I'd like to add a comment into the section about women competing in the men's ranks in golf. If Sorenstam can compete with the men...why can't the men compete with the women?
I've heard it argued time and time again, and the only thing half-way logical that the pro-women in men's league nazis have to say is, "Well, she just wants more competition, to play with the best. If she can handle it, why shouldn't she be able to?" I'll tell you why, you hypocritical sack of shit, it's because you can't simply integrate one gender into the other while still barring the reverse effect.
If you want to allow women to compete with men, that's fair...but you'll also have to realize that you're going to have to drop all of your ladies-only leagues as well. The L in LPGA will have to stand for Lesser, because now, instead of being a league for women, it's a league for good golfers who aren't good enough to make it into the PGA. Is that really what you want? To destroy a competitive group of reasonably equal females because a select few of the aforementioned can have the round of their life to find themselves in the middle of the pack of the higher group? Undoubtedly, doing this would only flood both leagues with talented men...leaving the vast majority of women who are pretty good (for a woman) with nowhere to showcase. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Of course, you can simply deny the men the ability to play in the league that, right now, is set aside for the women...but, if you can do that, why can't the men deny the women the right to play in their league? Because your arguments are hypocritical? That's not a very good reason...
The fact that Sorenstam can't hold her own against the men really doesn't even mean anything. She could be leading the pack by 30 strokes and my points would still be valid. You simply can't allow one type of inegration to occur without the other. It's reverse sexism, and I won't stand for it...err something.
[This message has been edited by Orgazmo (edited May 23, 2003).]
|