When talented, charismatic, wholesome, young Tiger Woods burst onto the scene, I followed his televised career on the links, read all of the magazines and books, clipped out newspaper articles to savor forever, named my cat after him, and bought a bobble-headed version of the cute golfer. What a gentleman!

Upon startled completion of twice reading a Hoosier Ph.D.’s recent twisted explanation of the current Tiger Tragedy of Errors, my decision to box up this collection of paraphernalia seems justified. My cat died this past Easter. The phenomenal athlete, considerably handicapped and fallen from grace, shoots straight down the fairway to the recycling bin. No mulligan allowed.

This professorial judgment call, published so far in two newspapers, impresses as peppered with statistics, (illogical) logic, and syllogisms. If “A”=”B” and “B”=”C”, then “A”=”C”. Thus, Adultery=Botched Feminism=Cavorting Recklessly (with–abandon), resulting simplistically in: Adultery=Cavorting. How feminism crawled into the middle of the mix remains a puzzlement each time I re-read this fellow’s deduction that Tiger exists forlornly as a “sex object”? Really? A sports figure designed and marketed for a long line of ravenous females initially–or finally–liberated by Kate Millet via her Columbia University Ph.D.dissertation and eventual 1970 ‘s book entitled SEXUAL POLITICS?

Might we retire phrases and tags, the more enlightened we grow, such as “Love HIM–hate HER”, “domestic violence”, “straight”, “queer”, “stud”, “egghead”, “hunk”, “babe”, “jock”, “nerd”, and “feminism” itself? Playwright Henrik Ibsen dealt with social mores in each of his plays, two of which ignited rampant adulation from feminists: A DOLL’S HOUSE and HEDDA GABLER. Those eager crusading ladies…and gents…wished to adopt the Norwegian sensation only unto themselves so that he would leap to embrace their pet cause. Detached, prudent, circumspect, cautious, the dramatist distanced himself citing his interest in generalized human behavior as sufficient prompting for his artistry, steering clear of momentary, furor-stirred, trendy “movements”.

Writers, professors, philosophers, institutions, establishments, industries, and governments who or which perpetuate rigid divisions among the human race by resorting to malleable self-fulfilling stats, graphs, pie-charts and stereo-typical labeling? Listen up! Blended humanity, freed from strife, cannot help but happen. Stand back, shut up, and watch! Oh, happy day!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: