Annie Duke Interview Controversy regarding Ladies WSOP event.

[Moose]

Fact: The existence of WoEs in an activity where women can compete as equals is degrating. It implies through its existence that women cannot compete as equals in this matter: In theory, women strive for equality. Therefore, for women _en masse_ to accept something that goes AGAINST the notion of equality simply must be a sign of its necessity. That is, if women want to be equal, we would only segregate an activity by gender if we HAD to.

Now, that statement is not true because women have long since left "equality" for "utter superiority" as their goal. But that is what such segregation says, and Annie is right: It is demeaning, by its existence, to the abilities of women.

Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.

Fact: For every dollar they spend marketing these "female champions" to get women in the game, they spend many more dollars using it to market the game more to 18-34 males. There are already plenty of female champions. I have sat at poker table after poker table full of men who talk about Jennifer Tilly as a poker player, and how "good she is", but ask them if they've heard Barbara Enright? Blank stare. Poker Stars.NET crocheted into Isabelle Mercier's ass-seat of her pants? Yes, yes, they're trying to market the game to women, I can CLEARLY see it now.

Fact: Annie Duke is a hypocrite for selling out her principles to make a buck. If she really believed in what she was doing, she would be protesting against the segregation of poker by gender. Having Annie Duke with a picket sign outside the Ladies bracelet event site would be good for poker IMHO.

[UATrewqaz]

As much as I dislike Annie Duke, her refusal to play in the women's event is about the only thing I respect about her.

She knows she's good enough to compete with anybody on a level playing field and doesn't need special tournaments to be successful.

Poker is one of the few major "sports" (if you wanna call it that) where women face no inherent disadvantage, thus there is no need for them to have their own league or events.

[Boris]

I think an all Vietnamese event would be pretty awesome and I would watch the final table on TV. I think an all Vietnamese women's event would be doubly awesome, and would watch that final table on TV as well.

[Boris]

How is having a women only event degrading when women can enter any event they choose? How is it not obvious that calling the women's event degrading is a major insult to all the women who choose to play?

[grando]

I agree with everything PITTM has said

[Mitch Evans]

[ QUOTE ]
c) not having a womens event just makes it more difficult for women to gain entry into what has historically been an incredibly male heavy game. This event is a brilliant marketing move because it makes a game more accessible to a group that is so massively under represented in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant marketing? You do realize that the wsop has had a ladies only event for like the past thirty years, right?

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon. Fact? Really?

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept of a women's WSOP event is horrible.

The same login that begets this event should lead to other fun stuff, like an all Vietnamese event.

I'm not bothering to read anything (and this isn't really the right forum for this, but I won't move it) but I'm pretty sure I agree with Annie's basic premise. There's nothing about being a woman that makes poker harder, and having a seperate woman's event is stupid and insulting.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if the seperate womens event isnt because women are at a handicap, but merely because poker is a HUGELY male dominated game, and a womens event will help bring more women into poker by building interest.

Also women tend to like to do things with other women, especially when they are doing an activity thats 95% men, I cant really explain it cuz im not a women, but its still a fact. A womans event gives them the opportunity for that.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
c) not having a womens event just makes it more difficult for women to gain entry into what has historically been an incredibly male heavy game. This event is a brilliant marketing move because it makes a game more accessible to a group that is so massively under represented in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brilliant marketing? You do realize that the wsop has had a ladies only event for like the past thirty years, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

when i originally typed this i wrote "brilliant marketing move by harrahs" and then i thought, wait, no brilliant marketing move by binions many many years ago. So i wrote it was a brilliant marketing move with no further stipulations, which i certainly believe it was. If they got rid of it, it would be a fairly atrocious move.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: They only have WoEs so that they can "have women winning bracelets" at the WSOP. In that sense, it is an insidious kind of affirmative action.

[/ QUOTE ]

theres a pretty big difference between "fact" and "something you inferred".