[John Foley]

WOW!!

Take a few days off and don't check in and look what happens!

(Love George's comment that we are a bunch argumentative SOB's!)

My head hurt's from trying to read this thing and figure out whose side everyone is on and who pissed who off!

A few questions I will ponder:

What are the fathers of sons going to say? She should be here, Does she belong?

She was AWARDED a spot due to her perfomance as per the organizations outlined them. We're those rules unfair because a women won? Everyone will have differnet opinons on this and those are all valued.

As a father of two young daughters, I'm going to sit my girls down and watch w/ them. I'll tell them that in this world of inequalities, unfairness and bias here is a succefull women who on that day, gets to play a game that she loves and maybe, just maybe inspires some other girls to do the same.

Go get'em Suzy!!!

[John_Conley]

Tim:

We agree.  I suspect that the PGA of America and any Sections that have an event that leads to an invite to something else have plans in the works to add the clause necessary to make me, you, and Paul Richards happy.

In the meantime, I'm not going to place blame on the Tour, Whaley herself, or someone else that is caught up in the mess.  I want to fault the GHO for following through with the decision to invite the CT Section winner, but know they need attention for the event and are getting it from an unlikely source.

I may be the one that's called argumentative, but most of my effort on this and a BCS discussion is to show people they probably agree with me by helping them understand the events that led to the end result - which is often enough to raise an eyebrow.  In questioning others and pointing out faulty logic, my goal is to help people understand the real issue.  Here it is pretty clear: IF TWO SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS DEPEND UPON EACH OTHER, THEY SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OTHER'S RULES.  In a lot of ways, the issue is similar to the USGA/R&A equipment story with C.O.R. becoming a household phrase.  The equipment manufacturers took far to much heat, in my opinion, for creating products within the Rules of Golf.

For any girls who aren't happy for Whaley, it seems like jealousy to me.  Why should she be deprived of the chance to benefit from this absurdly unique happenstance?  My guess is she plays, misses the cut but doesn't embarrass herself because the conditions are just to much, and becomes a prominent teaching professional because of the notoriety.  She can carve out a little niche by helping area golfers get better.

Show me someone who "throws back a trophy fish" that jumps in the boat and I'll show you someone who fails to understand how much of our lives is in the hands of fate.

[John_Conley]

Shiv:

GREAT point about men and women not being equal.  Men and women have some differences, and there have been many attempts to insist that is not the case.

I say the Augusta debate is a little misguided when someone tries to pretend women don't have equal opportunity to create their own club just like it.  They do, and have - to this point - chosen not to.  (The entire issue isn't that simple, as the club's choice to have an affiliation with the PGA Tour clouds the water.)

In an attempt to get gender-equity, my impression is that female activists have done a poor job of getting women interested in women's sports.  More women are interested in who wins the U.S. Open (for men) than the U.S. Open (for women) - yet some decry that they have disparate purses??  Women have equality already in that the events pay out what they can afford from the money each generates.

[George Pazin]

John -

For the most part, I agree with what you said in your last two posts. I think you summarized the argument fairly well.

The only minor differences I'd point out are as follows:

1) Regarding women criticising Whaley, I don't think they are criticising her per se, they simply agree with those of us that believe that non-handicap competitions should be played under the same rules & conditions for all competitors. I'd be surprised to learn if any think she should turn down the invitation. More likely, they share my belief: I think the original logic behind the decision to level the playing field was suspect, but I'm curious to see how she'll do & wish her the best of luck. She probably isn't any less deserving than many others who have received special exemptions, as you pointed out before. I agree with your statement that the CT section should have said anyone wishing to be eligibile for the invite has to play the back markers (in fact I suggested this as a reasonable compromise back on page 3:)).

2) Regarding your statement in the second post - More women are interested in who wins the U.S. Open (for men) than the U.S. Open (for women) - yet some decry that they have disparate purses??  Women have equality already in that the events pay out what they can afford from the money each generates. I agree completely, but I've always thought the more interesting question is: What is the breakdown of people watching women's golf (or any women's sport)? I've always suspected that more hard core male golfers watch women's golf than female golfers. It would be quite simple for the women's tour to surpass the men's tour in purses, if they simply drew the same relative interest from women & men that men's golf draws from men & women. After all, women are more than 50% of the population.

