[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Could this start to lead to a situation where women pros will compete on the PGA Tour

Oh my God, man, say it isn't so! Men and women playing golf together, next they'll want co-ed showers.

(Tom, you do understand that Whaley will be playing from the same tees as everyone else at the GHO?)

Dan King

"Exactly what Adam and Eve were ashamed of is never clearly explained, anywhere. And why did they cover their loins? Why not their noses or elbows or big toes? And what does God wear -- a Pierre Cardin suit? And why fig leaves? Fig leaves were intended to cover up figs. The mind boggles: If I accept the anti-nude morality, I must be ashamed of my own body. But where can I go without it? Personally, I think God lis losing a lot in the translation. I can't imagine him being ashamed of anybody's nude body. On the contrary, he must think it's pretty peculiar when he sees us killing other animals and wearing their skins.
 --Allan Sherman

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

Of course I understand she'll be playing from the same tees in the GHO--so what? It wasn't very long ago she either wouldn't have been playing in the same competition with the men at the PGA of America sectional level or she would have had to play from the same tees there too! We all know that things changed 5-6 years ago this way because the PGA of America made the change. Should they have done that for the reasons they apparently did or shouldn't they? They opened the door to this potential extrapolation and they have the ability to close it again.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
It's not a door the PGA of A has opened wide, Tom. This is a sectional event and a sectional champ cannot qualify for a spot at the PGA Championship unless they play from the designated tees at the CPC event and place well. In essence the door is only open in- state. Suzy opted to play from a reduced set of tees at the CPC and in doing so became ineligible. Had she played from the designated tees and won a spot at the PGA Championship would she deserve it? Answer no and you have to resort to some very convoluted theory to get around the sexism. No such theories are necessary to explain why we have specific requirements of participation for other Tours as they are entertainment segments. It should be easy to see, at least from a marketing perspective.
      
Something to remember, even though the Tour has had to offer more widespread participation, ala Casey Martin, they are not forced to follow any "rules of the competition" other than the ones they set.

[TEPaul]

Well, I'll see ya'll again on another thread.

[Dan King]

My God, I'm starting to understand why y'all are in such a lather over Ms. Whaley! She may end up being a role model, more women are going to want to play golf with men! This could be only the beginning! Terrifying!

Thing about it, they get their way here, and who knows next thing you know they might want... the vote! Then probably they'll want to hold public office, run companies, work in operating rooms, teach our children!  My god, some day they may even want their own checking account!

Thank god we have all these vigilant men who will work hard to ensure Ms. Whaley doesn't break out of the mold!

Dan King
P.S. It's not like me to use a lot of exclamation points, but this issue is far to important to use the feminized period!

"Boys will be boys --
And even that... wouldn't matter if we could only prevent girls from being girls."
 --Anthony Hope

[Paul Richards]

Dan;

Do you honestly think Ms. Whaley can make the cut?

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

You suggested there was a "misperception of discrimination" regarding the LPGA.

Is it your understanding that LPGA Tour events ARE open to members of both sexes?

I'm also curious if claims of sex discrimination against Augusta National are also a "misperception".

What is a "misperception"?

[Tim Weiman]

Dan King:

You seem to enjoy joking about men who oppose women voting and having their own checking accounts.

Who are these guys?

I'm beginning to think you have adopted the following view:

Sex discrimination practiced by men at golf clubs is bad, but sex discrimination practiced by women on the LPGA Tour is okay.

Or is that one of those "misperception" things?

[John Conley]

Tom Paul:

Please don't tell me it took you this long and a talk with your pro to figure out what has occurred!  Your recent long post is accurate, but that is what we've been discussing for a few months on this site on this and other threads.

She's been awarded a sponsor's exemption that it could be construed was earned in a Section event some have deemed a qualifier.

BRANCH RICKEY?!?!?!  Oh my, has your history been distorted.  Bill Veeck is forever remembered as the man who batted Eddie Gaedel.  Veeck, as you probably remember, spawned Mike Veeck - the brains behind the ill-fated "Disco Demolition" day in Chicago.  He was blackballed from Major League Baseball and flourished - as much as anyone CAN flourish - in the Independent Northern League and other similar outposts.

