Why are (all) women (still) kept out of men's leagues?

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by January Guy

Steve's point is that she may be able to beat the guy who finishes 50th at the Master's, and shouldn't she be entitled to compete and take home that 50th place paycheck which would still be pretty nice.

See Scott's post above.

and I said that would be fine, but I just don't think there are too many playing that caliber of golf.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by January Guy

Steve's point is that she may be able to beat the guy who finishes 50th at the Master's, and shouldn't she be entitled to compete and take home that 50th place paycheck which would still be pretty nice.

Well it's a theoretical point, first, but I'm glad YOU can read the invisible ink, at least.

The money difference later of course is also something to be taken into account, and will vary a lot by sport, naturally. Might be a bad move for her, financially, in golf, but going from maximum in WPS to average in MLS might mean tripling or quadrupling your pay, for example.

Steve

[sctx]

Originally Posted by ryberg

You know, tell me something interesting that's actually also relevant to the point I'm interested in, here, and have been trying to explore in this thread. If you would, por favor. I would appreciate it. (Seriously!)

Steve

It won't matter... I can tell you the PGA does not prohibit women from playing and it won't matter....... here, let's try it again.... the PGA does not prohibit women from playing, but the LPGA prohibits men from playing...... carry on with your witch hunt

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I still ask, Steve, why is it so important that women play alongside men in pro sports?

I still ask Maggie, why do you keep coming up with interpretations in which I supposedly hold views I do not actually hold?



What's important is that women who could or might reasonably be capable of competing in a male-only league or circuit in their sport, and one in which they would like to compete and have a potential financial interest in (due to generally higher pay for male athletes), not be arbitrarily or summarily prevented from having the chance to do so, due to whatever systems (written or unwritten) might be in place.

This has been what I've been talking about all along. Not that it is otherwise generally important for women to play alongside men in sports, not that women in general are now prepared to do so in sports in general, not that we need some kind of "forced inclusion" rules to desegregate organized sports and make them all co-ed, not that the exceptional women in a given sport will necessarily be able to hold their own against the best male players in that sport, nothing to do with wild maniac liberal schemes to undermine the society... Just the crazy (I know!) notion that, as Char also said, the deciding factor in whether an athlete can/will play on a given team in a given sport be based on (prepare yourself!) that athlete's abilities at the sport, and no other factors such as race, gender, or whatever.

Steve

[sctx]

case closed....I found the witch.... it's the federal government

(seriously)

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by sctx

It won't matter... I can tell you the PGA does not prohibit women from playing and it won't matter....... here, let's try it again.... the PGA does not prohibit women from playing, but the LPGA prohibits men from playing...... carry on with your witch hunt

Sorry you see it that way.

So, you're not going to provide the figure, then? Because I would really like to know, just for the sake of the physical abilities argument, you know (an argument you've brought up yourself, in fact)...

[sctx]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Sorry you see it that way.

So, you're not going to provide the figure, then? Because I would really like to know, just for the sake of the physical abilities argument, you know (an argument you've brought up yourself, in fact)...

you'll have to look it up yourself, I don't follow chick golf

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I still ask Maggie, why do you keep coming up with interpretations in which I supposedly hold views I do not actually hold?



What's important is that women who could or might reasonably be capable of competing in a male-only league or circuit in their sport, and one in which they would like to compete and have a potential financial interest in (due to generally higher pay for male athletes), not be arbitrarily or summarily prevented from having the chance to do so, due to whatever systems (written or unwritten) might be in place.

This has been what I've been talking about all along. Not that it is otherwise generally important for women to play alongside men in sports, not that women in general are now prepared to do so in sports in general, not that we need some kind of "forced inclusion" rules to desegregate organized sports and make them all co-ed, not that the exceptional women in a given sport will necessarily be able to hold their own against the best male players in that sport, nothing to do with wild maniac liberal schemes to undermine the society... Just the crazy (I know!) notion that, as Char also said, the deciding factor in whether an athlete can/will play on a given team in a given sport be based on (prepare yourself!) that athlete's abilities at the sport, and no other factors such as race, gender, or whatever.