-----

The single most ignorant comment I have ever heard (ignorant in the knowledge sense, not rude sense) was a joke from Paula Poundstone following the '92 election. She commented that women had increased their position in the Senate to 5 seats. Cue audience applause. Her rejoinder? 51% of the population & 5% of the Senate - sounds fair. Much laughter ensued, but no one pointed out the glaringly obvious flaw in her gender bias argument.

[Tim Weiman]

John Conley:

Yes, we agree.......sort of. I don't agree that you are being "argumentative"! After all, we are here to exchange views. I think that is all you have done, even if we don't agree exactly on every point of substance.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I do think your comments about young women being jealous of Whaley are off the mark. I'm very impressed by the young people I've met locally, both girls and boys. Their work ethic goes beyond anything I saw growing up, at least as it relates to golf.

John, I suspect there is a Tiger effect here. Both the girls and boys have a sense that Tiger worked very hard to get where he got. They believe the only way to get close to what Tiger did or even just qualify for their local high school team is through lots of hard work.

I don't think they are jealous of Whaley. She just don't think she earned it. In short, they buy into Tom Paul's argument that scratch events should not have handicaps.

Besides the kids, I'm impressed by the coaches. They are very dedicated to helping young people achieve all they can and to teaching the kids appropriate conduct in competition.

Unfortunately I spent 4-5 hours a day in a pool when I was growing up. Wish it had been on the driving range.

[Tim Weiman]

Dave Schmidt:

God damn, this thread is addictive!

I know you and I don't completely agree on the related issue of Augusta's membership policies (based on the notion of "extension of the workplace"), but part of what has troubled me about the issue is whether anything prevents a leading female golfer, say Annika Sorenstam, from doing what Bobby Jones did.

Could Annika get a couple friends together, buy a piece of property, hire a talented architect, build a course, create a single sex (female) golf club and, finally, create a prestigous women's golf tournament?

I can't think of any reason she couldn't.

That, of course, is not true in every society in the world. But, here in America, I believe it is. The opportunity exists for Annika, just like Bobby Jones or Jack Nicklaus with Muirfield Village.

The opportunity exists. Its real enough that I would have to call it an "equal opportunity".

We don't agree on the matter of workplace extension (on that I side with Burk), but on the opportunity Annika has to do what Jones did I suspect you and I agree.

On the question of outcomes vs opportunity, there is lots of confusion whether it relates to the Whaley or the Augusta matter.

I hope someday we catch for a round of golf and further discussion on the 19th hole.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
You said:

In fact, there is not, and to my knowledge, has never been, a law that even requires women to work for lower wages than men, as startling as that may seem.  Imagine that!

Women don't need a law that requires them to work for lower wages as, and I'll bet you are well aware of this, they already do!
According to the U.S. Census Bureau: Women working* full-time throughout the year earn 73¢ for every dollar earned by men. African-American women earn 64¢ and Latinas earn 52¢ for every dollar paid to white male workers. Men of color also experience wage discrimination, with African-American men earning 78¢ and Latinos earning only 63¢ for every dollar paid to their white male counterparts

* equal job title and responsibility.  


To say there exists an equal opportunity for women to build their own clubs is a moot point, but....There would need to be 100's of women only clubs built overnight to equalize the field and that ain't gonna happen for a number of reasons most of which are related to the course building environment and not the werewithal of women folk.  
Business networking has gone on for so long at clubs that women, when compared with men, were at a distinct disadvantage until a relatively short time ago . When a thread on here spoke about the Executive Women's Golf Association it was to thrash them along with the LPGA for perceived failures. Give me a break.

Make equal pay and opportunities a reality and pretty soon there is nothing left to bitch about. Pretty simple.

There is no need to respond to the above as my mind is already made up.

[DMoriarty]

Aarrgghh!

