An answer to my previous question got me thinking about this...
For those of you who do not know, she is a teenaged golf prodigy who has made repeated attempts to qualify for the men's PGA tour (she only made cuts once, and has not advanced far in any male tournaments). She has already received contracts worth somewhere around 10 million dollars a year, but never has performed well in men's events, and she missed by 14 strokes in her last attempt to make the cut.
She gets invited to tournaments based on sponsor exemptions, which take spots away from more qualified male golfers, which upsets many people since she has not made cuts on the PGA tour, and she has recently struggled in female events.
Is she good for feminism? My reason for wondering is because she's getting these things and being allowed to compete BECAUSE she's a woman. A male golfer with her abilities would not get the same treatment. Your thoughts?
2007-09-06 09:44:11 · 10 answers · asked by Jim Baw 6 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
If she can play golf at the level of men, then I see no problem with her playing with the men. Personally, I think she was overhyped, and now she has to deal with the consequences.
2007-09-06 11:19:41 · answer #1 · answered by MaryCheneysAccessory 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, is Paul Potts good for opera? He's the guy who won "Britain's Got Talent" singing opera pieces and all the purists say he's terrible, but he immediately got a record contract and is going straight on tour. All his record label cares about is that people loved his rags-to-riches story and will buy the CD whether it's good or not.
Golf tours have to provide audience to get their sponsors. This has less to do with feminism than the free market churning away at what it does best. She's got you talking about the PGA right now, so she's on the tour.
Where I do have sympathy for you is as a sports fan...I think athletes are amazing. But baseball will have Barry Bonds and steroids, the NBA will have crooked refs, the NFL will have bizarre criminal activity...nothing is pure. I do feel bad for the guys who don't make the tour because she does. But I don't think she's there because she's a feminist, she's there because somebody upstairs sees a profit in the contraversy.
2007-09-06 17:10:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anise 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think she is either good or bad for feminism- it really isn't related. I think her opportunities are more related to marketing strategies and attempting to reach a larger audience. The treatment of her may be bad for golf. I always feel bad for people who take criticism based on the actions of others. Should she turn down endorsements or opportunities even is she doesn't think she is as qualified as others? Not many people would turn down 10 million a year to make sure another golfer got their fair shot, especially when the person she is knocking out also has a small chance of winning.
2007-09-07 01:14:04 · answer #3 · answered by nicmoon 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Her sad story has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the greed of her posse (parents, coaches, trainers, sponsors, etc.). The PGA pays significantly more than the LPGA. Also, perhaps because she is cute, the sponsors view her as a gimmick to be used to sell more of their products. Basically, she's being used and abused. She turned pro too early. And, as you've pointed out, she's not up to par, even in the women's events.
Same thing has happened in other sports, such as basketball. For several years, teams have drafted out of high school. Sometimes, it turns out ok (Kobe Bryant, Lebron James). But, mostly the kid is not up to par yet. So, the NBA has a new rule saying that all players must have at least one year of college.
Perhaps the PGA and LPGA should do the same.
2007-09-06 17:04:32 · answer #4 · answered by bikerchickjill 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
She's become sort of the Anna Khournikova of golf. As you probably already know, Anna was a promising tennis player who peaked early and never advanced beyond that. Then she became known more for her looks than her playing ability. At one time, she was earning more money than some of the top female players and had never won a championship. I'm seeing the same thing happening to Michelle Wie. She also appears to have peaked early and is becoming known more for her looks than her game. I'll bet she's also earning more money than some of the top female golfers.
2007-09-06 20:07:53 · answer #5 · answered by RoVale 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
its a double standard. she should not get any special treatment because she is a woman. feminist groups will be the first one to start saying stuff when a woman is at a disadvantage to a male, but when she has an advantage over them, the dont say anything.
michelle wie sucks, period. if she made the grade to play on the PGA that is one thing, but she doesnt even qualify for it, so she should step back and give it to the men who do.
2007-09-06 16:53:49 · answer #6 · answered by BabyBoi 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Michelle Wie has equal potential to Tiger Woods. In fact, Michelle Wie has shown that she is just as good as Tiger Woods and probably even better. Michelle Wie has the skill to make the men's PGA tour and win, but the fact that she fails to qualify is directly related to male sexism, chauvinism, and oppression.
2007-09-06 17:25:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Definitely bad, as it is just another great example of reverse discrimination.
'Yea, sweetie, you suck, but we'll let you into the boys club cuz yer so durn cute!'
Nah, not good for feminism at all.
2007-09-06 16:59:30 · answer #8 · answered by eine kleine nukedmusik 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Irrelevant, unless she's conventionally attractive, in which case we already know why she's being invited to male tournaments.
2007-09-06 17:08:07 · answer #9 · answered by ©å®®ĩε 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She's irrelevant.
2007-09-06 16:52:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