Well, I kind of agree with Campbell (sorry); she can either continue missing cuts at PGA tournaments or challenge Annika Sorenstam for major tournament wins on the LPGA tour. Playing in pressure situations on the weekend is going to help her name, not sitting it out because the sponsor wants to sell a few extra tickets.

I have to agree with Michael Campbell. He's making the point that she hasn't yet won a women's golf tournament (maybe she has, but that's the impression I get from his statement), so why is she getting a go-ahead to play with the men? Yes, it's a gendered sport and I do think women should be able to play in men's tournaments and vice versa. But, as things stand now, a professional woman golfer playing with professional male golfers is a little unusual. And why should someone who has yet to win in an all female tournament get to play in a male tournament? What about the women golfers who've won tournaments but aren't as "sellable" as Michelle Wie? Why haven't they been given a "sponsor's exemption"? He may not be speaking to that exactly, but, I can sympathize with his position.

I would think that liberals would deplore Michelle Wie getting a free pass into mens tournaments simply because she's young and cute. I mean, if it was because of her golf skill, why aren't the women who routinely kick her ass on the women's tour (remember, she's never won an LPGA event) afforded the same luxury?

C, I think we're all clear that she gets into men's tournaments on a sponsor's exemption, which is based on marketing, not merit.

As to routinely kicking her ass, she missed a playoff by one hole at the Kraft Nabisco -- there's only one winner in a golf tournament, and she finishes well all the time. At 16 years of age. Did you finish well among professional competitors at anything when you were 16?

She competes against men in part because among the women (unlike Sorenstam, who has a brilliant short-game but not much length on the tee), her game is a good match. She can hit from the fairway with the guys and carry the same stuff they can carry. If she's dealing with the psychological stuff now, then when she's 18 or 20 and her game has fully matured, she has a much better chance of being in contention for the green jacket. And if Hootie isn't dead, that'll kill him.

I thought she qualified for some or another mens even a few weeks back? Amyone remember this? I think if she can make the cut in a mens event she should be allowed in if she feels like doing the LPGA or not.

Oh I found it

Michelle Wie has become the first female to qualify for an adult male US Golf Association championship.

Thats from last year, if she keeps making the cut I dont see why she should have to play the ladies first, I mean womens golf isn't the official minor leagues for the PGA tour.

Let's look at it this way: Say, just on a wild supposition, that Michelle Wie actually makes the cut in a PGA tournament.

Let's get really crazy, and suppose that she is on the leaderboard on Sunday.

Let's stash our grasp on reality under the couch cushions, and ponder what would happen if she actually won the Greater Podunk open, against a weak field, say at the tail end of the season, when all the top hitters have gone home for the season, with next year's cards firmly in their pockets.

She's made.

She's a glorious icon for ever. She'll be feted, and cheered, and invoked as a shining symbol of greatness - the kind of status that Jackie Robinson should have gotten, but never did until years after he died.

And she would have proven that she's as good as...

Dave Barr.

How, exactly, is she being discriminated against?

There are a lot of guys trying to scratch their way up the money list, to avoid the Bataan death march re-enactment which is the Q-school, who would wash dishes, clean the locker rooms and do valet parking for a sponsor's exemption. Guys who could beat Michelle Wie, on any course, on any day, more often than not.

By the time I think about her, I've used up all my sympathy for them.

She either qualified on her own or made the cut recently, I can't remember which -- good for her I say, that's a major accomplishment and she totally earned it.

I personally think she should stick around the LPGA for a while instead of chasing the ghost on the men's tour for now. Because right now she's basically battling for 2 days to make cuts, instead of playing the entire weekend and getting a taste of the competition of vying for a tournament title, and that crunch-time experience will pay off for her greatly in the long run, especially with a few titles under her belt.

She's just trying to speed through everything so quickly, and for being such an amazing young talent, I fear for her burning out on it and being left with nothing.

Also, don't the men play a longer course with higher grass? Maybe she doesn't want to get used to easier game. Maybe she wants to come up playing the men's game all the way. People usually rise to level of the challenge maybe it will make her game better in the long run.

The problem here, to me, is that LPGA golf is clearly considered (even among the commenters on this post) a sort of minor league to PGA golf. As though you can only play with the A team after doing your time with the B team.