As a society, we keep striving for the impossible and then wonder why we don't meet our objectives.  Hmmm.  Fairness?  This is golf -- the sporting metaphor for the unfairness of life:  You try hard. You work to get better.  You only get so many chances to succeed and you have to make the most of them.  And you have to finish the deal under pressure.  And sometimes it's best to limit your losses.  Often, the breaks aren't with you and you lose.  And you have to deal with that gracefully.  And come back to compete another day.  Is that a description of golf, your job, your portfolio (or what's left of it), your love life or all 4?  And we're trying to create fairness?  Hogwash.  Life is unfair.  Golf is unfair.  People need to learn to deal with that.

I couldn't agree more. All those who are griping about Mrs. Whaley getting to play in this tournament should take what you say to heart.

For crying out loud, science is constantly "proving" all kinds of stuff . . . but they can't "prove" that women and men are different?  Nonsense.            

Again, I agree.  Isn't it strange that we have such trouble with a concept that 3-5 year olds understand implicitly?  

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

My understanding is that there are about 18,000 golf courses in the United States.

What is your understanding about how many are all male?

[Tim Weiman]

DMoriarty:

You appear to be saying that it is "unfair" for Whaley to be playing in the GHO, but that people should just accept it.

Do you support the notion John Conley suggested about requiring all competitors in PGA section qualifying events to play from the back tees if they want to play in a local PGA Tour event?

Do you think John was "griping" when he made this suggestion?

[DMoriarty]

Tim, I think you know where I am coming from on this issue, and I you.  What do you say we spare the rest of the readers and give it a rest?  

It has been a pleasure.

David.

[Tim Weiman]

DMoriarty:

I think I know where you are coming from. I just don't understand the details of your views on the matter.

If you would prefer not to discuss it further, I'm happy not to direct any further questions your way.

FYI, I've enjoyed hearing people's views, yours included.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
A preface: I see nothing evil or wrong with same sex clubs.

The two paragraphs should be read as pertaining to one another. Men have had the run of the mill at golf courses and they became places of business by extension and recognized as such by tax code. It's not realistic from a perspective of time or money to expect women to create the 100's of clubs they would need to create this same perc and that is why they petition to remove these barriers.
I don't know if you are in the golf business or keep abreast of recent issues but it's taken a long time for women to become members in equal standing and there is still road to travel.
No such impediment has existed for men save the means to join these clubs. As I said, when it's truly equal there is nothing left to gripe about.

These are my opinions and I need no clarification of them.          

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

You mention the importance of creating equal opportunity. Must here would agree, I think.

But, let's step back for a moment on that one. In the business world, there are many jobs where who would make the best candidate can involve difficult subjective judgments.

My own experience included making a job offer to someone with an absolutely perfect resume. However, all of my colleagues felt I made the wrong decision. They felt my second choice was far superior for intangible, purely subjective reasons.

(It turned out they were right. The first candidate was hired and didn't work out. Fortunately, the second candidate was still available, interested in taking the job, was hired and worked out beautifully.)

I mention this story for comparison's sake only. I think PGA Tour managers face far easier decisions than most business managers. They don't have to consider subjective factors. They can just implement the same set of rules for everyone and fairness, or equality of opportunity is achieved.

In golf speak, they don't need to consider handicaps. They can just play scratch events.

The CT section had good intentions, I'm sure. They just overreached in their effort to provide equal opportunity.

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I am on record supporting Burk's argument with regard to "extension of the workplace". To me, that is the central issue, not whether there is anything wrong with single sex clubs or whether holding the Masters really should influence the matter.

Nonetheless, I was merely trying trying to understand how prevalent all male clubs are in the United States today? Is is more than one percent of all golf clubs/courses? Nowhere have I seen evidence that it is.

Aren't all male golf clubs a very small percentage of the golfing world here in the States?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dave,
I think it's inequality of opportunity that gives a market the impetus to devalue the labor of those subject to fewer  opportunities, in this case women.    

[TEPaul]

This is one helluva an amazing thread, without question the "social engineering" thread of all time on Golfclubatlas!

I find it sort of fascinating, that is, what I can read and understand of it.