Steve

it is not crazy, just a bit naive maybe....as I think that is already the case- it IS all about the athlete's abilities, and the women just don't measure up to the males in pro sports. It's not a bad thing, it is the way it is, the way we are made.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Rissask

it is not crazy, just a bit naive maybe....as I think that is already the case- it IS all about the athlete's abilities, and the women just don't measure up to the males in pro sports. It's not a bad thing, it is the way it is, the way we are made.

OK.

In that case, I'll say IF we ever have a Jaqueline Robinson come along, I'll think of you and this conversation.

Steve

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by sctx

you'll have to look it up yourself, I don't follow chick golf

Sörenstam is the best female golfer in the world, arguably. Yet she still cannot compete on the same level with the men in the PGA. She was invited to play in a PGA event, she never made the cut. So there you go. It's enough IMO that she excels in the LPGA....and it would be nice if the LPGA made as much money as the PGA, perhaps one day they will. But I don't see the need to have them playing together.

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by ryberg

OK.

In that case, I'll say IF we ever have a Jaqueline Robinson come along, I'll think of you and this conversation.

Steve

see....now, that statement bugs me.

It's almost as if you have this idea that women in pro sports is remotely comparable to not allowing black men to play, decades ago.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Rissask

see....now, that statement bugs me.

It's almost as if you have this idea that women in pro sports is remotely comparable to not allowing black men to play, decades ago.

Well, it's more than remotely comparable, in my view.

But don't worry, it was in that situation just a joking sort of shorthand way to refer to a female counterpart in terms of breaking through in sports in that way, along the lines of our earlier discussion. If a different figure were more salient in my mind or in this conversation, I could just have easily used a variation on that person's name to make the same reference...

[Rissask]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Well, it's more than remotely comparable, in my view.

But don't worry, it was in that situation just a joking sort of shorthand way to refer to a female counterpart in terms of breaking through in sports in that way, along the lines of our earlier discussion. If a different figure were more salient in my mind or in this conversation, I could just have easily used a variation on that person's name to make the same reference...

Not really comparable, no....men are men, and women are women....the gender differences have zippo to do with race at all.


There are no biological differences between the races that makes them better athletes over other races...there ARE biological differences between the two sexes though. Apples and oranges, whereas Jackie Robinson was an apple playing with other apples.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Not really comparable, no....men are men, and women are women....the gender differences have zippo to do with race at all.


There are no biological differences between the races that makes them better athletes over other races...there ARE biological differences between the two sexes though. Apples and oranges, whereas Jackie Robinson was an apple playing with other apples.

OK.

...

...

...

In any event, as I say, the reference there was just a joking sort of shorthand way to refer to a psychologically very salient figure in terms of breaking through in sports and so forth, rather than writing out "a woman who will someday in fact break through and become a professional player with men at the highest pro level" etc.

Steve

[Babaloo]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Sorry you see it that way.

So, you're not going to provide the figure, then? Because I would really like to know

PGA Top 10
1 Hank Kuehne 314.7
2 Scott Hend 313.8
3 John Daly 306.0
4 Mike Heinen 305.2
5 Geoff Ogilvy 304.6
6 Tiger Woods 303.5
7 Lucas Glover 302.4
7 Chris Smith 302.4
9 J.J. Henry 302.0
10 Davis Love 301.6

LPGA Top 10
1 Sophie Gustafson 286.5
2 Wendy Doolan 283.3
3 Grace Park 280.6
4 Karen Stupples 280.6
5 Annika Sorenstam 280.2
6 Kelly ******* 277.5
7 Reilley Rankin 276.1
8 Pat Hurst 276.0
9 Jung Yeon Lee 275.6
10 Lorena Ochoa 275.3

PGA Bottom 11
181 Brad Faxon 275.2
182 Jim Carter 274.8
183 David Frost 273.9
184 Tom Byrum 273.0
184 Nick Price 273.0
186 Mark Brooks 272.9
186 Mark O'Meara 272.9
186 Omar Uresti 272.9
189 Fred Funk 272.5
190 David Morland 272.3
191 Craig Bowden 270.9
192 John Cook 270.6
193 Loren Roberts 269.5
194 Corey Pavin 267.7