Wow, no male douchebags entered or filed a lawsuit? Hopefully, this will be the start of getting more ladies comfortable in playing poker instead of so many 100% sausage fest tables.
Have there been any violators in the Brantford "Ladies Only" and "Gentlemen Only" tournaments?
Wow, no male douchebags entered or filed a lawsuit? Hopefully, this will be the start of getting more ladies comfortable in playing poker instead of so many 100% sausage fest tables.
Have there been any violators in the Brantford "Ladies Only" and "Gentlemen Only" tournaments?
The game of poker is beautiful because all ages, race, gender, etc. are able to play, and unite at a poker table.
I just think senior's and women's event's are dumb.
it always amazes me when i hear comments like this. let me guess, you're a male, correct?
considering the feminist movement began like 40 years ago and women still aren't treated fairly somewhat suggests that we still need structures like this in place for the oppressed. women still make 80 cents to the dollar or less compared to men in the same occupations. women still hit glass ceilings in many occupations. if you think men and women are treated equally right now in north america, you are delusional (just as another example, there was just a news report last week i think about women going to auto mechanics and how they are constantly charged more than men for the exact same issues - reporters went undercover to multiple mechanics and every time they screwed the females out of more money; granted, they tried to overcharge the men too though in every instance as well).
in poker, it is blatantly obvious that men dominate. allowing one big tournament in the entire series just for women is a great idea. after all, every other event is pretty much men only anyway.
you remind me of those people who bitch and complain about native indians because they receive tax breaks and they occasionally protest for their land. perhaps you should consider for a second the decades and decades of oppression that these groups have endured - actually, more like centuries and centuries in the case of women.
now i do understand where you're coming from. i do see your argument is that having women only tournaments that exclude men doesn't seem to be equal nor does it promote equality. however, to say this is to be shortsighted. the oppressed in this case have been oppressed pretty much forever. they are still oppressed. they literally are not treated as equals. therefore, to simply label them as equals and say that it's up to them to act like they're equals is extremely problematic.
until they ARE actually equal, the oppressed need outlets like this. they need the opportunity of empowerment even if short lived otherwise they'll never be able to escape oppression on their own (or at the very least it will be much more difficult for them to do so). so despite that in the short term a women's only event is in fact excluding men, it should be seen as a necessary evil. you can't expect a group of oppressed people to escape their oppression without allowing them to have some sort of power in the first place, and you definitely can't just say 'okay we're all equal now imo so all you oppressed people can just suck it up and act like you're equal now'. it just doesn't work like that.
Trigs . . . I see where you're coming from, and most of what you say is valid, but calling someone who can afford the $1k buy-in "oppressed" just rankles a bit.
Also, if one stipulates to the various forms of oppression, and oppressed groups, isn't the answer to remove those barriers, rather than to toss them a bone through things like "Ladies only" events? Couldn't you make the argument that by shunting them off into their "own" event, you are implying that they cannot compete with the boys? Not saying that is my position, but would you be as stern on your defence of a "Afro-American only" event?
Long story short, things like the Ladies/Seniors tourney fall into the category of "separate but equal", in my opinion. That argument was not allowed to carry the day in the gay marriage debate, but it seems to be fine in the context of poker. Hmmmmm . . .
it always amazes me when i hear comments like this. let me guess, you're a male, correct?
considering the feminist movement began like 40 years ago and women still aren't treated fairly somewhat suggests that we still need structures like this in place for the oppressed. women still make 80 cents to the dollar or less compared to men in the same occupations. women still hit glass ceilings in many occupations. if you think men and women are treated equally right now in north america, you are delusional (just as another example, there was just a news report last week i think about women going to auto mechanics and how they are constantly charged more than men for the exact same issues - reporters went undercover to multiple mechanics and every time they screwed the females out of more money; granted, they tried to overcharge the men too though in every instance as well).
in poker, it is blatantly obvious that men dominate. allowing one big tournament in the entire series just for women is a great idea. after all, every other event is pretty much men only anyway.
you remind me of those people who bitch and complain about native indians because they receive tax breaks and they occasionally protest for their land. perhaps you should consider for a second the decades and decades of oppression that these groups have endured - actually, more like centuries and centuries in the case of women.
now i do understand where you're coming from. i do see your argument is that having women only tournaments that exclude men doesn't seem to be equal nor does it promote equality. however, to say this is to be shortsighted. the oppressed in this case have been oppressed pretty much forever. they are still oppressed. they literally are not treated as equals. therefore, to simply label them as equals and say that it's up to them to act like they're equals is extremely problematic.
until they ARE actually equal, the oppressed need outlets like this. they need the opportunity of empowerment even if short lived otherwise they'll never be able to escape oppression on their own (or at the very least it will be much more difficult for them to do so). so despite that in the short term a women's only event is in fact excluding men, it should be seen as a necessary evil. you can't expect a group of oppressed people to escape their oppression without allowing them to have some sort of power in the first place, and you definitely can't just say 'okay we're all equal now imo so all you oppressed people can just suck it up and act like you're equal now'. it just doesn't work like that.
