LADY BOWLERS

Southland Times, Issue 19897, 16 June 1926, Page 8

LADY BOWLERS

MONOPOLISATION OF RINKS? MALE PLAYERS EXCLUDED. Some time ago the Southland Bowling Club decided on the novel step of admitting ladies on the rinks on the undertalcing that they were to play on afternoons only. Last December, however, the ladies’ privileges were extended and they were granted permission to play on evenings also. Apparently the game began to exercise some fascination for the feminine players and at last night’s meeting of the club several members complained that they had been unable to obtain games owing to the number of ladies on the rinks. The subject was raised by Mr A. M. Ayling, who said that members of the club coming down to the green for a game in the evening would often find it occupied by ladies and men. Personally, he did not think that bowls was a ladies’ game, but now that they were in the club they should be allowed to remain provided they understood the conditions under which they were allowed to play. The ex-president (Mr T. Crawley), said that at an executive meeting in 1925, the ladies had been allowed to play on evenings as well as on afternoons, on condition that they did not monopolise the green. He was sorry that there was not more lady members in the club, and he hoped that the privileges they now enjoyed should not be denied them. Mr Ayling replied that he was not claiming that the ladies had no right on the greens in the evenings. But frankly he felt that they were on the green too much, and he moved that they should be allowed to play on afternoons only. The motion was seconded by Mr J. H. Reed, who expressed similar opinions as the mover. Mr D. H. Thomson said that he was one of the prime movers in the proposal to include ladies in the club. He had never seen the rinks so crowded that men were unable to obtain a game. Two members stated that on occasions they had found the rinks so crowded that they had been unable to play. On the motion being put to the meeting it was declared carried, eight members out of 34 voting against it.