Oh, thank god. I waited four days to look at this thread, for reasons which should be obvious to those who know me at all on these forums. I am happy to see that I had little to worry about.
I am thrilled Annika participated in the PGA. I wish she had played better and hung in there longer. That said, she held her own against some of the best golfers in the country and I am happy that she got as far as she did. Regardless of how she does, it is still not the level of talent/skill that keeps women in or out of the PGA or any other sports association - it's how willing we are to accept them being a part of it.
I also very much liked DieHard's take on the exemption issue:
"Annika has every right to play as a sponsor's exemption. That is why the sponsors get exemptions. If they should relenquish the exemptions to allow for another qualifier, why not argue against the policy of exemptions rather than this particular selection? This is not the first time that a sponsor has used their exemption in a manner that appears to be publicity oriented.... I, on the otherhand, welcome the competition. This is a barrier breaking move, and many times that requires a helping hand. I commend Bank Of America for benefiting financially from an evolved decision."
As to the issue Ice brought up:
"So if they let this happen then the guys have the right to go to the LPGA and clean house on the money. Woman keep trying to step into mens clubs , mens locker rooms ect , but if a man tried to get into a womans club or sport it would not fly ???? Can somebody explain whats good for one but is not good for the other."
My response would be that organizations such as the LPGA and WNBA were formed *in response* to being largely excluded from the world of sports. My guess is that when women receive full participation in athletics, the LPGA/WNBA/etc will cease to exist.
Think of it in childrens' terms. Suppose all of the popular kids (the A group) sit at the best table in the lunchroom and all of the unpopular kids (the B group) who wish fervently to sit at the table are excluded. Even though the lunch monitor tells the A group the rules say they cannot exclude the B group, the A group makes the B group feel very unwelcome. So rather than be miserable sitting on the sidelines, B group decides to choose another table in a less desirable location and sit there, together. There is plenty of room at the A group's table, and if the A group would let all of the B group kids sit with them, there would be no need for two tables. But they will not, because the B group is not cool enough. Then, the A group comes over and complains that the B group will not allow them to sit at the B group table. This makes the B group angry because if the A group wanted to sit with them, they could have welcomed them to their own table. Instead, they see the A group as wanting to have control over both tables. So they get the lunch monitor to make a rule that the A group cannot sit at the B table, even though there is still no rule that the B group cannot sit at the A table. Unfair? Depends on where you're standing. But if the A group would allow equal and fair participation by the B group, the B group would cease to exist entirely. That is a long and drawn out analogy, but I think it kind of explains the phenomenon you are describing.