Anyway, if she wants compete with men, what is winning in the LPGA going to prove, besides that she can beat women? If she's to "prove" whether she's good enough to play with men, isn't playing them the only way to find out?

I’m always of two minds about women playing in men’s leagues. First, the obvious is great! Women who have the skill level should have access to the money and the competition that is available in pro (men’s) sports.

However I think that the larger question is whether or not we should use men’s sports as the pinnacle of achievement and thus consider women’s leagues and women athletes lesser. Women and men’s sports tend to be different; whether we attribute that to women and men’s bodies being different thus allowing for different skills to be dominant; or because at a young age men and women are encouraged and socialized to use their bodies differently thus developing differently or a combo of the two. I don’t think that it’s that problematic to assert that men and women’s sports are different, the problem becomes the value that is placed on the various skills—that is entirely a social construction. We think male athletes are ‘better’ because of the value we put on the various aspects of the game: running faster, hitting harder etc. It appears obvious and natural, but it’s not. Constructed differently golf could be a sport of exact strokes instead of least strokes (for example).

The point being that by encouraging women to attempt to compete at the men’s levels we reinforce the idea that women’s sports are not as valuable and women athletes are lesser in relation to the ‘ideal’ of male athletes.

Wie may be less qualified than some, but she is young, talented, and marketable. If I sponsored a golf tournament, I would give her my exemption too. Let's remember, sponsor’s exemptions exist specifically to open space for marketable players who didn't qualify on their own. If she is in contention over the weekend, this move will look like pure genius. My only worry is for her personally. She is very young and by any normal golfer’s career arc she should be learning against her peers instead of losing to 30 year old men. I hope that these early beatings don’t stunt her growth as a golfer.

IT IS EFFING PRO GOLF....WHO CARES?

"Constructed differently golf could be a sport of exact strokes instead of least strokes (for example)." - ts

If it is a pain, don't bother, but if you have time I would love an explaination of this. What do you mean by "exact strokes instead of least strokes"?

noname,

My point was just that it's easy to look at sports and say that men are 'naturally' better at most/all sports because they can hit the ball harder, throw farther and run faster. But what we value in sports is representative of what we value in society. Ie we value traditionally masculine traits.

So given a different set of societal values what we consider 'better' in sports would change. So my example was just meant to offer a suggestion of the way a sport could be constructed differently so that the ability to hit the ball farther would have less to do with who is good at that sport. So instead of the lowest strokes winning (thus needed to be able to hit farther) it could be that every hole would have an exact number of strokes needed and you would lose points for every stroke over or under. I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea (not really knowing anything about golf) but just to suggest that there is nothing natural about the rules of sports and most importantly nothing natural about who is ‘better’ at sports because the ‘betterness’ is a reflection of what is socially constructed as more valued. Which is gendered.

What about horseracing? Sometimes the mares beat the... horses. Damn, this analogy sucks. Is there no word for 'adult male horse' that doesn't address their balls? Stallion? Gelding?

Anyway, Wie HAS proved herself to be an excellent golfer and is on the brink of becoming a top golfer. I think this is the perfect time for her to enter the PGA. The fact that she hasn't yet PROVED herself to be the 'best woman golfer in the universe' allows her the freedom to represent herself (and not necessarily all women golfers in the universe).

ts - I get your point, but you might want to use a different sport as your example. Golfers trying for a high number of strokes does not sound like much of a competition to me (I picture Tiger woods landing on the green in two but intentionally 4 putting because the magic number for that whole is 6). You may as well eliminate the competition, give everyone who shows up gold stars, and call them all winners (everyone is special). If you want to eliminate power and speed as factors and emphasize finesse in an athletic endeavor, I would suggest you use billiards as an example. Are billiards leagues gender segregated (I can’t imagine why they would be)?

Felix, I think the only reason the Billie Jean King win was such a great thing is because he was being such an egotistical prick and laughing at her and she shut him up. Male or female isn't really important here, people just adore seeing cocky jerks get their asses kicked. See Rocky 3 for example...

felix, your comments are inconsistent. In your comment at 10:27, you wrote that King could barely beat Riggs even though he was old and she was the best in womens' sport. No discussion of collusion there. Yet in your comment of 2:06 you completely drop that line and fall back on accusations of collusion, which is mere speculation. Tens of thousands of people watched the game saw it played out fair and square (if you have proof otherwise please change the wikipedia article). Furthermore no one brought up that game except for yourself. So even if you were right, which you have little reason to suppose is true, it would not mean anything. It says nothing about morals or ethics nor does it prove anything scientifically, so it's completely irrelevant to anything that's happening today. (Like the stupid Duke thread that got 420 comments recently, it's revelance is zero.) So you are wrong on two levels. One is the credibility of your assertion, which is unfounded. Second is the relevance of your argument, which is severely lacking.

