Twinkle: It's Called *Junior* League for a Reason, People

It looks like I have another bee in my bonnet about Junior League.

Have you all seen that fall membership survey? Giving my opinion was fun at first...I was thoroughly enjoying letting the League know that I think they should make things more fun and focus less on the business side of things and more on the social side (which is why I believe the average member joins). As we've said many times, no one wants to go to work after work. (And I'm counting stay-at-home-mothering as work, too; we need a fun outlet at the end of the day as much as anyone else...plus no one wants to waste a night of childcare on something that's not fun). So I was telling them in my own, nice way, what I thought about things.

And then I got to this question: I define diversity as (check all that apply).

The ones I checked were:

Race/ethnicity and Religious Affiliation because I think we can all agree that these factors make an organization more or less diverse.

Working/Stay-at-home parent because I wish there were more acknowledgement of different people's schedules in the League. (And why can't they just say stay-at-home-mother...I know stay-at-home-parent sounds all modern and enlightened, but it seems a bit pointless when any League member who is a parent is, by default, a mother. Since we don't let men in the League and all).

The ones I did not check were as follows:

Age: because we're the JUNIOR League.

Zip Code:: because I'm a snobby b*tch.

Sexual Orientation: because I don't care or need to know who you're doing in order to be your friend and have cocktails/do good works with you. And because I really can't envision myself saying the words, "You're a lesbian? Well have I got the group for you!"

Socioeconomic strata: because there has to be a difference between our members and the people we help.

Job description (professional vs. nonprofessional): because the last thing I want to do is recruit my cleaning woman (God bless her) to be a member of the Junior League.

Level of Education: because I don't think it's going to improve the organization to recruit a bunch of GED recipients, okay? I know it's an unpopular opinion these days, but have some standards people. I'm not saying we should make a college degree mandatory (although, what's so bad about that?), but do we really have to recruit the entire '09 associates degree class from Ivy Tech, just to be diverse? Since when did having educated members become a bad thing for an organization?

And, if we are to think about this from a practical perspective, how are all these poor, uneducated, "professionally-diverse" new members going to pay their dues, buy the cookbooks, attend fundraisers, or donate to the annual giving and endowment funds?

Then we had to give the percentage of diversity increase that we'd like to see for the next year, based on our definition of diversity, and that's what really put me over the edge. Because of this question I'm not filling out the survey at all (that'll show 'em). I hate percentages, and there is something that feels sleazy to me about checking a percentage. I don't understand why we can't just recruit our friends/co-workers/relatives/aquaintances who are fun and want to be volunteers, regardless of what they look like or believe, without breaking it down into a mathematical equation.

A very wise woman was correct when she said they're going to succeed in driving a 90-year-old organization into the ground. Why do I care so much? Because the League brought me all of you, and I love it and want to see it thrive. I just wish it would stop having this ridiculous identity crisis, embrace its identity, and get on with the business of doing good works and training volunteers.

And would it kill them to plan some sort of cocktail hour?