Im a realist, I can see both sides of the coin.
Im not some sort of bigot or sexist.
Poker is a game of thought, strategy and reads... it's the same if you are male or female. There's zero physical limitations, so why seperate men from women?
Hi guys - thanks for the well-wishes but I busted out early: I lost half my stack in the first 30 minutes then ground back to 7500 or so in the second hour, then lost my mind with AQ against a drawn out straight, which I thought she might have had but she was the type of player that would have played the same way with middle pair: then after being extremely short, I went out with TT against KK.
My thoughts on the Ladies event are pretty simple: I think the WSOP does this as a gimick to draw more female players out to their events - I do not think that the WSOP is implying in any way that women are somehow inferior poker players to men (I personally beat and get beaten by both male and female players regularly - although, not gonna lie, I think female players in general are easier to read).
I think that once women, again in general, get more comfortable playing "big events" amongst themselves, the hope, from a business perspective, is that women will venture out in to the other, open events and not just the Kathy Lieberts, Vanessa Selbsts and Vanessa Roussos and Jen Harmons of the poker world, but the regular Janes like myself.
The whole WSOP experience for me was a positive one - I learned a lot about my own game and about how some people are playing poker out there and my hope is that next year, Sonny & I both will play events (I may in fact skip the ladies and just play an open event...we will see).
I was fortunate enough to have played with Elizabeth Hille (2012 ME 11th place finisher) and Vicky Coren, British pro. I spoke with Kathy Liebert, saw Nancy Birnbaum, Tiffany Michelle and Amanda Musumeci.
Trigs . . . I see where you're coming from, and most of what you say is valid, but calling someone who can afford the $1k buy-in "oppressed" just rankles a bit.
i'd argue that rich people can still be oppressed. i can try to offer examples if you're interested.
Also, if one stipulates to the various forms of oppression, and oppressed groups, isn't the answer to remove those barriers, rather than to toss them a bone through things like "Ladies only" events? Couldn't you make the argument that by shunting them off into their "own" event, you are implying that they cannot compete with the boys?
ultimately, yes that is the goal. however, like i mentioned, women are not equal at the current moment. therefore, to break barriers down now and just say they are equal when they actually are not simply sets them up for failure on this 'equal' playing field we the men have created. it's obviously a difficult situation to deal with and i'm not saying i have all the answers, but i'm suggesting that it's not as simple as just letting the girls join in with us.
Not saying that is my position, but would you be as stern on your defence of a "Afro-American only" event?
i am not sure about the representation of blacks in the wsop. however, even if they are under-represented i wouldn't be okay with an event like this. race and distinctions based on skin colour are completely arbitrary and therefore i would not choose to support those notions. dealing with racism is even more difficult than dealing with general oppression imho.
Personally, I look at it this way . . . the WSOP is privately owned. Therefore, they can host whatever kinds of events they choose and, if there is enough of an issue, people will vote with their dollars, as is currently being suggested viz. the Venetian.
Comments
Have there been any violators in the Brantford "Ladies Only" and "Gentlemen Only" tournaments?
If there was "men only" event's, it would be blasphemous.
This is 2013, and we are all equals. male or female.
I was actually rooting for a male to enter this and do some damage.
Hopefully they get rid of women only events all together in the near future.
Maybe you should look at the big picture Kony/Costanza/Fed.
wait/wut/wat?
I think it may be so.:o
can you elaborate on why women only event's are ok?
Go back and read post #2 in this thread. Also there is a senior event at the WSOP. Is this not okay either?
I just think senior's and women's event's are dumb.
Childs play...
.
.
You mean this?
