Women and the Masters, here we go again

That's better. I wasn't surprised at all.

Just disappointed at some of our colleagues who didn't seem to think this was a big deal. Or was just a simple mistake.

 

Sounds like it was a mistake that became a big deal. But I should have remembered the dual adages regarding crime and punishment here:

(1) If someone did something and claimed it was an accident or a mistake, it never is, and that person should receive an extreme penalty.

(2) If someone did something on purpose or by mistake, even if he had signed an agreement not to do just such a thing, that person is great and is making life better for all of us.

 

And I'll maintain that it became a bigger deal when someone like Liz Mullen does what she did. It's called fanning the flames.

 

You're getting it, Marty.

 

Yeah, those gals and their push for equality! Soon they'll be burning bras and demanding equal pay.

 

See Williams, Jason

 

According to her newspaper's archives, this was the fourth Masters that Tara has covered. I assume that means she was allowed into the locker room previously without incident -- and the column could have mentioned whether this was the case. This would allow readers to draw their own conclusions about whether the guard was accurately stating policy or was simply misinformed or making up the rules as she went along.

 

Hey, I'm fully behind this woman, who should be able to do her job like any other human being. And I'm sure today she's not exactly thrilled to be at the center of this situation. But c'mon ..... war?!?! This thing has grown legs that it never should have had in the first place.

 

I guess that's the question.

Is it big deal because it's an example how female sportswriters are still treated differently on a routine basis?

Or is it just a simple mistake by a rent-a-cop?

 

See, this is why I love this board and have been coming here for the better part of a decade: It takes six pages of posts to boil it down to a simple question.

 

The idea that Tara "wasn't harmed" because she was provided info by others, as someone else mentioned, is laughable. For one thing, Tara is one of the best interviewers in the business - it's a treat to hear her ask questions. I'll never forget her pointed grilling of Roger Clemens pregame at one ALCS. It was beautiful.

This spring, a security guard at the Cubs' visitors locker room in Mesa thought it was hilarious to tell me I wasn't allowed in every single time I went to get A's players. "No women allowed!" ha ha ha, chortle chortle. I glowered at him each time, and after about time seven, when he wasn't getting that I hadn't found it funny once, I snapped at him, and I also informed the A's PR man, Bob Rose, who let the guy have it.

Seriously, I've covered baseball for 18-some years and some dillweed thinks it's just a hoot to point out how my gender is different? Also: there is another woman on the A's beat, too. So that just must be double hysterical. In 2011. Would he think it was equally funny to say "no blacks!" to La Velle Neal? But somehow it's OK with me, a 45-year-old woman with 23 years in the business.

Maybe people are just hiring idiot guards, but it's amazing to me this is even an issue at all anymore.

 

Few things:
1) In the age of Twitter, in which we're supposed to "interact" with our readers and explain things to them, using Twitter to explain why -- perhaps -- her story lacked some intended elements is entirely OK.
2) Don't discount the importance of the reporter's home turf in this. I've never worked in or around NYC, but it's the most competitive environment around. Consider for a moment what Tara Sullivan must have thought at that moment: Everybody's else is going to have something and I'm going to be shut out. That would make me a bit antsy. So, yes, I support her decision to vent on Twitter.
3) I find it fascinating that Augusta National, which has a code of "patron" conduct that includes a prohibition on running, shouldn't be expected to ensure the security guards at its event are compliant with basic access policies. If you're so obsessed with details that you tell your "patrons" that they can't run on a golf course under any circumstances, it follows that you're vigilant about other details.