![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
viktor_haagJunior's Monday column weighs in on the Wie issue, in typically pointed Junior-like fashion. While it's true that his rhetoric neatly frames her choices as either money-grubbing or arrogant, he certainly knows a heck of a lot more about golf and golfers than I do. However, it still seems to me that the deserving question deserves to be asked even if not answered: shouldn't Wie be allowed to compete on the men's tour, even if she's hopeless at it, simply as a matter of civil rights principle?
Junior remarks that "Sorenstam's play brought more interest to the women's game than anyone since Nancy Lopez". But what if Wie's stubborness addresses her (or one of her handler's) desire to revolt against the very existence of a women's tour in favour of simply "the pastime".
Junior remarks that "Sorenstam's play brought more interest to the women's game than anyone since Nancy Lopez". But what if Wie's stubborness addresses her (or one of her handler's) desire to revolt against the very existence of a women's tour in favour of simply "the pastime".
