I wonder what the reaction here would be to a mens only tournament.

i don't know about here, but i'm sure jezebel would have a field day.

Everyone would think it was a bit pointless but have no problem with it. The idea that suddenly a bunch of feminists (of any gender) would come out and scream "SEXISM!!!111one" is stupid.

This is entirely hypothetical because unless some idiot TD fancies making an arse of himself it'll never happen. Poker tournaments at the moment are as close to men-only as you're going to get.

I think you're being pretty disingenuous, it would be deemed sexist by women poker players and women in general, hell, I'd even think it was sexist.

The idea that it's different if it's women only is just strange, imagine a white only or black, or muslim only tournament - in law sexual discrimination is the same as racial discrimination, which is why men can't be banned from playing them in the first place.

You underestimate the fervency with which some who identify as feminists would complain about such a tournament. Have you not noticed the past several decades in which some feminist groups have decried any men's-only club, gathering, association or event as being patent sexism?

The only issue is just how close to the fringe you have to go to find it.

.. so first you say it's "stupid" to suggest it will cause an uproar, then you say that running it will automatically constitute the TD making an arse of himself. Sounds to me like even you acknowledge (or at least intuitively understand) the virtual certainty for such a backlash.

And no, standard open-field poker tournaments are not as close to men-only as you're going to get -- there HAVE, however, been a number of tournaments marketed as stereotypically directly to men as the women-only tournaments are marketed to women. The canonical example from my experience was Binion's "Win a trip to watch the Super Bowl in the Playboy Mansion" tournament series a few years ago. Preliminary satellites took place on Sunday during the thick of the NFL games. Each entry received a complimentary spot on a 'final score pool' board, food provided was stereotypically "manly man" snacks, dealers and chip runners were all dressed as Playboy bunnies, etc.

And you know what? Even *they* did not DARE to restrict women from entry, and as it happened, about 10% of the field on the day I played were female. Know what else? No one gave a damn, and none of them were treated negatively in any fashion at the table.

I find it funny that you're in here proclaiming the legal position when you've recently asked for the legal position and utterly ignored lots of people informing you of your misconceptions.

Here's another one - in American law sexual discrimination is not the same as racial discrimination.

Really poor logic here. Let's take it in order:

1) Stop confusing radical feminists with normal feminism. The latter also tends to see the former as fruit loops.
2) There's no cognitive dissonance here. A TD would be an arse because he's engaging in a pointless exercise, not because he is a sexist (although it would heavily indicate sexist tendencies because, let's face it, most MRAs are)
3) Aren't WSOP fields something like 3% women on average? If you're claiming this isn't basically men-only you're an idiot.
4) You can't compare an explicitly women-only tournament with a tournament that will largely appeal to men. This is dishonest debating.
5) Binion's is in Nevada and will come under the same legislation as the WSOP ie it is not legal to exclude based on gender. There's no "not daring" about it.

So your statement "no feminists would do X" depends entirely on your ability to slide the definition of "feminist" as you see fit, including overriding women who identify as feminists and are dues-paying members of feminist political action groups? And you put no such qualifier in your statement -- you simply said "it's stupid to think feminists of any gender would do X". Clearly, if we use the dictionary's definition instead of your own, it's anything but stupid.

So first, "don't confuse radical feminists with normal feminists", then "it's okay to assume sexist tendencies in any man who tries to do gender-blind equivalent marketing of segregated poker tournaments, because most MRA's are sexist"?

Even if your 3% was bang on, there is absolutely zero barrier to entry, sexist discrimination or institutionalized restriction to women playing in these events. The prizes are cash, not gender-marketed non-cash prizes, which spends for everyone. The only explicit sexism that goes on in these tournaments is the lionization of female players by WSOP marketing.

How is it dishonest? The only difference is that marketing directly to men seemingly does not require the vilification and ostracizing of the opposite gender. This tournament was as close as Binion's dared get to making a "men-only" equivalent of a women-only tournament.

This was several years ago, long before this mindset. Take the example in the timeframe in which it occurred, if you please. At the same time that Nevada had zero problems attempting to explicitly discriminate against male players in events aimed at women poker players, they made no such attempt to discriminate against female players even in the most heavily male marketed tournaments. They didn't even dare to run a men-only tournament BECAUSE they knew full well what the PR backlash would be, a backlash which you have concurrently stated would and would not happen.

Even now with what is going down in Nevada with "promotional pricing discrimination" being the solution, how much do you want to bet that Binion's (or equivalent casino with equivalent event) will not dare charge women 10x the buy-in to play in heavily male-marketed events?

Again, there's nobody 'informing' me of anything, somebody posted a response to the Equality Act and I posted my response as to why it didn't apply. You keep going on about me 'ignoring people informing me' when you're the only one ignoring the information here.

Do you even have an answer for why men can't be stopped from playing women's tournaments? Do you even know why? Do you not see how that proves it's illegal?

i get the feeling that you don't actually pay attention to feministe, ms magazine, feministing, jezebel, etc.

Lots to respond to here:

You're correct that radical feminism comes under feminism, however the generally accepted term "feminism" refers to the more mainstream interpretation and the ideas of radical feminism is never seen without the qualifier "radical". You're still wrong to conflate the two and impart the ideas and reactions of radfems on the wider feminist population.

The only reason to run an explicitly men's only tournament is to make a point about Men's Rights. It is not at all a stretch to label MRAs as a group as misogynist as it isn't a stretch to label Radfems as a group as misandrist.

2-4% is WSOPs own figure so it's not in question. The point you're missing is that although no explicit barrier to entry exists a cultural one does. The promotion of women's-only events is designed to overcome this. However, with 97% of the field being men at the moment it is legit to say that a men's-only tournament would be absolutely no different to any other tournament.

RE: Binion's, again, there is no reason to explicitly make a men's-only tournament. All that would achieve for them is lower numbers.

Please stop confusing UK and US law, it really shows your ignorance.

UK law = Equality Act. Under the Equality Act you can legally hold an x-only event if it falls under one of three stipulations, one of which being that the group x is underrepresented. In the UK it is legal to prevent men from playing in women's events and Pokerstars do this both online and at UKIPTs/EPT London.

US Law = State-dependent. In Nevada the WSOP is not allowed to prevent men from playing but it is allowed to price-discriminate through a loophole designed for Ladies' Nights at bars.

You do not get to magically interpret the law how you want (in this case by saying that in the UK all 3 stipulations need to be met). Law has a precise meaning defined by bills and judgements from courts.

Not sure whether you're on about above-the-line or below-the-line. The articles on the above I find pretty reasonable and if it's those you have a problem with it may be a difference in our biases. If it's the comments you have a problem with I think you're being a bit harsh - every blog/news site's comments are absolute unmitigated garbage.

lol the bloggers on these sites are a million times worse than their comment sections.

I just checked the National Organization for Women website, and they do not refer to themselves as a "radical feminist" organization. Harriet Harman has publicly identified as a feminist, not a "radical feminist". Nor does the Fawcett Society, the NACSOW (Canada) and, I'm fairly certain, many others. I honestly don't know where you got this notion from, but it's pretty clearly in error.

The generally accepted term "feminism" refers to the quest for equality between the sexes, with the assumption that this equality can be achieved solely by elevating the status of women.

... or to do some male-centered marketing for Father's Day?

I can't help but notice that there's a piece missing in your analogy. What term do you ascribe to people who believe in a meritocratic, gender-blind approach to equality, rather than the "privilege / bigotry" model? Or more succinctly, I'd love you to fill in the other 1/4th of your analogy, "Radfem is to feminism as MRA is to *blank*"

It is ostensibly designed for this. In practice, its effect is debatable, and the stigmatic effect of women having their own tournament seems to pretty clearly propagate this barrier more than it reduces it. There is a new generation who thinks Jennifer Tilly is the face of women's poker, but has no idea who Barbara Enright is, or just how good Annie Duke is (after all, she's not in the Women's Poker Hall of Fame, how good can she be?)