When someone breaks through the gender barrier (or any other underprivleged group breaks through some barrier representative of that which is holding them down) the value lies in the example set to others, the opening of the path to make it easier for others, and the possibilities that it raises toward the future. Normatively, I'd evaluate all of these things positively. If you disagree, then we are operating from different assumptions. But it'd be more helpful if you focused on your arguments as to why you feel a certain way rather than trying to speculate on particular stories whose ultimate relevance is nil. The same goes with the damned Duke story. If a few white Duke guys raped a black women, does that mean all white athletes are rapists? Of course not. So I don't really see what the huge fuss is over it. It's someone else's business and someone else's personal problems and I really don't give a f*ck about it. But apparently other people do, because they have no lives. So please try and stick on topic, and if you take issue with something I'm saying, point it out.

He never intimated that there was collusion during the actual event itself.

What he was saying was that Riggs macho arrogant attitude was feigned to sell tickets and keep people interested.

The two issues are seperate. First he said that she barely beat an old, retired sod way past his prime... then, he went on to say that his pompous ass antics were an act. In no way did he contradict himself.

And he also makes a good point, lets bring women into ALL sports. It would be awesome at breaking down the gender barrier. Why you all think the gender barrier is so horrendous is beyond me...but by all means break it down...I'm sick of my gender having to take all the difficult jobs such as construction, electricians, plumbing, tree climbing, special operations, road work, etc. Hell, women can do all of those jobs on their own for the next century, see how they like carrying the brunt of those tasks.

TheTruth,

In that case I misread it. However it's still true that from our perspective (not the players') the story has importance only in terms on its impact on the broader society, which he doesn't address. If he was using it to try and show how men are "better" at sports then women, one example can never prove such a broad generalization, and it's a waste of time to try.

Nonetheless if you want to bring women into all sports I'm all for it. However are you really serious about what you ask? In order to do that it would take changing society's attitudes about women in sport. For example in the 1990s the NBA has started the WNBA bringing women into basketball, but WNBA's success depends on people who are willing to watch it, which is plenty of people but not as many as the NBA. Therefore to bring in women to things such as football it would require an audience for profit. Are you willing to personally support that with your patronage? If not then I suggest you're being hypocritical or facetious. However if there was a womens' football league I would watch it.

But I think his main point was not bringing women into these sports but putting them into the same games as men. I find it disgusting that one of the few cases this was tried, the woman was raped by the male players and the coach basically made some extremely hurtful comments. In the face of this kind of attitude it's going to be hard to do. The other matter is that no one is claiming that women "linebackers" can be just as heavy as men. That's a strawman argument. Where such large incongruencies exist which are inherent, then you separate out the women and men. But in things such as golf such large incongruencies aren't necessarily inherent.

Felix, you are obviously filled with a most vile misogyny. What drove you to such a sorry state I can't fathom. I feel sorry for you and your pathetic hatred.

AngryLeft,

Yes, I'm serious. I doubt patronage would dissapear for the big sports if the women were competitive.

I think that the racial integration in the NFL (which happened long before MLB...) faced larger hurdles than the integration of women into sports leagues faces today.

As far as the Billy Jean King vs. Bobby Riggs match changing society, I don't think it effected us too much. I think it was more a reflection of the society than an actual catalyst for change.

For a more realistic example of a catalyst for change, see racing's Danica Patrick. She isn't a gimmick and she isn't marketing herself as a man in a womans sport. She is a serious competitor and definitely a catalyst for change in sports.

Oh please. You're not talking about bringing women into new sports, you're making an obvious strawman argument here, which I've already addressed. As for bringing women into football through a womens' football league, I'm not opposed to it in the least.

"Prove herself" is outright nonsense. When MW plays, even if she is not the medalist, she plays better than a whole bunch of folks who have "proved themselves."

They don't like being outplayed by a young woman who is not in the LPGA because she is not yet 18, can only play with the men and the ladies primarily with sponsor's exemptions, and has a game better than a whole bunch of them. Yes, MW!

What Michael said about MW are analogous to comments made about indigenous people of his New Zealand. He ought to know better.

Now if some of you want to fight with each other, that is not MW's thing. She just wants to get into the "game" with the best in the world--and that means Tiger, Phil, Ernie and with a bit of a stretch, even Michael.

Kimo - Relax. Men are expected to prove themselves before being accepted on the PGA tour as well. MW is young. She will eventually earn her acceptance with these doubters.

I pity any women (and frankly, any men) in Felix's life if his statements are an accurate respresentation of what he is like. BUT, can we please ignore his inane comments and the sheer delight he seems to take from them? I thought the conversation was so interesting before.

the idea is rubbish that women need to go the extra distance in GOLF vs. men

women CAN (and do) play on the men's tour

men are forbidden to play on the women's tour

discriminatory double standard? of course.

Why hasn't Felix been banned yet?

He has just told us that the only thing we're good at is making babies. This isn't a devil's advocate trying to offer intelligent debate. This is someone being immature, rude, and downright idiotic on a forum for mature discussion.

I'm not saying you have to or you should, I'm just wondering if you guys even have a screening tool on your server and if so, what the reasoning is for keeping him here? Just curious. :)

You're missing the point Lorelei. It's not felix that has offered this paragon of usefulness to women. It's Schopenhauer and Boris Spassky. Two of the most beefcaked gigolos EVER. Why? Because they have Y chromosomes that's why!!

P.S. my former roommate is going to kill me for not mentioning him. But then again, he didn't lose the Cold War!!!

P.P.S. However, the real question is, where is his damned sandwich? You don't think he deserves at least one SANDWICH for all his trouble?

P.P.P.S. SAND-WITCH get it? Freudian slip!!! Ah ha ha ha ha.

Re: Chess

Both Susan and Judit Polgar beat the best male players in the world at the time.

And second, try this argument for size. The highest ranked native born American in the world at chess is 91st in the world. Croatia has more highly ranked GMs than the US.

Are Croatians inherently mentally superior to Americans? Are Russians? That seems pretty unlikely to me.

Donald Young, the 16 year old American tennis prodigy, has received numerous wild cards into tennis tournaments, due to his ties with IMG and his marketing potential. However, he has received the same kind of criticism leveled at Michelle Wie i.e. Has not proven self and is undeserving, as well as it being unfair to others.

Comments like those made by Campbell, are not exclusively directed at women. I think it is more significant that she is so young and is being given opportunities, because of her marketability, that were denied to her predecessors. I remember Anna Kournikova had to endure a lot of resentment from other female tennis players, because she was making so much money from endorsements, despite having never won a tournament(to this day). Former Wimbledon champion, Maria Sharapova, does not attract this kind of resentment.

Very often, it can be difficult to make a distinction between a comment motivated by veiled misogyny and a desire for fairness. Similar difficulties can be encountered in distinguishing between misandry and a desire for true equality. Ultimately, people have to look in the mirror, and should at least be honest with themselves. I don't really like the way terms like misogyny and misandry are bandied about. These terms mean hatered towards either sex. In my day to day interactions, I often witness a natural antagonism between the sexes. Men and women are often exasperated by each other, because, as groups, our outlook on the world is so different. We value some of the same things, but we also value very different things. Exasperation and frustration with the opposite sex, does not equate to hatred, although, of course, hatred does exist too.

I have to say that, I'm even impressed that it has got to the stage in golf where they are even considering women playing with men. Wimbledon, still refuses to give women equal pay, although this is a bit more complicated than just the gender difference.

In sport, it basically comes down to money. The big bucks will go to whoever the punters want to see and are prepared to pay for. For whatever reasons(some say social, I say primal), men constitute most of the audience. Part of the motivation for viewing sports, is to see something we might do in the parks, done at the highest possible level. It's entertaining, but it is also educational, inspiring and can display enormous human spirit/character and drama. Given that the human species is as narcissistic as it is, in addition to the fact that men are, generally, stronger physical specimens than women, it should come as no surprise that men prefer watching male professional athletes compete. This is where you are more likely to witness sports performed at the highest achievable level by a human being. The fact is, that if you totally mixed the sports, a lot of women would have to find a second job. The reasons are biological and there is little we can do about it. Testosterone is the hormone that is so significant in producing strength, muscle mass, mental and physical energy, confidence, aggression, coordination, spatial awareness etc. Both sexes produce it, but men produce it in significantly larger quantities(30 times). That's just the way it is. Having segregation in sports actually benefits women and enables them to sustain careers as professional athletes. Hell, it's only professional sports, we can still play together in recreational sports.