What I would like to determine is what in this thread is fact and what is just opinion? Don't anybody please try to answer that--I'm just conjecturing here.

It would appear, for instance, that Jim Kennedy has already made his mind up on some incredibly utopian ideas! I think that's good for Jim but some of those ideas could be unusually complex to put into effect without tampering with valid but sort of conflicting concepts.

I would also like to know what some of you think this idea of "equality of Opportunity" actually means at this particular time as framed by our US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'd also like to know what some of you think the concept of a "Right" to "freedom of association" is exactly as framed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Why don't you see if you can find references to both "Equality of Opportunity" and also "Freedom of association" in those two fundamental American documents?

Jim Kennedy:

I don't want to ask you something you either can't or don't want to answer but for starters do you see any differences or distinctions (as the Constitution frames it) between the concepts of "Equality of Opportunity" and actual "Equality"? And if so what do you think those differences and distinctions are?

[Michael Moore]

This discussion is in the top twenty of all time. When political philosophy is the legitimate topic, the quality of discourse really goes up.

What is to prevent competitors from teeing off from different places? How about rule 1-4? "If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision shall be made in accordance with equity."

Hasn't this little koan always been the most important rule, mystical in its brevity and seeming to always have the last word? I love this rule.

[Paul Richards]

Most telling stats of all:

"in earning her spot into Hartford at the section championship, she played the Ellington Ridge CC at 6,239 yards, while the men played it at 6,938.  For Hartford, she will have to play the TPC of River Highlands ... at 6,820 yards."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Te,
First let me say I believe that the Constitution is the part of the equation that says how we are going to do it. The other great part that says why we are doing it, the Declaration of Independence makes reference to our being "created equal" and has some implications here, wouldn't you say?

I'm not a constitutional scholar but I'll give you my take.
The short answer is you won't find them laying around in there naked, their cloak is one of implication.
Our Constitution covers all Americans equally, whether born here or naturalized.  I could offer AR. XV-equal rights for whites and blacks, or AR.XIX-women's rght to vote or  AR. IX in the Bill of Rights which says that the constitution doesn't limit us from accruing other rights but I don't want to stretch myself thin.  
I also look at the Preamble to the Constitution which says we are forming this perfect union to:
establish justice that I believe enables us to make the laws that lead to domestic tranquility, which helps to promote the general welfare, which would be meaningless if we didn''t provide for the common defense,so we can secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
I think the Constitution is a fantastic framework that has guided us well and will continue to do so as our nation evolves. I don't often read it or the D of I but I cannot ever remember having done so and feeling that the ideas expressed were only for some of the people. We broke away from England because their King was treating us a second class citizens and not as equals.
Do I think that "Equality of opportunity" and "Equality" are in the Constitution?
Easy answer. Yep.    

[TEPaul]

Michael Moore:

Koan? What a great little word that fits perfectly in this particular thread and discussion. Plus it sound vaguely Hawaiian to me.

I think I asked you this before but is that photo in your posts, you? If it is it definitely makes you look like an intellectual type maybe from the 1930s or so. So much so in fact that if the 1950s Joe MacCarthy witch hunt Senate Committee was still in existence they'd probably start a file on you thinking you must be a one of those Socialist intellectual thinkers about to turn communist and infect the lifeblood of American motherhood and apple pie!

Anyway, I thought a lot about "The Equity Rule" now positioned in the Rule Book as 1-4, and the concept of "equity" as it applies to golf and its rules as it might apply to this Whaley situation. Possibly it applies but maybe vaguely, although there could be a fundamental connection there somewhere.

The whole basis of "equity" and the "equity rule" as it applies to golf is embodied in the phrase "Like situations shall be treated alike". It's sort of golf's application of "justice" for all that is not specifically covered within the rules themselves.

I really am thinking, though, that the Whaley situation and how it might be examined in the context of the rules may not be found in much more than the evolution and the traditions in and of the game, as well as its formats and the ways they've always been handled and dealt with.

I guess sometimes it just ain't easy to fit "social engineering" into the way certain things have been done in some sports in the past. In the broad scheme of things is it even worth it?

