Tired of hearing about Tiger Woods, and the media’s “slicing” of him? (We’ll avoid “hooking,” the slices’ counterpart here.) Try this:
Woods is no worse, or better, than the other half of the gender world — women. They are no longer the supine “ladies” prepared at a moment’s suggestion to leap into bed, or backseats, and perform what the masculine press now calls “sexual acts.” Yet, what do we read or hear about women in this context? They can be “cocktail waitresses,” or any variety of greeters, hat-checkers, or strippers.
But one thing they cannot be is as Tiger Woods — condemned. In headlines.
Much has been said about sexual inequality — but nothing compares to the extent in the Woods’ case.
All of his “partners” are simply there for the taking. Theirs is the age-old presumption founded by men of women: they are supremely supine, innocent and willing participants in a man’s game and subject only to invitation. This takes them out of the game and nearly off the page. Defenders of this inequality may say, “Yeah, but these partners are not golfers, not tennis stars, hockey goalies, halfbacks, not even half-naked country-singers. They are just women.”
Ergo, they are not equals to Woods. They are merely women, subject to his desires. They are not capable of sin on their own! Oh? They do not compete is his moral class? His immorality is a far superior playing field than theirs? Let’s hope St. Peter sees it that way, ushers them past the pearlies while eyeing that fellow down the line in a T-shirt carrying a five-iron.
Women who demand equality and smash at glass ceilings should be outraged at the fact that one famous fellow can eclipse their fellow females in such a way. He alone is the transgressor. Those others thrashing about in motel bedrooms don’t count. Even though, come to think of it, they perform a vital role in the entire sordid story.