Another objection to short-hitter photo
A couple of days ago we published two letters
objecting to the language and especially illustration of the "Tired of being the short hitter?" piece in the October issue. Some readers took offense at an illustration they deemed sexist and we apologized. We received another letter this weekend.
As a subscriber of Golf Digest, I was more than a little stunned by Max Adler's choice of image to accompany his article, "Tired of being the short hitter?" I might have written off its derogatory nature except that several weeks ago I was also taken aback by the tone of the headline "Why Women Can't Putt." I am left wondering, what is the guiding principle that your editorial team follows? Is it simply to sell magazines to men, regardless of its affect on the industry? What effect are you striving to have on your readers, your staff, their daughters, and on the game of golf? Further, is this really what golf needs right now? With numbers of players consistently dropping, I would think that Golf Digest and its advertisers need every man, woman, and child playing in order to survive or to grow. This condescending attitude seems illogical considering the largest growing segment of golfers is women, many of whom are raising future golfers. Now I do realize that women are a very small demographic for Golf Digest; however how is this tactic helping to improve your readership or advertising base? What legacy could Golf Digest create for golf if it were more inclusive? I for one look forward to seeing what might be. For the love of the game...
Elizabeth Noblitt, Bellevue, WA
For the record, the putting article used new research to make the case that women don't putt as well as men. But the entire putting package
, entitled, "Why you can't putt," made the case that all of us are pretty hopeless on the greens.