Quote:
Originally Posted by ganstaman
She's one player who's chess skills are irrelevant here. From what I've read, female chess players are split on this issue.
Why is her opinion irrelevant? Because she proves by example the ultimate futility of semi-segregated chess tournaments? Or just because she agrees with me?
And yes, they are also split on the issue. In my admittedly small and unscientific observation on the manner, it seems the older generation from the Eastern Bloc disapproves of them, but the newest generation born in North America approves of them.
Of interest is also the issue of the WIM and WGM titles, and even some women in favor of semi-segregated tournaments are opposed to them ("There are women's universities but they do not give out Women's PhDs", as Jennifer Shehade says)
Quote:
I have no problem allowing men to enter the tournament so long as it's still billed as a Ladies Event. I don't think men should play in the event, but barring them wouldn't be right either.
Do you think women should enter tournaments that are clearly and directly marketed towards men?
Quote:
So this really does have nothing to do with federal laws.
Okay, let me try and explain my argument better: Federal laws say that a company cannot refuse to do business with someone based on gender alone (or any other protected category). If you support such federal laws, AND you support the concept of a Ladies Only event in a public poker room, then you are supporting the idea that a public business should be allowed to refuse to do business with some people based on gender (OR that societal pressure should enable _de facto_ segregation) then the two things you support are in conflict. Support of the latter is hypocritical with respect of your support to the former.
Quote:
The reason to increase poker's popularity among women is to make it more popular overall. What else do you think they are aiming for?
To increase the
proportion of women, irrespective to the overall population. "Proportion" is the key word and the key difference. When the WSOP marketers are in their meetings going over their marketing strategies, and their two choices for their $X marketing budget will A) get 1000 new players, 950 of which are men or B) get 500 new players, all of which are women, which do you think they'll choose?
I believe they will choose B, based on their track record of marketing.
This year, the WSOP website ran an article with a headline like "Femmes Fatales Dominating the Final Tables". The whole article was written to make it sound like they were cracking heads hand over fist, despite not winning a bracelet yet. When you fact check the figures of the article, you found that they were performing statistically on par (both in final table representation and cash outs), as pretty much any non-bigot (one way or the other) has long since figured would be the case. But what kind of article would THAT make?
Sex sells, sir, and I am quite certain that while any marketing person talks about "increasing the female demographic", they are thinking "NEW AND IMPROVED POKER! NOW WITH 33% MORE BOOBS!" This is why you get facts that say "Women Holding Their Own" that give headlines like "Femmes Fatales Dominating the Final Tables"
Quote:
As for gender-neutral beginner tournaments, that would be great, and I have seen a casino (Foxwoods?) do that. I'm sure the WSOP would do it too if they thought it would be popular/interesting enough, and if they could solve the issue of defining a beginner (the casino I saw it at was for people who signed up for a player's card and had logged under some number of hours I think, but that might not be well-defined enough for something more important like the WSOP).
Sure, you are going to have ringers that beat the 'technical' definition of beginner in such a tournament. No more than the number of ringers currently in the Ladies Events, I'd think.
Quote:
Well if you've seen all the arguments before, you must have misinterpreted some of them because you can easily have non-hypocritical reasons for supporting this tournament, as I have explained in my views above.
I'm not misinterpreting any of them. I *am* being very specific, however.
If you believe in equality on a basic level, then you believe that women should have equal opportunity. That means "equal", not "either equal or preferential, whichever is desired".
If you support the notion that women deserve equal opportunity, and you support women getting semi-segregated poker (or chess) tournaments when they do not NEED them, then your belief in the latter is hypocritical with respect to the former, because the latter represents better than equal opportunity.