Whatever your gender, you should always resist the temptation to let ideology overrule reason or honest or integrity or compassion or science or any kind of sound judgement generally. Furthermore, people should try to find the courage to resist being bullied into the prevailing false dogma, whether it be terrorism, misogyny, misandry or any kind of self-serving hocus-pocus. Always strive for the truth, whatever side it may land on, and try to be mindful of barely conscious partiality.

Just one last word on attitudes toward sports. Our intellectual capacities are only one facet of what it means to be human, the other is physical. The physical provides another avenue through which we can understand more about ourselves. So by denegrating sports, as some do, people only really demonstrate their own shortsightedness. Of course, the culture that sometimes surrounds sports, can be reprehensible, but that is another issue.

David,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. Firstly, the physical aspect is a part of what it means to be human. Putting aisde the whole gender thing for a moment, I don't think anyone can disagree with your last two paragraphs.

I don't see anyone here claiming that all sports should be integrated with the same leagues or that women have the same levels of testosterone or physical strength as men, which you seem to be arguing against as a strawman. The only ones who actually mentioned that notion were being facetious. On the other hand, if a woman can compete in the mens' league and wants to do so, then great, and that could be the case with Michelle Wie.

What I take issue with most is your claim that mens' interest in pro sports, which reflects what is done "in the parks" is mainly "primal" (for now I'll substitute 'biological' for 'primal') and not institutional or social. Consider that in the year 1972 when Title IX was first enacted, about three million boys and about one-tenth as many girls participated in high school sports. Thirty years later, the ratio has fallen from about ten to one to about four to three, despite the fact that our culture still overwhelmingly associates athletics with men. If you're using recreational behavior as an indicator, it's clearly been socially determined.

Furthermore I think you're conflating two things-- the narcissistic aspect of sports fan behavior and the 'desire to see the best' aspect. While your empirical claim that most sports fans are still male is true (though not biologically determined as you suggested), your arguments as to the motivations of sports fans would actually explain reasons why both men and women could be sports fans: The "narcissistic" aspect of the human species, as you put it, applies to both genders. And therein lies the rub also for the "best achievable"--for women there is an inherent separate value for "best achievable by a woman" independent of best achievable by a man, even if the latter is better than the former. Therefore, by your own arguments, for large part, the amount of money that goes into mens' sports or womens' sports is not quite as deterministic as you make it out to be, but has changed a great deal, generally tracking the extent to which societal mores have evolved.

The other aspect when you did not mention is the attraction aspect. I'm sure Anna Kournikova's success was much due to her physical attractiveness. Men may enjoy womens' sports because they liked to see the players, and vice versa with women.

I don't think that Wie has been given marketability is very significant. The fact represents a constant about the marketplace that existed before Wie and will exist after her. She filled a role because of her characteristics but did not create it. Therefore to complain that certain people are given breaks while others aren't because of their marketability is simply to complain against the marketplace itself. You can regulate it-- but that would mean regulating capitalism, quite unAmerican.

To be truthful I don't understand Campbell's comments. The commenter C made a reasonably good case why Wie might want to stick with the LPGA, but if she chooses not to do that I don't see why she should have to prove herself in the LPGA before she tries to make the cut in the PGA. Ultimately it's her own career decision, and as long as the game itself is played on the level, it's a risk she takes with all the costs involved. So Campbell's comments may be out of resentment, or perhaps they reflect sexism, though I'd say let Wie compete where she wants and sink or swim doing it. That's the capitalist way.

just for the record, women tend to have about 10% (on average) the endogenous T (testosterone) levels as men.

this is the primary, but not only reason for women's general inferiority vs. men at most sports.

there are some obvious exceptions to male superiority in sport. women are better cold water swimmers, for instance (see: british and alaskan open ocean swimming for instance).

