Posted on 05/25/2003 11:41:45 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
That Golfer Has Ovaries—Love Her!
By Joseph J. Sabia
In the face of overwhelming public support, Annika Sorenstam bravely broke the PGA sex barrier at the Colonial and…choked. Early reports indicate that the main reason for her poor performance was that she putted like a girl. After finishing 5-over par at the end of two rounds, Annika was forced to take a powder (literally), leaving the green in tears. (Sadly, she had a hard time finding her way off the green due to her inability to read a map.) Annika has been receiving accolades from all corners of the political (and sports) world for becoming the first woman in 58 years to play a PGA Tour event. Conservatives and liberals alike have praised this woman for her “inspirational” performance at the Colonial. The headlines were hard to ignore.
On May 23, the Boston Herald ran the front-page headline “Annika proving she’s on par with the boys.” On the back-page of the same newspaper on the same day the Herald ran the headlines “You the woman” and “Classy Sorenstam wows ‘em on PGA Tour.” Just in case Herald readers weren’t sure who to root for, the following headlines were included inside the May 23 issue: “Annika shows PGA how it’s done” and “Fans hope Annika putts duffers in their place.” Get it? LOVE HER!
After Annika failed to make the cut, the Herald was undaunted, carrying the following headlines in their May 24 edition: “Trailblazing Sorenstam misses Colonial cut,” “Annika out, but climb to history cut-and-dried,” and “Socially speaking, Sorenstam on a role.” On May 25, the Herald reversed itself, blaring a headline that could have been penned by Jayson Blair: “Annika can cut it.”
On May 23, The San Jose Mercury News declared “Sorenstam shows ‘em.” Shows who? The chauvinists? The naysayers? The lesbians? Who? On the same day, USA Today blared “Sorenstam hangs with guys.” The Denver Rocky Mountain News proclaimed “For girls, Annika in ‘fore’ front.”
The Chicago Tribune gave Annika a branch of the armed forces, asking “Annika’s army has momentum, but for how long?” (I think she's in a quagmire.) The New York Times’ Dave Anderson demanded to know “Can Sorenstam, at Center Stage, Inspire a Mixed U.S. Open?” The Associated Press lamented Annika’s defeat, running the Bop-style headline “Sorenstam doesn’t make cut, but still hot.”
On the political talk shows, almost all pundits have supported Annika’s appearance at the Colonial—from Fred Barnes and Rush Limbaugh on the right to Bill Press and Alan Colmes on the left. Even President George W. Bush weighed in, saying, “I'm impressed by Annika Sorenstam. I hope she makes the cut. I'm pulling for her.” Reporters and politicians have been positively orgasmic, crowning Annika the new Susan B. Anthony. In political circles, only Pat Buchanan and nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mike Gallagher have been vocal in their opposition to Annika’s stunt.
Annika has no business playing in the all-male PGA. Women are physically different from men and as such do not have the same aptitudes in sports. Golf is no exception. To pretend otherwise is delusional. Annika did not qualify to play the Colonial in the same way that men did—the PGA gave her preferential treatment because she was a circus act.
“But Sabia,” you say, “even though Annika didn’t make the cut, she did finish better than eleven other guys out there. So women can compete with men. Come on—stop being a sexist pig.”
No, I will do no such thing. First, the eleven guys that were beaten by a chick should turn in their manhood cards immediately and start new careers befitting their statures; maybe organizing Sex in the City fan clubs or something. Second, just because a woman scores a fluke and beats a few men does not mean that she is qualified to golf in the PGA. An unqualified black kid who is admitted to an elite college based on a racial preference scheme may manage to avoid finishing last in his class, but that doesn’t mean that he ought to be there. The same holds for Annika.
Lady golfers have their own little golfing group, the LPGA. There, they can pretend that they are real golfers and stay out of men’s way. It’s like the WNBA for basketball players or the WTA for tennis players.
The Annika Sorenstam saga is a dream come true for shrill feminists who want no societal distinctions between men and women. These feminists have had their agenda aided by politically correct politicians and prissy sports reporters who have found another front to fight the Augusta National war. Politically correct feminists have secured a major victory with Annika Sorenstam. Their goal of integrated sports teams has been advanced. And once again, conservatives have failed to speak out on an important aspect of the culture war.
Is my view on this matter extreme? Am I out of touch? Well, at least one babe agrees with me: Annika Sorenstam. In a television interview following her lackluster performance, she wailed:
“I’m not as tough as I thought I was. I was way over my head…No, I won’t reconsider (and try it again). I’m very thankful and honored to have been here, but I know where I belong and I’m going to go back [to the LGPA].”
Good for Annika. She knows her place. Why won’t feminists learn theirs?
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.