Posted on 05/25/2003 11:41:45 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
Yeah, really. I'm no golf expert, but I have played a few times, and I honestly don't see where the obvious male/female physical differences are going to play any major role here. That game is 90% skill, 10% strength (or in my case an even 5% split on strength and rage!).
Bank of America got the publicity they wanted, and adhered to their rules to get her in the event. It might have been better if she had qualified instead of getting the exemption, but that's rather picky.
The only problem I have is the inherent hypocrisy of "the women's movement" supporters. There are 3 possible arrangements, two of which are fair and equal. They, of course, desperately promote the third, which is one-sided, sexist, and hypocritical. Those arrangements:
1) All tournaments (in the PGA and LPGA) are open to all, without regard to gender. All qualifying rules, tee selection, and requirements are the same, regardless of gender.
2) The PGA and LPGA are open only to those of their respective genders.
3) The PGA must accept women, while the LPGA excludes all males. This patently unfair position is, of course, what most "enlightened" women avidly advocate today.
Either women's groups continue their moronic "women are the same as men" ideology and qualify under the same conditions as men, or they accept the "separate but equal" solution of two golf associations and stop whining about being excluded from the PGA when they exclude men fron the LPGA. These are the only two fair approaches. Anything else is unequal treatment for two gender-defined groups, an oddly common position for today's women's groups who promote themselves as fighting for gender equity.
Pray for GW and Our Troops
I'm still trying to figure this one out.
She finished in the bottom 10% OF THE FIELD. I'm sure the PGA could have gotten 100,000 amateurs to have matched Sorenstam's "inspirational" performance if THAT was what this stunt was all about....
99,900 would have been men.
Yeah Sabia, you are.
You're a superficial jerk.
There's not a doggone thing wrong with women competing against men in the PGA, if they want to.
The question is: why would they want to when human evolution gives men a distinctive physical advantage?
Why should women want to compete in a sport where Nature has already predetermined that the best women will NEVER beat the best men?
The evidence is already clear from other athletic events where men and women perform identical tasks:
Track and Field:
100m dash: men - 9.78 sec; women - 10.49 sec
Mile run: men - 3:43.13; women - 4:12.56
Long jump: men - 29' 4.5"; women - 24' 8.25"
Swimming: 400m individual medley: men - 4:10.73; women - 4:33.59
And so on and so on....
There is no need to bar women from competing directly against men in any of these events. In fact, if a woman should ever happen to win, it would be a remarkable athletic achievement that I'd truly love to witness. The trouble is: nature already dictates that it ain't gonna happen.
So why should women want to compete against men?
Motivational theory teaches us that goals must be percieved as realisticly achievable, otherwise they simply become a source of continous frustration and discouragement. So why should they want to compete in the contest that they have no chance of winning?
I imagine it is simply for the challenge, to see how they measure up.
I have no problems with that. Women at the top of the field in their own league have earned the right to demonstrate their skills against male competitors. I see no reason for mocking their efforts to achieve the impossible.
Similarly, I see no reason to denigrate the existance of the women-only restrictions of the LPGA. The purpose of the LPGA is to encourage female participation in golf both competitively and recreationally. I have no problems with that either.
Your pal is 100% correct-o-mundo!
I get a laugh out of the people who get mad over people who say golf isn't a sport. they need to get over it. or do they carry a little note book around to write down everytime someone does something they don't like?
MAY 26, 2003: CHARLIE BABBET GRABBED AND PULLED AND HURT MY NECK. AND SAID GOLF ISN'T A SPORT
But...there I do see some similarities in other sports debates. Judo and TaeKwonDo are often derided as being sports and not real martial arts... but there are plenty of injuries. could that be the factor? With all the heart attacks on the golf course, maybe golf IS a sport.
Then you need to get out more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.