to the edge and beyond. The guys often don’t clean up after themselves or put the sets away. Face it, we can be slobs. We do tend to behave better when women are around. Women impart an energy to a club that is positive.
I’m not so much concerned with having “a woman’s touch” as I am with, you know, basic equity. Having women around is less a matter of making sure spills get cleaned up and more an indicator that women accurately perceive themselves to be welcome in the environment and capable in the game.
That reminds me of the Evanston chess club, which is essentially a one-woman show. She runs weekend tournaments once every two months, and manages to attract strong players despite a $5 entry fee and no cash prizes. There is also casual play every week, and other events I am probably not even aware of. On top of that, she is an officer of the state association, and handles the tournament clearinghouse. More power to women like this!
Tournaments give incentives for play to juniors and senior citizens through smaller entry fees. Many chess clubs also charge kids and seniors less to belong; I know of a few which have family memberships. The fact is that there are fewer women in chess. Many suggestions have been made to incentivise their participation in the overall chess community. Tournament play is only a small part of the whole. Sometimes basic equity requires finding ways to make individuals welcome or lower obstacles to participation.
Let me clarify. I am not saying that we need women in chess to clean up. I think it would be a good thing if 50+% of the population were given some incentives to participate in chess. It would certainly make chess more attractive to advertisers.
Is this really an incentive, though, or more an acknowledgment that students and seniors typically don’t have the same kind of cash flow as the average adult?
Of course, bearing that in mind, I suppose a more politically assertive club could index women’s dues to the gap between women’s and men’s pay for the same work.
I really am not sure that even all women were allowed everything free at
every event that their numbers would be much greater. Really, most
tournament fees are very nominal, anyhow. By women, I do believe
you mean adults. I regularly visit 4 clubs in the Dallas/Fort Worth area,
and I think the total number of the adult women who actively play, is
under a half-dozen, and two of them are my adult daughters.
