What a dick.

And that’s an understatement.
It looks like Jean Van de Velde, who lost the British Open in 1999, is apparently upset about the decision by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club (R &A) to allow women to qualify for the Open. In retaliation to this preposterous idea that women should be allowed to play with men, he’s applying to play in the Women’s Open next year, reports Reuters.
Van de Velde’s feelings are that the R & A should be attending “more important matters,” and questions why women would even want to enter a competition they would have no chance of winning. “Where do we draw the line?” he asks.
“If they allow me to, I’ll definitely go and play, just to make a point. I would be very happy to use the ladies locker room.” He also jokingly said he would shave his legs and wear a kilt if it meant him being able to enter the competition. You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Former Ryder Cup player Barry Lane is applauding Van de Velde, saying that “If 100 men decided to take the same stance and they all qualified off the ladies’ tees, they could take most of the Women’s British Open’s spots.”
A bit cocky, are we? So if that’s true, why are they so up in arms about women entering the tournament? After all, they’re going to lose anyway, right?
Sounds like our Frenchman is the sore loser to me. I could go on, but I don’t trust myself with this potty mouth of mine.

and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

13 Comments

  1. Thomas
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    The high point of Jean Vandevelde’s career was his spectacular last-hole collapse in the Open. hey, Jean, the lie, she was not so good, eh? He may hit longer than the women, but he’s not fit to carry Annika Sorenstam’s seven iron.
    (and that crack about the kilt, is that intended to insult Scots? Because if he shows up at the Open, it’s not like I can’t get to the UK to kick his ass. Frog.)

  2. racya
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

    I hope he gets his ass kicked.

  3. bear
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Keep in perspectice that the sport got its name from the rule, Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden.
    Is it any wonder there are still neanderthals who think that way?

  4. ML
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 7:21 pm | Permalink
  5. feministmyrmidon
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

    It’s too bad that his whole idea of self was so beaten down by losing a golf tournament and that being in competition with women might just crush him. Even privileged golfers with bruised egos need love, but who could love such a turd?

  6. crella
    Posted October 28, 2005 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    I think the kilt remark was humor…that if he wore a “skirt” he’d fit in better in the ladies’locker room.
    Why not let him play? I have NO idea why you’re in such a lather over this. While women are allowed to have women-only gyms and such, women are joining men’s golf tournies,going to court to get into men’s country clubs etc. Hardly ‘equal’ I would think. Turn about is fair play is it not? If women get to go into men’s locker rooms and interview them naked, can play in the men’s PGA, can drive Formula 1 cars with the men, isn’t it time that women let men into all-female events? And if not why not? ‘Have your cake and eat it too’ more like ‘women have everyone’s cake and not let those nasty men have a bite’.

  7. Posted October 28, 2005 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    So if that’s true, why are they so up in arms about women entering the tournament?
    Why isn’t this obvious to feminists who already see the world as having double standards? The point of anger is about the double standards – women can play in men’s leagues but are upset when men want to play in their leagues.
    I say that 100 men should enter into the Woman’s Golf Tour and start displacing women. If women don’t want double standards then fold up the women’s tour and men and women both play on the same tour.
    And while they’re at this they should do something about female reporters going into male locker rooms but barring male reporters from going into female locker rooms. Double standards again.

  8. Posted October 29, 2005 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    The situation is quite similar, though not exactly similar, to the situation in chess 20 years ago. Back then, when they thought women couldn’t compete with the men, they set up a whole separate rating and tournament system for female chess players. While it still exists, there is lots of crossover to the “real” chess federation, where men have been playing all along.
    What has happened in chess, and seems to be happening in golf, is that there are two separate leagues, one the “best” league (regardless of sex: just let the best person win), and the woman’s league, which has no men, and which is generally acknowledged as having lower quality players.
    This could happen in hockey, basketball, tennis, etc.. In the sports that require more power and bodily contact, though, women typically have very little chance against the top men, except in positions like the kicker in football or the goalie in hockey.

  9. the15th
    Posted October 29, 2005 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    I think the best commentary on this came from Sportsfilter, where someone asked if the people who were outraged about the “exclusionary” women’s tour would also argue for van de Velde’s right to join the senior tour.
    None of them answered.

  10. Posted October 30, 2005 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    I’ve never understood this attitude. Why not allow women to compete whereever they can? If a woman managed to qualify for the tournament, obviously she is playing at a high level. So what’s the problem?

  11. Posted October 30, 2005 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    Charlie,
    I’ve never understood this attitude.
    But why not allow men to do the same thing. If some golfer isn’t finishing in the money on the men’s tour because the competition is tougher, then why not allow that male golfer to compete against the women and inceaase his chance of winning in the money? As you say “What’s the problem?”

  12. Roving Thundercloud
    Posted November 2, 2005 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    About women’s hockey–one of the main reasons women’s hockey is a no-hitting game is because female players can’t make a living playing their sport. You can’t afford to risk injuries when you have to show up for your “day job” next morning. Even a few bruises can be a problem if you have a job that puts you in the public eye.
    I’m not saying that being a no-hitting league is a bad thing. I wouldn’t want women’s hockey to attract fans the way roller derby did (let’s watch women colliding and throwing elbows!). I just think it’s pathetic that you can give your whole life to the game, year after year, without being able to make a dime doing it.

  13. daniel
    Posted May 11, 2006 at 3:52 am | Permalink

    I’m a guy. Most guys are really dumb. The reason women can successfully promote the double standards they do is because men do not fight back. Men have sold their souls for sex with women. When the first woman reporter was allowed by a judge to go into the men’s locker rooms, all the men of the world should have gone down in front of that judges courtroom and protested till the judge begged them to stop and the law got reversed. That is because double standards with Feminist trained judgeds will only multiply. The whole feminist community knows that men do not fight back hard, if at all, so they bully any and every way they can. So guys, stick together and fight, or get screwed by the Feminists, the male AND female ones.

174 queries. 1.026 seconds