It actually seemed like he may get back to MLB a year or so ago, but I never did hear what happened.

Branch Rickey is famous for something else, and far more significant than batting a guy who wore the jersey number 1/8.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Thank you. That should have read "mistaken perception of discrimination". Pointing it out once would have been sufficient but three times??    

Your understanding of discrimination is very different than mine. My definition includes the loss of opportunity and by extension the creation of hardship for a particular group.  
Your whine says that it's not fair that men have to let women play on their tour but the women don't have to let the men play on theirs, boo hoo.
Think about it Tim, do you believe that these men who are the most talented and strongest players in the world of golf worry about a woman taking away their opportunity or visiting some sort of hardship upon them?
I'm sorry, but your view is too narrow and unresponsive for this century, make no "misperception of that"  

  
I think Hootie should invite Annika to the party this April.  

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

What is frequently lost in discussions about sex discrimination is that ability in many fields varies as much within one sex as between the sexes.

Why speak of the strongest and most talented? Aren't they the least important folks to worry about? What about those less strong and talented? Shouldn't people of both sexes who fit this description have the opportunity to play on the LPGA?

Good old fashioned sexism is at work here. Lesser talented males who can't make it on the PGA Tour aren't supposed to complain about being denied opportunities on the LPGA. "Boo, boo", we tell them. Don't cry. Only women face hardship. Can't you see how oppressed Annika has been!

Thanks to Professor Keller's training, I'll ignore personal attacks like "your whine". They are a common thing in discussions about sex roles, especially when people attempt to take the moral high ground and inconsistencies in their positions are exposed.

[Dan King]

Paul Richards writes:
Do you honestly think Ms. Whaley can make the cut?

To tell you the truth, I haven't given it a moments thought. But now that you've asked I'd have to say no.

Did you know Bill Spiller fought all his life to play on the PGA Tour. The PGA of America finally dropped their Caucasian clause in 1961, but Spiller never really profited. "The best I ever did on the white tour," Spiller recalled, "was fourteenth in the Labatts tournament, in Canada. I got a small check. I won most of the tournaments on the black tour, but you just can't go out and play against the best in the world with so little experience."

Tim Weiman writes:
You seem to enjoy joking about men who oppose women voting and having their own checking accounts.

If you can't enjoy joking what's the point?

I'm beginning to think you have adopted the following view:

Sex discrimination practiced by men at golf clubs is bad,

I'm trying to parse this. Are we talking about the Connecticut PGA of America who voluntarily integrated many years ago? Or are we talking about the PGA Tour who voluntarily integrated not so long ago? Or are we talking about Augusta National who will probably integrate some time in the not too distant future?

but sex discrimination practiced by women on the LPGA Tour is okay.

I've answered this question many times, but maybe somewhere along the line I gave you the wrong impression. Was there some post where you thought I might have said it wasn't okay.  Just to make things perfectly clear, I think it is perfectly acceptable that the LPGA discriminates. If at some point you got some other impression from me, please ignore it.

Or is that one of those "misperception" things?

I have no idea what you are comparing.

Why speak of the strongest and most talented? Aren't they the least important folks to worry about? What about those less strong and talented?

Why not start a tour for the less strong and talented? Why do you want the LPGA to do all the work for you? Call it the Not As Good Tour (NAG Tour®.) Hey, if Madison Ave. can sell lite beer, maybe they can also sell players who aren't very good.

Dan King

"It's not the meat it's the motion
That makes this mama want to rock
It's not the meat it's the motion
It's the movement that gives it the sock."
 --Maria Muldaur

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

I've seen a lot of women vote in my life but I've yet to see one who thought she had to go into the booth with men--but if the polling stations feel it's discriminatory the way it's been I'm sure they'll figure out how to get men and women into the booth together.

Interesting analogy anyway.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
You write

What is frequently lost in discussions about sex discrimination is that ability in many fields varies as much within one sex as between the sexes.

That's because ability between players within one sex has nothing to do with discrimination.  

You write;

Why speak of the strongest and most talented? Aren't they the least important folks to worry about?

