A Different Approach to Men in the Ladies’ WSOP Eventby Andrew Brokos | Published: Jul 02, '12 
|
Last year, I addressed the ethics of a women-only event at the WSOP. In classic Thinking Poker fashion, I wrote a long, formalistic, and in some cases legalistic argument in defense of the event and, at least implicitly, critical of the men who insist on playing:
Segregation is reprehensible when it carries with it a “badge of inferiority” or assigns privileges and opportunities to people based on factors beyond their control. This is not the case here, where men have 50+ other WSOP events, including numerous other $1000 buy-in events, to play. Significantly, every single one of these is a male-dominated affair. Any male player would be hard-pressed to demonstrate how the existence of a single Ladies’ Event harms him personally. The purpose of this tournament is not to push men away from the game but to draw women in.
This year female poker player Victoria Coren has made the case in a much simpler and more persuasive way:
Make no mistake: the guys who sit down in this tournament are the same sort of people who’d barge past old folk in a queue, or slide their cars into disabled parking spaces. When they think they’ve spotted weakness, their minds leap immediately to their own personal gain. Which is a pretty scummy way to think, even if they don’t know they’re thinking it. They’re not just insulting the women who play, but the men who are decent enough not to. They must see those men’s good manners as weakness as well. After all, if they were really trying to make a political point about the tournament, they would protest outside – not join it.
The common-sense ethical appeal of her argument is well-encapsulated in the British slang that she uses to describe Brandon Uhl, the young man she encountered in this year’s Ladies’ Event: wanker. The Ladies’ Event is a nice, once-a-year opportunity that nearly 1000 female poker fans from around the world enjoy playing. Men who insist on entering it are selfish and rude, ruining many other peoples’ good time for their own perceived advantage. It’s as simple as that.
Copyright © 2001-2013
CardPlayer.com. All rights reserved.
Comments
mikeyb111
11 months ago
I agree and I would add to the" wanker" description a "plonker" and a "sot"
bmpek
11 months ago
the good old days when you could swear, fart and tell dirty jokes at the table. gone forever and replaced with a silicon breast show.
WPS22
11 months ago
bmpek- So, in your opinion, there are too many women in poker and not enough guys? You want more guys farting and swearing and less women?
sandman963
11 months ago
Lets call a ladies only WSOP exactly what is - discrimination. Poker is a game where the sole criteria for success is mental. Like chess or any other non physical game, women and men are equal in their ability to learn and succeed in the game. To have a WSOP under the pretenses that is attracts women to the game is a weak argument. Why is their a tournament solely for African Americans? The vast majority of poker players at the WSOP are white but I don't see a tournament for AAs under the guise of attracting them to the tourney. Why isn't there an event for disabled persons? I feel the same way about senior events. I could try and make an arguement that seniors play differently than younger players but that is probably a crock too. There are probably fa dozen groups that are underrepresented in poker. Each memeber of each group has the same chance of learning the game and winning. No one has a physical trait or ability that will increase their chance of succeeding. Comradery is nice thought but that doesn't mean that anygroup, women or otherwise, should have a tourney event solely dedicated to them.
ckennedy9200
11 months ago
sandman, who is being discriminated against by a ladies-only tournament? As Brokos points out, there are 50+ other events - some with minimum WSOP buyins.
Can you make the argument that a ladies-only tournament is a bad idea? Or to use your analogy - a blacks-only / disabled-only / Asian-only / etc, would be a bad idea?
Discrimination means that some group is not allowed to participate. That is not the case here.
sandman963
11 months ago
Hi ckennedy9200 You said "Discrimination means that some group is not allowed to participate. That is not the case here." It isn't? Everyone who is not a woman is being discriminated against by this tournament. You raised an interesting question about who this tournament hurts. My answer would be that it hurts everyone who is not a woman who is trying to win a WSOP bracelet. I am not necessary going to jump on my soapbox at a local womans only tournament and scream "DISCRIMINATION" but I am going to for a WSOP event. Why? Simply put, the goal of any amateur or professional player is to win a bracelet. The womans only format prevents men from having an opportunity to win a bracelet. Women are not forbidden from any tournaments so the WSOP is allowing one group (woman) more chances to win than another (men) and I think that is unfair. BTW, I feel the same way about the seniors tournament at the WSOP.
Foucault82
11 months ago
I for one am really inspired by the brave men who have overcome this vicious bracelet-opportunity-discrimination and gone on to win 99.9% of all WSOP bracelets in existence.
On a more serious note, I doubt that an African-American-targeted WSOP tournament would be as successful from a marketing standpoint, but if for some reason the WSOP concluded that it would be a good way to increase AA participation, I don't think there would be anything wrong with that. You're correct that there's room for improvement on that front as well.
trentbridge
11 months ago
Leaving all the rhetoric aside, why would any man fancy his chances playing poker against nine women at a table who want him out? My belief is that women are far more likely to compromise than men in achieving a common goal i.e. get rid of the male player at the table. I loved what Vickie Coren did - read her article! I have better things to do in life than sit at a table of seriously pissed-off women!