Analysis:
Golf is known as a gentleman’s game; and in Mexico, it is no different. In this chapter, Gender on the Golf Course, a questionnaire is appointed to a few different people on the golf course regarding the privileges affluent men have over women, both wealthy and non wealthy. Just by reading her conclusion, one can see the purpose of this chapter: to point fingers at men. Whether one agrees with the author’s stance, I find her approach to be unmoving. She interviews a few people, mostly females, to show the unfairness of the socio-economic system. She argues that sports in general are just another way to portray men as being hegemonic toward women through their abilities. She calls this hegemonic masculinity, which she always falls back on to explain her feelings toward the matter. Golf, in itself, is a sport that permeates a sense of arrogance from whoever steps on the course. It is a sport that I think does not help her argument because of the atmosphere golf presents, which is wealth. So using golf as a way to demonstrate men’s unfairness and their apparent “hegemonic masculinity” is not wise. She even included a statement from a female golfer who talked about how golf is better than other sports because you are playing against yourself. But that just shows how it is more individualistic than other sports, not competing with other players showing your athleticism! Now, I will say that some of her points were valid, such as the teeing off issue and the professionalism of women compared to men who were said to have not been turning in their score cards. But I think overall, it felt as if she was just pouting while listing examples of situational interactions that showed how affluence justifies one’s behavior. I felt she could have selected a more available sport that does not have innate qualities of wealth. But one final thing I will agree upon is the unfortunate fact that no matter how wealthy you are, women will always be seen as inferior to men.
