Go to one women's tournament, and you'll have your answer.  Being forced out onto the approaches to do the Chicken Dance doesn't happen at the Open, and that's one of the reasons I'd rather bowl it.  The women's nationals in which I've bowled seem to be more of a social event except, maybe, for Queens week, and I'm not good enough for the Queens.

Heaven forbid that the tournaments became one and we were all subject to the Chicken Dance.

Also, I've never had to bowl in pajamas at the Open, but that was the team "uniform" the LAST time I bowled in the women's version of a national tournament.

Deb
--------------------
Do you want to play.net?

Not allowing women to bowl in the Men's Open Tournament would be discriminatory against women.  It doesn't even make sense to discriminate against men, only against women and other inferior groups, that's why they can have a women-only tournament.  It's not discrimination, it's simply that no men are allowed to participate.

Here in Missississippi, it's a state law that the women are allowed to have their own tournament that excludes men and that men are not allowed to have a tournament that excludes women.  It's the law, so it's not discriminatory.  Our legislators felt that women are not able to compete against men, so to make it more fair to the inferior competitors, they must be allowed to hold a women-only tournament.

See?

SH

Edited on 4/1/2008 3:17 PM

If you're that hung up on being able to compete in the women's tournaments why don't you sue? I am serious. Deb, has it right - be careful what you wish for.

The only thing that matters is that the USBC open events BENEFIT from allowing women - more entries, more prize money, more competition.

No one took anything away from men - opening it up added to what us men have.

If I registered under a womens league would i qualify to bowl the queens? That would be the same as how women can bowl the USBC tournament. Just pondering.