I can't help think of what Joe Dye said to me once on that "honor" proposal, that golf has done just fine the way it is and fundamentally should stay the way it is.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul,

As you suggest, it is appropriate to ask what “equality of opportunity” means within the context of the Whaley matter.

I appreciate Dan King’s reference to President Johnson’s famous civil right speech in the 1960’s. But, I can’t quite understand how one could suggest today’s professional women golfers started their careers “in chains”. I doubt Annika Sorenstam would make such a claim or that it fairly applies to Suzy Whaley.

At the risk of repeating myself, I see equality of opportunity for young women golfers right here in Cleveland. They have dedicated, private teachers. They work hard. They participate in numerous competitions. They have high school coaches recruiting them before they even reach junior high. What more must be done to demonstrate fair treatment? Is the Cleveland area really that far out in front on this issue?

Simply put, converting scratch events into handicap events is not required to achieve any reasonable standard for equality of opportunity. However well intentioned the CT PGA section was, such thinking does amount to political correctness run amuck.

People who think handicaps should be applied to scratch events are entitled to their opinion. I can’t see where it makes any sense.

Years later I’m happy Professor Keller encouraged all her students to sort out the real, practical things that should be done for women from the feel good, nice sounding but clearly illogical approaches. I see young women who get it, I’m sure Keller would be equally happy to know.

[Dan King]

Tim Weiman writes:
But, I can't quite understand how one could suggest today’s professional women golfers started their careers "in chains". I doubt Annika Sorenstam would make such a claim or that it fairly applies to Suzy Whaley.

So they were oppressed, just not enough for you to be willing to help? They didn't reach some degree of oppression -- "in chains" which would have warranted help?

From yesterday (taking a break from Western Civ essay:)
Observing the opportunity young women have has convinced me the playing field is level. Today.

I raised a daughter and a son. My son is 26 and my daughter 24, so it was less than a generation ago. I was involved in their sports teams. I saw a big difference between how people treated boys and girls sports. Not so much in playing or practicing the game, but a huge difference in role models, coaching and expectations. This was in fairly liberal Silicon Valley.

I have plenty of nieces and nephews. I see a big difference in others outlooks toward their sports. Either we are looking at reality from different POVs or you live in a more forward area than I do.

I did go to a CyberRay game this year. While I hate autographs, I still felt good seeing little girls gathering around Brandie Chastain and Mia Hamm. Seeing that gave me hope for the future. Things have changed, but there is no way the field can magically become level in a generation.

You implied elsewhere that I felt it would take centuries to fix. It doesn't sound like something I'd say, but please, go ahead and show me where I made that claim.

Of course, if we say everything is fine and continue without change, it will take an infinite amount of time to fix the problems.

My daughter has a far greater opportunity to learn the game than I ever did at her age.

That ain't the issue. The issue is, does she have the same opportunities, expectations, role models, coaching, etc... as boys her age?

I'm ready to agree to disagree on this point. I don't believe it is level, you do. I would say this fundamental difference in our positions accounts for a lot of our disagreement.

Males can play on one tour, but women both tours. Why the difference? How is that not a double standard?

Males can play on a male-only tour. The only problem is that you have not started this tour yet.

Don't you mean one "unrestricted" and one "restricted tour" with an arbitrary rule that denies participation to the latter based on gender?

Arbitrary? How so? Walker Cup restricted to amateurs arbitrarily?

I have no trouble saying the LPGA is a "restricted tour." Same as the AJGA, Senior Tour, the men-only tour you plan to start.

How about the Walker Cup? It's a restricted event. You have to be an amateur. Does that bother you? Should it be open to all?

My understanding is that Suzy Whaley IS a woman and IS being allowed to play in the GHO.

Correct.

It is also my understanding that male golfers are, in fact, NOT permitted to play in LPGA events.

Correct.

And once you start a men-only tour, Suzy Whaley will not be allowed to play on your tour. The fact that is currently doesn't exist doesn't change the fact that it can exist.