women are also arguably better target shooters than men (but generally worse IPSC style combat shooters)

in sports that are closer to pure strength/speed/power, the difference between men/women will be greater vs. sports that are endurance based. in sports that are more "pure skill" based, women will be roughly equal

golf, while it has a strength and endurance factor (to some extent) is primarily a skill game. women's primary deficit is in the looooong drive capability, but it is not much of a deficit, and is not such a big part of the game that it matters THAT much. but it does matter. annika sorenstam (sp?) has a Monster drive btw.

we discriminate against men (not women) in sports, as in most sports, it is prohibited for men to play on women's teams, but not for women to play on men;s teams. that is one form of antiMALE discrimination, that is seldom acknowledged.

it is discrimination, but is clearly "justified" since if men/women were not segregated, then women could not compete with men in most sports, at any advanced level. check any encyclopedia of male vs. female sports records in any objectively measured sport for instance.

wie is better than 99% of male golf players or so i have no doubt. but even though she is a dominating player in the female ranks, her scores would make her mediocre (at best) in the male ranks. certainly, she would not leave tiger woods quaking in his nikes

but i think there is an argument that *if* women can play in men's leagues, why can't men play in women's leagues? the obvious answer is "oh, ok. that's gender discrimination (and one way only) but it's ok " lol . whatever

the reality is that most sports have two leagues. a non-gender exclusive league, such as the NBA where male or female can play. but it just so happens that women generally don't because they can't compete, and women only leages such as the WNBA that exclude men, so that women can actually have a chance on the court.

sport is about as egalitarian as you can get. there is no sexist cabal prohibitng a woman from breaking the records in the Clean and Jerk (my sport of choice is olympic style weightlifting, and i have trained with several women who have qualified for the olympics and are strong as hell), the 100 meter sprint, or the marathon. but all these records are obviously held by men, and always will be save massive genetic manipulation of female athletes that render gender differences obselete.

that's what is so great about sports.

a basketball hoop, a 100 meter track segment, and a barbell care not about your gender (or race). to paraphrase Henry Rollins, friends may come and go, people may be fickle, but 200 kilos is always 200 kilos.

and the 18th hole at kapalua golf course will awlays be difficult :)

pamps,

It's ironic that you claim sports is egalitarian though you spend most of a long post describing how it is one of the least egalitarian human activities between men and women. Now I know you were referring to legal egalitarianism, but since the distinction between men and women is certainly valuable, it should have been clear to you that legal egalitarianism would not translate into genuine egalitarianism in any sense. Clearly, setting up separate leagues for women which are off-limits to men in certain sports is not anti-male nor is it a double standard; in those sports where women excel more, such as cold water swimming, it would be logical to set up separate leagues for men which are in turn off-limits to women. And if some male cold-water swimmer were exceedingly good and able to compete in the womens' leagues, let him also get extra attention. Do you see how this presents a single standard of judgement which is not gender arbitrarily, but rather how nature shapes meaningful human categories in a way relevant to sport? As with every other aspect of civilization, it is society improving over nature.

The other interpretation is this:
"We think male athletes are ‘better’ because of the value we put on the various aspects of the game: running faster, hitting harder etc. It appears obvious and natural, but it’s not. Constructed differently golf could be a sport of exact strokes instead of least strokes (for example)."

Which is also a legitimate interpretation, given that all entertainment is ultimately subjective...

not to get all semantical...

sports is egalitarian in that the (especially in objective sports like track and field, strength sports, etc. means of determining who is best/worthy are completely objective. there is no way that sexism, institutional or otherwise can invade a stopwatch or a barbell, or a javelin, or a golf ball

the results are independent of sexism, racism, or any other 'ism

iow, even if every sexist THINKS a woman can't clean and jerk 600 lbs, that's irrelevant to whether a woman is given the opportunity to do it, or will do it. because there is no guardian standing in front of the barbell preventing a woman from the OPPORTUNITY

whether a woman will ever do it (even if pharmaceutically enhanced) is another issue entirely

iow, the RESULTS are not EQUAL because men and women are not equal. men are, on average, far superior athletes- which is why men and women are segregated in sports (specifically that men are prohibited from women's teams/events). for example, there is not a single woman in the 100meters who can come close to 10 seconds (no white or asian man has broken it either, but i digress) whereas it has been surpassed over 500 times by men, etc.

