By Selwyn Duke
Well, I've had it. If I read another article about the Augusta National controversy containing the usual tripe, like the one I just had the displeasure of reading, I think my head just may explode. I won't mention the writer's name because she already receives more publicity than her modicum of talent and acumen warrant, nor will I reference the mainstream press rag that carried it. And truth be known, it really doesn't matter. This is because many of these publications and pieces have become like interchangeable parts: just give them different titles, change the wording slightly, and reprint them a few months later and they will be indistinguishable from the "fresh" material that these pundits periodically regurgitate. Same politically correct platitudes -- different day. The only positive thing I can say about the article in question is that it has inspired me to write this response, in the same way that a mosquito that goes to the well once too often and disturbs your slumber inspires you to arise and embark upon a search and destroy mission.
As many of you know, the Augusta National Golf Club, site of the prestigious "Masters" golf tournament, has been at the center of a maelstrom of controversy due to the fact that it has never invited a woman to become a member. Since this is the week of the Masters, and the odious, militant feminist, Martha Burk, is planning to protest the club's policy during the event, the story has once again gotten legs. Of course, the story's legs would have been severed a long time ago if the media had sought to reveal the truth that underlies the issue instead of marching in lock-step as foot soldiers for militant feminist causes. But to expect this would be like expecting a mosquito not to suck blood.
This controversy isn't about women's rights; although it's framed that way, it's really about constitutional rights. It is about fairness, but not the notion of fairness that says Augusta should enroll women. It is about double-standards, but not the idea that keeping women off the club's membership rolls is one of them. And it is about diversity, but not the mistaken notion that pressuring this good ol' boy network into accepting the fairer sex will increase it.
The right that is relevant here is the freedom of association. As an entity that is privately owned, Augusta has the right to determine who it will and won't let cross its threshold. This is the constitutional aspect of the matter and, thankfully, the courts have time and again upheld such organizations' right to associate in a manner that pleases them. But then there's the issue of fairness and double-standards: it may be legal, but it's not right or fair to exclude women, the nattering ne'er-do-wells will opine. But the only double-standard that relates to this issue is the one that these malcontents are themselves guilty of, for, they never utter a word about the exclusively female organizations that exist. For instance, there's that new line of women-only health clubs that are all the rage -- should we be expecting another protest, Martha Burk, hmm? And then how about diversity? Well, as it stands right now most country clubs accept both sexes, some are reserved for men and a few are actually exclusively female; quite a diverse sampling, I would say. If these folks hold sway and manage to foist their paradigm of diversity on the rest of us, however, virtually ALL clubs will be integrated in EXACTLY the same manner and this diversity among clubs will go the way of the dodo. They will have enforced conformity to a homogenizing doctrine of diversity. And if this happens, it will only prove that the wrong kind of dodos became extinct . . .
Speaking of dodos, I'll get back to the piece that shall remain nameless and the points contained therein. Oh, but not because it's special, but only because it's the banal interchangeable part that happened to most recently raise the ire of yours truly. Why is getting a female foot in the door of the Masters venue so important? Well, according to the writer in question, it's so that a ten-year-old girl watching the event will be able to see a woman wearing a green jacket -- which is imperative because golf has for so long "pushed most 10-year-old girls away." She then goes on to say, and, this is oh-so touchy-feely, that this will tell this young girl that "yes, she is welcome." Let's all sing Kumbaya. It's interesting though, I really didn't know that ten-year-old girls had dispensed with frolicking in shopping plazas and were now part of golf's target audience. Furthermore, I had no idea that the image of one woman standing in the background [amidst a backdrop of spectators, many of whom are female] clothed in a green jacket would stir the psyche of such girls so profoundly. I can see it now: "Look at that! A woman in a green jacket! Wow, I never thought golf was for me, but now I'm going to skip my dance class this afternoon and my date with the girls at the mall and hit the links." Well, well, now that we've acquired this newfound knowledge about how to motivate children we should apply it more often. For instance, perhaps we should showcase some black ballet dancers so that when poor, black, ten-year-old boys tune in to watch ballet they'll be inspired to be part of the Bolshoi. The truth is, that the whole notion is as fanciful as Hillary Clinton's pandering and dubious claim during her New York Senate race that as a young girl in Chicago she was a diehard Yankees fan . . . yeah, Hillary, and do you have some land in the Whitewater development to sell us, too? Actually, methinks the thought process of those ten-year-old girls might be a little more like this: "Look at that! A woman in a green jacket! I really didn't know that color was so cool -- I'm going to see if I can find that in the mall today!"