You and I can attempt to qualify for the U.S. Amateur and the U.S. Open. Tiger Woods can not. Double standard?  Should the U.S. Open start refusing to allow amateurs to qualify to avoid this terrible double standard?

Would it be a positive in your book if the PGA Tour stopped being a tour for the best golfers and became only a tour for the best male golfers?

Dan King

She takes just like a woman, yes she does
She makes love just like a woman, yes she does
And she aches just like a woman
But she breaks just like a little girl.
 --Bob Dylan

[TEPaul]

JimK:

It's my feeling having searched the US Constitution and Bill of Rights recently for reference and application to the right of "freedom of association" that the Consititution and particularly the following Bill of Rights are documents setting a structure (that surely the framers understood well) that both could and needed to slowly evolve as our society would.  

It's extremely clever in its wording, for sure, as it's pretty clear the framers could see that the documents and concepts would need to be sold to the States and ratified. This was  definitely not an easy sell at that time and the wording needed to be somewhat general and maybe necessarilty vague or even delicate for that purpose but also needing to encompass fundamental and probably immutable prinicples and concepts as well as realities that would eventually confront the nation which it appears the prescient framers could see coming eventually remarkably well.

It's actually great fun to try to see where the US Supreme Court might point to if ever asked to specifically define the "right of freedom of association".

But my understanding of the basic American concept of "equality" is actually better explained in that it means only "equality of opportunity", and that there is a great deal to be considered in the word "opportunity"! That word may even be considered to mean only each citizen's own responsibility to make his won way on a somewhat level playing field. But we can't forget that every citiizen has that responsibility to himself as much as anything else! In this interesting area the government may be far less willing to help as some of us think it will or should.

I think in this way it can be seen that the government and the American concept never intended to attempt to make people actually equal in a true sense. That's nothing more than our (the citizens) own responsibilty to strive for our own rewards (fruits of our own labors) however we choose to individually do that on as level (equal) a playing field as possible.

And I think it can be seen too, certainly in this ANGC situation, how one fundamental concept ("right of freedom of association") can appear to run headlong into another fundamental concept ("equality of opportunity").

But it would be my strong feeling that if Burk's ever could take ANGC to the US Supreme Court and have the "right of freedom of associaton" tested that the court would and should rule that Burk's and her women have every right to go out and start their own ANGC and enjoy all the percs and enjoyments that the present ANGC might now! Whether or not they actually eventually do that only revolves around how they manage their own "opportunities". But the way is clear, the playing field is level (equal) for them to do that.

As for how the fundamental concept of "equality of opportunity" would ever apply to Whaley and her situation in competition in golf on the men's tour or men on the women's tour, I think that would be far more complex to imagine the outcome of.  

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

Annika Sorenstam did not start in chains, nor was she "oppressed" at all. At a young age, she benefited from the kind of thing I see here in Cleveland. She then did things the old fashioned way. Just like Tiger, she worked and worked and worked.

If my daughter wants to achieve what Annika has done, that's all I can promise her. Spending time worrying about some advantage boys might have, won't help. Only lots of practice.

The point is that the opportunity stands before her right now, not centuries or decades away.

Dan, I really don't know how unusual my neck of the woods is or whether being a liberal or conservative community has anything to do with it.

Surely, here in the US programs are not as centralized or perhaps as sophisticated as the Swedish national program seems to be. Still, I think there are plenty of young women with a clear idea of what it takes to be successful and who have the opportunity to do so.

I've come to know one family with two high school students, a boy who is a senior and a girl who is a freshmen. They are a very blue collar family, but both take private lessons, have loads of encouragement from their parents and hit 300-500 balls a day.

Frankly, they remind me of the swimming families I grew up with. My sister had every bit as much support as I did and, frankly, accomplished more. That was circa 1960's.

I really doubt golf today is that much different, not if the family I mentioned is any indication.

As for the LPGA, they do "arbitrarily" restrict men from playing. Good old fashioned sex discrimination. That's all it is.

At least we agree Suzy Whaley is a woman. If we had to "agree to disagree" on that point, then this discussion would really have taken a bizarre turn.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()