Wrong.

It depends on how you define "pro." She is playing in LPGA tournaments, because of "sponsor's exemptions" -- tournament sponsors, like Nike, can invite anyone they want to play in the tournament, and they're in. They could invite Rebecca Traister, and she'd be able to play. That's what's happening to Wie. However, she can't officially join the tour until she's eighteen, and if she does, she has to compete for a spot -- i.e., go through Qualifying School. Go the the LPGA.com site and search for her -- you won't find her listed as a player. The sponsors aren't inviting her because she's a good golfer. They're inviting her because she's a good golfer who's also young and hot and famous and because of that, will draw crowds.

Jan Stephenson tried this back when the LPGA wanted to be taken seriously for their golf; she was castigated for using sex appeal to promote the sport by her fellow golfers. Now the daughters of the serious women are out there, they are as much concerned about making serious money as about being taken seriously. That requires marketing (which was what Jan was trying to do). It requires viewers, sponsors, and galleries. Attractive actors, singers, and athletes garner better receipts then less attractive. Attractive golfers will garner better receipts then less attractive. Except to be seen on Sunday afternoon, the golfers have to have game too. Thanks to the 'Jans' of golf.

Beautiful women exploit men with their sexuality. Average looking feminists complain.

Yawn.

Um, Tyler Durden? Michelle Wie turned pro in October 2005, around her 16th birthday.

I remember being appalled about 13 years ago at a Digital World conference when Trip Hawkins, then the head of Electronic Arts said in a speech that they were looking to expand the market for their golf games by adding female player models, and providing a wide variety of outfits and accessories to dress themwith. "Women love to shop!" he said.

I remain appalled to this day.

Of course, the golferettes themselves have nothing to do with this. They're being exploited, again, by that evil Patriarchy, when if they had their way, they'd all play golf in Mao suits because it's really all about pure ability.

What a crock. To provide one example, let's take a look at Michelle Wie, who is, to put it politely, a stone-cold knockout. Six feet tall, perfect body, and gorgeous. Now, take a look at the cover of the issue of Fortune featuring Ms. Wie in October of 2005. She's standing there holding a golf club and wearing a business suit. Fine.

However, if you open the magazine and turn to the story, there's a very large, carefully-shot black and white photo of her that could only be captioned "Do Me." Her hair is down, her mouth is slightly open, she's made up and lit, and she's got an expression on her face that is intended, obviously, to give middle-aged men (like, say, advertising executives) a major hard-on.

Ms. Wie is represented by the William Morris Agency. She has taken in contracts for commercial endorsements worth over $30 million. She's seventeen years old. She hasn't even turned professional yet.

She's not selling her abilities as a golfer, which are as yet unproven. She's selling style, and in a nice, sanitized way, sex. Unless you are dumb enough to believe she's a complete puppet, she and her management team know exactly what they're doing, and selling, and she's not just compliant. She's directing the entire operation. I remember that in the article, she was quoted as saying that her homework was to go through a bunch of fashion magazines, tear out pages with clothing she liked, and give it to the agency so they could start defining her look.

She's making an enormous amount of money for being a fashion and marketing icon, not for winning tournaments. And I don't see her giving any of it back because it's "wrong."

"When you hear the words 'glamour' and 'golf' paired in a sentence" . . . jeez, I thought this was going to end with, "you're probably living in a parallel universe where this juxtaposition might be possible."

But that's not to say that notions of style, or other ephemera, in golf have been restricted to the kind of women-only things mentioned in this piece. I'm not a golf fan (or a sports fan generally), but I think the observations here might be a little unfair. I seem to recall plenty of talk 'way back in my young days about Greg Norman's self-designed gear (complete with shark logo--he was "The Shark") and of how he used to fly himself to tournaments (he was a pilot) in his private plane (he was, of course, also stinkin' rich). And this is to say nothing of Payne Stewart's wretched tartan plus-fours and tam, Lee Trevino's stylin' hats (yeah, I'm that old), or John Daly's paunch, domestic violence record or generally dismal personal life. There was plenty of talk about those sorts of things, most of which had nothing at all to do with golf. Similarly, _please_ tell me I'm not the only one to coo over Tiger Woods because of how cute he is? Oh, yeah, and his golf game is, y'know, pretty sharp.