Now, I've indulged myself by poking fun at the patently ridiculous, but now it's time to sober up. This is because the writer has a gripe, and it's a common one -- and one that cuts ice with many people. She complains about the fact that the prize money in the women's U.S. Open [golf] pales in comparison to that of the men's Open, and says that this is neither equal nor right. Well, it certainly isn't equal, but equal isn't synonymous with right, unequal isn't synonymous with wrong -- and she is wrong. This is because to arbitrarily say that female athletes should earn the same as male ones is like saying that lightweight boxers should make the same as heavyweights. Or, that players on the Nationwide Tour [the secondary golf tour in the U.S.], the Japanese Tour, the South African Tour and the European Tour should make as much as the PGA players. This would be silly. It would be silly because it is the MARKET [the people, making their choices as to how to spend their money] that determines how much a given individual or individuals in a given profession will make. In other words, if you're an athlete and you can attract enough people to make a million dollars, you'll make a million dollars -- that's capitalism 101. It's also why a doctor makes more than a pizza delivery man, why Bill Gates makes more than I do, and it's why female fashion models earn three-times as much as their male colleagues. So, is there inequality here? Yes, sure, in terms of outcome, but not in terms of opportunity. Lightweight boxers operate within the same free market system as the heavyweights, which gives them the same opportunity to attract spectators -- they just don't do it as well. Those golfers on the other tours also have the same opportunity to garner audience share, but they are smaller fish, so they have smaller ponds. And so it is with women's golf: there is no grand patriarchal conspiracy scheming to keep women's golf a third tier sport; they had an equal opportunity to throw their hat in the ring -- people just aren't as interested in watching. And this is fair and right, and, it's something that sports afficionados should be able to understand as well as anyone because it mirrors the realities in sports themselves. In sports, everyone who enters the fray has the same opportunity to sink or swim based on his own merits, but a successful outcome is guaranteed to no one. There are always winners and losers.
Of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the most significant point that relates to this issue. The truth is that while talk about equality is overdone in most every context in which it's mentioned, it is never more ridiculous than when mentioned in the arena of sports. After all, how can one base a moral argument for equal prize money for women on the principle of equality, while supporting a system that is inherently unequal? Look, true equality is the following: everyone competes together on a level playing field and to the victors belong the spoils -- but that's not the system we have. Instead, we have a system wherein a certain segment of the population [women] is protected from superior competition by virtue of the fact that they've been given their own separate leagues, tours and teams. A little sidenote here: if everything, like Augusta National for instance, should be coed, shouldn't men be allowed access to women's sports? Just wanted to add that . . . but the bottom line is this: if women want to make the men's money, they should play the men's tour!
Now, what I've written here is the truth, but will you hear such a point of view from the mainstream media? No -- but why? Because they'd rather recycle the same old pabulum and propaganda ad infinitum than print a refreshing point of view that could stimulate thought and possibly change hearts; of course though, the changing of hearts is exactly what they fear most. But this is where the free market system comes in handy again: it has provided us with alternative media outlets that have broken the death grip the mainstream media had on the hearts and minds of Americans. The fact is that the mainstream media are less relevant than ever due to the rise to prominence of the internet and cable news, and they are continuing to spiral downwards toward the very nadir of complete impotence and insignificance. And as far as I'm concerned, it cannot happen fast enough.
