Public Condemnation of Tiger Woods Is Nothing but Victorian Hypocrisy

Now that Tiger Woods is no longer classified as a family man, he can no longer earn a living or enjoy what he likes doing best.

The best golfer on the planet is now a prisoner of public opinion.

After the hue and cry against Woods for having mistresses, to appease the moralists, Woods has vowed to clean up his act and become a family man.

That means he must sacrifice time in the prime of his career to repent his evil ways.

Ironically, the biggest loser in this is the very public that wants him to amend himself, but now can't watch him play.

That would be like Babe Ruth absenting himself from the 1927 Yankees in order to cure his drinking.

That would be like the Beatles quitting in 1967 after admitting to drug use.

This is the equivalent of Mohammed Ali being stripped of his boxing title because he resisted the American military draft.

An athlete or an artist has only so much time on this planet to display his craft.  When he or she can no longer do so, everybody loses.

On a personal level, if Woods himself feels that his marriage is worth saving and that his philandering has hurt his wife and children and he wants to repair any damage, then he is quite right to absent himself to try and turn things around.

But dropping him from ad campaigns and wagging moral fingers at him because his family life isn't the equivalent of the Christmas Nativity is nothing but Victorian hypocrisy.

First of all, this goes on all the time.  How many employees in the companies that have dropped him are male or female philanderers?  How many of them are trapped in unhappy marriages?

Second, this is only news because Woods is famous.  This should be a private family matter.  If Joe the drunk did it, outside of his personal family, nobody would care except those who get a thrill out of it.

Third, it is being played up by people who get a thrill from this, who by their own action of playing it up show that they themselves are not 100 percent pure.  The tabloids can now make some money off of Woods.

Fourth, it appeals to members of the female sex who have an ax to grind against men and want to use Woods as an example.  But Woods "crime" is a tidbit when it is remembered that two NFL players lost their lives recently because of women.

And in the context of the world's vices, it's not even worth a yawn.

Why do these people want to crucify Woods when teen-agers use the Internet to spread malicious rumours about other teen-agers that have resulted in suicides and even murder?

When rich financiers who caused the mortgage scandal and other white-collar crimes that have ruined millions go unpunished.

When the ex-president of the United States is being indirectly fingered on the Internet, DVDs, and elsewhere as being behind the greatest crime in American history and no investigation is being conducted, and this after Richard Nixon was stampeded out of office merely for burglarizing and wiretapping a political opponent.

When anyone, including children, can easily get and read every kind of smut and vice, far worse than Tiger Woods can even imagine, let alone do, in the privacy of their home on the Internet.

Have these moralists got anything better to do with themselves?  That's assuming they are 100 percent pure and don't need to clean up their own act.

The Puritans punished adultery by death.  The Victorians made any person convicted of being involved in an extra-marital affair a social pariah whose career was immediately ruined and suffered almost permanent exile.

But the most moral king in British history, Charles I, lost his head.  He was a happily married man.  His son, Charles II, sired over 10 illegitimate children and was known as the Merry Monarch.  He was one of Great Britain's most popular monarchs.

The people who want Woods to "set an example" should examine their own conduct instead.

They got what they wanted; now Woods doesn't play golf. Van Dyke doesn't paint any more pictures.

Woods made a mistake in his family life that may have caused pain to himself and his loved ones.  It is sad that he could not live consistently up to an ideal.  But it's a private matter and none of the public's business.

When you listen to announcers promote upcoming golf tournaments, Woods' name is not mentioned.

It's a strange feeling, you feel that something is missing, that the tournament is less.

In years from now, those who picked up stones against Woods will be the first ones to lament his absence and say,  "If Tiger had been playing, then..."

Woods is right to repent if it helps him, but golf lovers will suffer just as much during his convalescence.