I didn't much care that Annika Sorenstam was part of the PGA Tour and was even surprised that it was such a big deal. But as the discussion swirled around her and lingered after she failed to make the cut, I find that I care a lot.
The entire debate about whether she belongs on the tour or not leaves me befuddled. I missed the part where critics asked whether the men who didn't make the cut belonged on the tour. I guess having the right hormones trumps skill.
And here I've been tuning in, occasionally, to broadcasts of the PGA Tour for years thinking it was about the best golfers.
My belief that Sorenstam belonged there, as long as she wanted to be, met the tournament's rules for being admitted to play and could compete, is not feminism coming to the forefront. It's just a firm belief in choice and hard work and basic fairness.
I'd like to see her qualify one day, instead of getting in on a sponsorship. But if you're going to let male competitors in on exemptions, why cry because a woman uses one?
I was fortunate enough to be raised in a home where little boys learned to cook and sew alongside the little girls. And teenage girls didn't get to take the family car from the driveway to the parking strip until they could change tires and knew enough to change the oil or at least to have it done on a regular basis.
My sister and I did home repairs alongside our brothers and Dad. And when it was time to clean the kitchen, you can bet the guys pitched in. Or else. We learned the basics of survival and it had not one whit to do with whether we were boys or girls.
My folks were not trying to blur the lines between the genders; they simply wanted to see that we were prepared with rudimentary skills for whatever life demanded of us. My dad told me more than 25 years ago that his greatest fear for his children was that they would be forced to make bad decisions because of dependence on others. So he and Mom set out to mold capable and thus independent children.
They wanted dreamers, too. You know, "If you can dream it, you can be it."
That may not seem to have much to do with the PGA Tour, but it sure shapes my response to the Sorenstam debate. That a great battle of the sexes should play out on a golf course strikes me as a bit humorous.
It's not like golf favors a big he-man build, though a columnist wrote recently that men are just faster and stronger — end of story.
Golf's about a lot of qualities, a game of finesse, played as much mentally as physically. It's like saying that women can't be jockeys (and at one time all professional jockeys were male, though the needed traits would seem to favor women).
I care not one whit that there are separate men's basketball and women's basketball leagues. It doesn't bother me that gymnasts compete separately based on gender with completely different events. But if some guy would rather do the women's-style vault, floor exercise, beam and parallel bars and can do it well, then cowabunga. It doesn't hurt the sport and it doesn't hurt me, as long as no one's asking that standards be lowered. May the best human win.
It doesn't bother me, either, that there have been, traditionally, a men's golf and a women's golf tour. But I figure if the PGA Tour wants to bill itself as the best, then it should be open to anyone who can meet the rules it sets for getting in. In coming years, that field may or may not include women. But the cut should be made on interest in competing and skill. I'm betting there will be other women in coming years who can qualify and perhaps even win.
History is replete with debates over who belongs where, much of it based on gender. Logic behind most of the bans looks pretty lame from this point in time.
Can you imagine suggesting now that women shouldn't be able to vote in this country?
Poor Sandra Day O'Connor. I do remember some heated discussion on whether a woman belonged on the Supreme Court. Well, years have passed, and the court is still functioning pretty much as it would have had it remained a boys' club. Turns out women can reason, same as men.
Women are surgeons and scientists, cab drivers and commercial fishermen. It's based on their personal interests and abilities, as it should be, and the majority of the population would think any suggestion that women can't do those things is just silly.
A lot of the critics of Sorenstam's participation in the PGA have suggested that, if women get in and then can't compete, well, the rules of play will just be altered to help "even things out."
I doubt it. Playing and playing well is a point of pride. In most areas, the new kid on the block has to work harder to prove he or she belongs, not less hard. Sorenstam competed on the same course as the guys. And she beat some of them.
Having someone "dumb down" the game isn't very appealing to anyone. Especially to people with a can-do spirit.
Deseret News staff writer Lois M. Collins may be reached by e-mail at lois@desnews.com