Too bad the picture is now gone.
http://www.pokerforum.ca/f7/youre-kidding-me-26031/
it always amazes me when i hear comments like this. let me guess, you're a male, correct?
considering the feminist movement began like 40 years ago and women still aren't treated fairly somewhat suggests that we still need structures like this in place for the oppressed. women still make 80 cents to the dollar or less compared to men in the same occupations. women still hit glass ceilings in many occupations. if you think men and women are treated equally right now in north america, you are delusional (just as another example, there was just a news report last week i think about women going to auto mechanics and how they are constantly charged more than men for the exact same issues - reporters went undercover to multiple mechanics and every time they screwed the females out of more money; granted, they tried to overcharge the men too though in every instance as well).
in poker, it is blatantly obvious that men dominate. allowing one big tournament in the entire series just for women is a great idea. after all, every other event is pretty much men only anyway.
you remind me of those people who bitch and complain about native indians because they receive tax breaks and they occasionally protest for their land. perhaps you should consider for a second the decades and decades of oppression that these groups have endured - actually, more like centuries and centuries in the case of women.
now i do understand where you're coming from. i do see your argument is that having women only tournaments that exclude men doesn't seem to be equal nor does it promote equality. however, to say this is to be shortsighted. the oppressed in this case have been oppressed pretty much forever. they are still oppressed. they literally are not treated as equals. therefore, to simply label them as equals and say that it's up to them to act like they're equals is extremely problematic.
until they ARE actually equal, the oppressed need outlets like this. they need the opportunity of empowerment even if short lived otherwise they'll never be able to escape oppression on their own (or at the very least it will be much more difficult for them to do so). so despite that in the short term a women's only event is in fact excluding men, it should be seen as a necessary evil. you can't expect a group of oppressed people to escape their oppression without allowing them to have some sort of power in the first place, and you definitely can't just say 'okay we're all equal now imo so all you oppressed people can just suck it up and act like you're equal now'. it just doesn't work like that.
Also, if one stipulates to the various forms of oppression, and oppressed groups, isn't the answer to remove those barriers, rather than to toss them a bone through things like "Ladies only" events? Couldn't you make the argument that by shunting them off into their "own" event, you are implying that they cannot compete with the boys? Not saying that is my position, but would you be as stern on your defence of a "Afro-American only" event?
Long story short, things like the Ladies/Seniors tourney fall into the category of "separate but equal", in my opinion. That argument was not allowed to carry the day in the gay marriage debate, but it seems to be fine in the context of poker. Hmmmmm . . .
..and my wife uses my razor blades on her legs...I fold!
For the price of the cartridges for the Mach 3, I hide mine.
Im a realist, I can see both sides of the coin.
Im not some sort of bigot or sexist.
Poker is a game of thought, strategy and reads... it's the same if you are male or female. There's zero physical limitations, so why seperate men from women?
I need new blades as well...
I just got into shaving my chest... looks better and feels good, but boy does it ever chew up razor blades
Go away Mike.
Mark
At least he's persistent.
I believe it's called "Obsessive compulsive"
Mark
My thoughts on the Ladies event are pretty simple: I think the WSOP does this as a gimick to draw more female players out to their events - I do not think that the WSOP is implying in any way that women are somehow inferior poker players to men (I personally beat and get beaten by both male and female players regularly - although, not gonna lie, I think female players in general are easier to read).
I think that once women, again in general, get more comfortable playing "big events" amongst themselves, the hope, from a business perspective, is that women will venture out in to the other, open events and not just the Kathy Lieberts, Vanessa Selbsts and Vanessa Roussos and Jen Harmons of the poker world, but the regular Janes like myself.
The whole WSOP experience for me was a positive one - I learned a lot about my own game and about how some people are playing poker out there and my hope is that next year, Sonny & I both will play events (I may in fact skip the ladies and just play an open event...we will see).
I was fortunate enough to have played with Elizabeth Hille (2012 ME 11th place finisher) and Vicky Coren, British pro. I spoke with Kathy Liebert, saw Nancy Birnbaum, Tiffany Michelle and Amanda Musumeci.
i'd argue that rich people can still be oppressed. i can try to offer examples if you're interested.
ultimately, yes that is the goal. however, like i mentioned, women are not equal at the current moment. therefore, to break barriers down now and just say they are equal when they actually are not simply sets them up for failure on this 'equal' playing field we the men have created. it's obviously a difficult situation to deal with and i'm not saying i have all the answers, but i'm suggesting that it's not as simple as just letting the girls join in with us.
i am not sure about the representation of blacks in the wsop. however, even if they are under-represented i wouldn't be okay with an event like this. race and distinctions based on skin colour are completely arbitrary and therefore i would not choose to support those notions. dealing with racism is even more difficult than dealing with general oppression imho.