That is exactly what I've been saying. Men don't need to protect their market share.
Can you answer this question with a simple yes or no?: For a women's tour or a senior tour to establish a market share and flourish it must have the ability to set certain parameters,
Have you backed yourself so far into a corner that you are unable to say yes?

You wrote:

Thanks to Professor Keller's training, I'll ignore personal attacks like "your whine".

Professor Keller didn't train you well enough. If you were able to ignore the "personal attack", real or perceived,  you wouldn't have to let us all know that you are capable of doing so.
Professor Keller should have taught you not to make them in the first place, ala the refence to my use of "misperception" in this discussion. The gentlemen here usually make comical note of such gaffes but don't extend this notice over four instances and spanning two posts.

And finally:

......especially when people attempt to take the moral high ground and inconsistencies in their positions are exposed.

Throughout this discussion I have not seen myself standing on the moral high ground nor have I thought that anyone else is doing so. I might have to change this outlook in your case as it appears you are now able to look down on my position and "see"  inconsistencies. What do you label the high ground you are standing on ,Tim?

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

The backdrop to the Whaley matter is Augusta. Martha Burk has used the word "immoral" to describe Augusta's practice of sex discrimination. What remains to be seen is whether Burk really views sex discrimination - all forms of it - as "immoral" or whether she is selective about it.  

Suppose Hootie Johnson followed your example and said that he doesn't understand what all the fuss over Augusta's membership policy is all about. He is just trying to establish a membership within "certain parameters". …..just like the LPGA. You might think Martha Burk would accept such logic. I doubt it. Spin it any way you want. The fact is that the LPGA practices sex discrimination. Members of one sex are permitted to play. Members of the other sex aren't.

As for whether the LPGA might not be able to flourish if sex discrimination were eliminated, that sounds like the men who used to “whine” that if women were allowed to work they won’t be able to feed their families.

[TEPaul]

Tim:

You know if men were allowed to play the LPGA tour that the women would have to be handicapped somehow. How would they do that--with the 90% distance rule they used with Whaley in Conn? Is that what will make it work--some kind of handicap management to try to achieve some kind of level playing field or equality?

You also know if they opened the LPGA to men from the same tees the women would be out of work!

Or are you just using the ridiculousness of opening the LPGA tour up to men to show what a double standard Burk's is using by going after ANGC and failing to mention or acknowledge something like the single sex rule on the LPGA?

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

It does show the ridiculousness of the double-standard as applied by Burk.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I think Margaret Mead was light years ahead of Martha Burk or the CT PGA section when she advised against trying to eliminate all forms of single sex activities.

Had the CT section followed your advice and maintained the standards of scratch golf, questions about sex discrimination on the LPGA would not be on the table.

But, now the door is open. Burk will either need to speak out against discrimination on the LPGA Tour or be exposed as not really opposing sex discrimination.

Like I said, Dr. Mead was way ahead of her time. But, then, matters of sex roles in society have a certain timeless quality.


Paul Richards:

Burk may be inconsistent and hypocritical, but I'm not sure she is being ridiculous. Again, I would point to Mead for guidance.

The ideal of equal opportunity conflicts with the recurring pattern of human beings - both males and females - to have SOME single sex activities in their daily lives. The key is WHAT activities remain single sex.

In that regard, the Burk dialogue is healthy. If Augusta wants to be a corporate entertainment center, it should be open to both sexes. If the club wants to be a place to get away from all of that, remaining single sex should not be a problem.

The LPGA matter is sticky because it is a place of employment and discrimination should not be permitted. There is a fine balance to be achieved. The CT section hasn't helped matters.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Whaley is a female section pro awarded a playing exemption for a PGA Tour event. The association that awarded her this prize recognizes distinctions between it members. If this is considered discriminate behavior then you must use the proper definition of the word in this context. They are showing partiality (in favor of) to their senior and female members rather than prejudice (against) these same members by adjusting the playing length for these two membership groups.
This distinction is critical and is of no small import in understanding how the two situations are different and that they should be seen this way.

Augusta exhibits a prejudice (against) towards allowing women to become members.
There is no such membership issue within the PGA of A as they have shown partiality(in favor of) towards women.

