[Malthaussen]

The question falls into two mutually-exclusive areas.

1) Is it fair? Obviously, not. If an individual has the talent, he/she/it/them/they/fill in the blank should have the opportunity to compete and make the big bucks -- even in swimming, although I don't think the bucks are very big there. Otherwise, we might just as well ban "the hicks, the spics, and the niggers" as well.

2) Is it common sense? Would it "ruin sport," as many have suggested? Probably, if equality were implemented with strict fairness. The outstanding headliners of women's sports would move up where the big money is, and the women's venues would suffer a drastic loss of popularity and support. If the women's sports were also made equal-opportunity, then they probably would become filled with men not quite good enough to make the grade in the "big" league. Embarassment notwithstanding; as Thoran says. Money can compensate for an awful lot of loss of face.

Despite this, I don't like the concept of banning anyone who wants to play. If they can make the grade, more power to them. Whether or not many women would make the grade is a separate issue and not germane to the discussion. Even if NONE were capable of competing at the level of the top male athletes, they shouldn't be "protected" from trying.

But reality is a harsh thing. Men will not change their minds just because they aren't fair. This has been shown in the military -- men DO act differently in conflict with women, and command decisions ARE made on the basis of gender. To say "it shouldn't be so" is to confuse "ought" with "is."

However, no progress can be made without the "experiment" being tried. I don't think professional sport can really be "ruined." It is just too popular a diversion. That changing the rules to allow women to play will cause short-term adjustments is clear; that such adjustments will destroy football or any other sport is senseless alarmism -- much the same was said when "Negroes" were "allowed" to play in US professional sports. And they're still going strong regardless.

But the possible "ruination" of women's sport is likely, I think, unless we face reality and admit that equality can't be a two-way street. Opponents of women in men's sport claim that if such a rule were implemented, then women's sports must be opened to men. I really don't see the logic of that. Oh, it has a nice, idealistic, internal "fairness" to it, but to me it smells more like a manufactured irrefutable retort made by men who don't want to see women competing with the boys. I think there should be a shift in attitude, where the "men's" leagues are open to anyone of talent, regardless of race, creed, sexual preference, or whether or not they stand or sit when shaking hands. With women's leagues to determine the best athletes among women -- leagues that should NOT be open to ANYONE competing in the "other" league. There is the danger, as I mentioned above, that the best female talent would then desert the women's leagues altogether, but it is not necessarily so. Annika said even before Colonial that she would stay with the LPGA whatever happened. The woman's not dumb, she'd rather stay where she can make a couple million a year than play where she'd have to struggle to make the cut every week. While the women's leagues would no doubt lose a fair number of their best players to the "other" league, the majority of the women would stay in their own league and still be able to provide an entertaining product.

The transition would be chaotic, mind you. It would take a lot of short-term adjustments before the change was accepted. But then, all change is like that, whether it's a change in playoff structure or a change in player eligibility.

-- Mal