this also goes to show that equality of opportunity =/= (necessarily) mean equality of outcome.

as to the second point, it IS discriminatory and anti-male to discriminate against men. my point is "so what?". i don't think it's bad. i think it's GOOD. but i am not going to say it;'s not sexist and discriminatory, because it clearly is.

your third point is, excuse the bluntness - absurd

the ideal in sports, to borrow the latin -citius, altius, fortius is THE ideal

unless you want to make the ideal to be weaker and slower, men WILL dominate sports because they are superior by any reasonable objective standard. there are subjective sports - ice skating for instance, where women can not be compared objectively to men of course, but by any reasonable objective measure, men are superior

that's the only "legitimate" interpretation. sport is supposed to be a test of the fastest, the strongest, the most enduring. it mirrors nature, and is the ultimate test of the human body. sorry, if it has "sexist" results.

you can't get much simpler and basic as "who can run the fastest".

clearly, it is not sexist in INTENT. again, this goes to show the truism that inequality of results does not mean somebody is using sexism, institutional or not. it means, that in many cases, the natural superiority in certain capabilities means we will have inequal RESULTS and this is not bad or sexist. it is a recognition of reality. reality doesn't fit into our pat "everything is socially constructed" mythology. truth aint a metanarrative. truth is ripping the barbell from the floor over your head. it doesn't get any more truthful than that.

and as i said, golf is not a PURE strength/endurance sport. it was designed as primarily a test of skill. and i said this before, that in sports of SKILL, i see no evidence to believe that either women or men have an advantage. men's advantage in golf comes from the physical aspect of it.

this is not about entertainment. it is about testing the limits of human performance. no reasonable sports scientist has claimed that women are less able to learn complex motor skills (such as is needed to succeed in golf). however, no reasonable sports scientist would deny that men are (on average and at the extremes) faster, stronger, more powerful, and more enduring than women. iow - superior athletes by any objective metric.

so i don't know if we have different definition for egalitarian. maybe i am using it wrong. if so, my bad. my point is that sport is the perfect example where you can have a 100% equal playing field, and have completely UNequal results in gender representation because life isn't fair, men and women are NOT created equal in abilities, and that's undeniable empirically verifiable fact.

this also goes back to the men/women math/brain differentiation thread as well, since it is clear that increasing T levels in women (as i mentioned before in regards to endocrinology) has been shown to literally make women's BEHAVIOR, more "manlike" which again shows that male behavior is not merely socially constructed but also has strong biologic roots. just ask any woman bodybuilder on 300 mg of Testosterone Enanthate per week if her psyche changed.

pamps,

I have to say the entire thrust of your rant just missed the point of what I was saying. Very little you posted addressed the issue.

Regarding the objective vs. subjective nature of sport: Look at the biggest sports- soccer, baseball, basketball, football, golf... you can't say these sports are "objective" in any way, since they were created by people-- with changing rules-- largely over the past 100+ years. Each has a very unique set of mental and physical requirements, yet none of them are objective by any natural standard. As much as it may blow your mind, "who can lift the heaviest weights" and "who can jump the tallest" are interesting for the Guinness Book of World Records but not really that interesting as sport. Recreational sport is just that-- recreation. Pro sport is entertainment. It's a business that exists to make money, and it only makes money by catering to people's subjective tastes. I'm sorry to blow your mind with some basic facts.

As for all the shtick about "reality" being unfair, I'd say that's true when a woman gets beat by her husband and can't fight without weapons back because he's physically bigger, but sports are something created by society. The rules are defined by society. It can be as 'fair' or 'unfair' as we make it. If we think the difference between men and women is a meaningful social distinction and also a significant physical one, and generally everyone does, then we can separate out leagues of sports by gender where one gender is significantly disadvantaged by nature. It violates no 'law of nature' no 'profound' reality to do that: man defines what man creates. Simple, no?

As for whether you think it's sexist or good is another thing. You seem to think that a sexist or anti-male thing can also be good. I disagree, since sexism is defined as "discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of the opposite sex". I support separate leagues in some sports because I don't think it's sexist or anti-male (unless you believe recognizing men and women as distinct enough social categories such that athletic achievement is valuable separately in each category, is sexist). As to why, please see my above post. I'm not repeating what you didn't understand the first time.

Oh jesus christ.
Peoplecan sit on thier asses al