Here is a good statement of the anti- case.
E-mail:
“She is currently 73, and 70 will make the cut. She is the best female golfer in the world and she may not make the cut on the most female friendly course on the PGA tour.
I say let her have her fun, but she is be taking money away from some man who struggles on that PGA tour when she makes millions on her on the LPGA tour. If men played in the LPGA there would be two men’s tour most women can’t complete. I certainly don’t think women should be playing on the PGA tour; they should play on the LPGA tour.
Should Serena William play in the men’s draw, no. Should the best woman in the WNBA play (sit on the bench) in the NBA? No. What is the point? Why give up being number 1 to be number 100. The best women raise the level of other women’s play. They do nothing to benefit men’s competition except perhaps encourage men to want to ensure they do not lose to women.
As a conservative I believe Anika has a right as an individual to strive for excellence, but I don’t think men’s teams should be open to women if women’s teams are not open to men. Since it is not possible to open women’s teams to men, men’s teams should not be open to women.
It’s really simple. Say the ATP was open to women. If only 100 people were on the tour maybe 20 women would make. Then open the WTA to men and imagine the 80 out of 100 would be men. So instead of having a tour of 100 men and a tour of 100 women, you have two tours with 160 men and only 40 women. 60 women would have no where to go. And the forty women would be poorer and cease to have endorsements.
The Anika show is publicity stunt that the PGA would be right to correct for in the future. She is taking money from a tour pro and it should not be encouraged.”