If it is proven that Augusta is a workplace by extension then they could lose the tax status they presently enjoy.
The PGA of A has no such issues to worry about as they are presently an EOE.

The LPGA and the Senior Tour show partiality(in favor of) to women and older men, respectively.
At the present time ANGC is showing prejudice(against) towards women as they do not have a female member.  



As for your M.Mead reference pertaining to the elimination of all single sex activities, no one is advocating any such measures, not even Ms Burk. Her issue with ANGC is not based on eliminating single sex activities but is based on her belief that a single sex club that offers measureable advantages to men in business, like the Rotarians of old, is inappropriate and prejudiced(against)in their treatment of women.          
 
 
 

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

I'm already on record stating that if - big if - a club is an extension of the workplace, then discrimination on the basis of sex is inappropriate. On that point, I'm a big Martha Burk supporter.

Making the "extension of the workplace" argument is tricky business, however. The LPGA is a workplace. It's the real thing - not an "extension".

Thus, the case against the LPGA is even stronger than that against Augusta, assuming you believe sex discrimination in the workplace is inappropriate.

All this talk about "prejudice" vs "partiality" is nothing more than verbal gymnastics designed to obscure old fashioned sexism.

Imagine Hootie making your argument:

"Augusta is not prejudiced against women.....they may attend the Masters......they may play the golf course as guests.......but we are partial to men.....they can also become members".

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
The tours are not considered "workplaces", as D. Schmidt pointed out, and are not treated like ANGC might be.  

Imagine Hootie making your argument:
Augusta is not prejudiced against women.. they may attend the Masters..they may play the golf course as guests..but we are partial to men..they(men) can also become members.

That's Tim, is exactly what he has been saying all along.


All this talk about "prejudice" vs "partiality" is nothing more than verbal gymnastics designed to obscure old fashioned sexism.

No Tim, it isn't. The word discrimination has been tossed around without regard to its meanings in this and other posts. There really are two sides and two meanings to this word, one is partiality(in favor of), the other is prejudice(against). Partiality helps individuals or groups to flourish but not at the expense of others. Prejudice helps individuals or groups to flourish but always at the cost to others.

You can believe that the LPGA is prejudiced but their rules for existence cost no one, therefore I believe this doesn't classify them as being prejudiced.

[Tim Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

The idea that the Tours are not places of work is simply silly. No offense to Dave, but sooner or later a reasonably clever member of his profession will successfully make the case.

If all it takes to establish prejudice is that someone must lose, i.e., it must cost someone something, than surely the LPGA is prejudiced rather than merely partial.....unless opening up the LPGA wouldn't significantly change who earned money on the Tour.

The existence of sex discrimination creates winners and losers in every profession. We fight to eliminate it so that merit rather than gender determines who wins and who loses.

Bottom line: The LPGA practices sex discrimination. More verbal gymnastics won't change that.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD--Please end this thread ASAP!!!!!!!

PLEASE!

[Steve Curry]

Tommy,

I tried about three pages ago, its futile, like a pin drop at a NFL game.

Steve

[TEPaul]

Let's say some day maybe initiated by the PGA of America, it, for whatever reason, becomes commonplace to stage tour events (any tour?) with men and women competing together against each other from different tees (in the SAME competition).

This would certainly be a departure from the way things have been done in the past on a basically non-handicapped format (in the traditional way of handicapping with strokes).

Clearly if the method used to achieve this is a form of "distance handicapping" (only) to level the playing field and create some general equality between the sexes to attempt to make them competitive against each other the method used will be to create a set "distance differential".

In a sectional event in my area 82% was used (18% differential) and then it was assumed that made things to short for the women and they went to 90% (10% differential).

If this kind of thing began to happen with regularity (on a tour or tours) and it was promoted and televised, how long would it be before designers started to get into the act and begin to design in such a way as to also begin try to level the playing field architecturally?

This kind of thing may not be that far from some of the basic longtime ideas of Alice Dye, and could be even significant to the future of architecture.

I say this as a way of connecting this very long and very interesting thread (to me anyway) back to architecture.

I don't think this thread (or subject) should end at all although it should get back to the relevance of the door that the PGA of America opened that may have brought about this Whaley situation and if and how that may effect architecture in the future.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()