And furthermore, you overlook the immense value that a thick-skinned male, willing to slightly play up some theatric villainy, could provide for the Ladies event. See which: Bobby Riggs, whom Billie Jean King and Rosie Casals both credit for his amazing contribution to the women's game.

97% of last year's Ladies' Bracelet event was female, yet look at the insane difference that 3% made. You want to talk about a TD making an arse of himself? Even people totally opposed to Epstein's presence were going on record as saying that the TD's harassment was far beyond the pale.

It might get people out who wouldn't play in a mixed field. Just as surely as there are women who aren't comfortable playing against men, there are men uncomfortable playing against women. Of course, we label only one of those two groups as "bigots", but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

If you're implying that Harriet Harman is a radical feminist in your eyes I'm really not sure what to tell you other than your ideas on feminism are ludicrously wrong. Else I'm not really sure where you're coming from.

If this was actually the stated reasoning ie it is a men's only tournament because we wanted to do one special for Father's Day I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. However, this is not what anyone has been discussing whatsoever - everyone is talking about holding men's only tournaments purely because women's only tournaments exist.

Naive? Sorry to pop your lovely just world bubble but we don't live in an equal society nor a meritocracy. If it were I'd be on your side in a split second, but it's not, so I'm a feminist. If you are someone who believes in a meritocracy you should support affirmative action - the entire point of it is to provide a more level playing field for merit to shine through (though admittedly in some cases it is badly implemented. See South Africa for a pretty good example)

"the stigmatic effect of women having their own tournament seems to pretty clearly propagate this barrier more than it reduces it."

I'm afraid what you're doing here is presenting opinion as fact. I agree that there is an argument to be made that it can be taken that women are lesser somehow and need their own tournament ergo the idea is bad but this would a) need to be proved to be a big problem and b) would need to be judged to be a bigger evil than encouraging female participation is a good. Both of these are horribly subjective.

From my experience the new generation believe the faces of women's poker are the Stars Pros eg Selbst and Boeree. Not sure about the latter but the former is a wonderful role model and ambassador.

And I'm afraid I don't buy the villains argument - for every Shaun Deeb there's 10 young pricks ruining the atmosphere of a friendly event.

Re 97/3: you're comparing apples (open events) and oranges (women-only events) again. Stop it.

Re the TD: yeah he was a massive arse, no-one is ever going to debate that. Super out of line.

If we're going to compare apples with apples then we are looking for men who are uncomfortable playing with women because women a) intimidate them and/or b) engage in questionable behaviour (verbal abuse, inappropriate comments etc) at the table. Without actually having done the market research I'd wager there are very few in category a) and none in category b).

If we're comparing apples with oranges and talking about men who don't think women should play poker then yes, they are called bigots and I have no problem with this definition - it would be the exact same thing if women didn't think men should play poker.

The argument thus far:

#1: You said that it was "stupid" to suggest that feminists would refer to male-only tournaments as sexist

#2: I pointed out that there exist many who identify as feminists that would object

#3: You said "those aren't real feminists, those are radfems".

#4: I cited Harriet Harman as an example of a self-identifying feminist who would certainly refer to an explicit male-only tournament as sexist.

#5: You, just now, asserted that Harriet Harman is not a radical feminist.

At this point, going only by your own words, one of the following two things must be true:

Either it is true that there exist actual feminists (not "Rafdems" as you described them) that would call an explicit all-male tournament "sexist", or it is true that Harriet Harman is actually an example of a radical feminist.

As to whether she actually IS? That's a debate outside this thread. The politics is already outweighing the poker content as it is. Send me a PM if you want to continue this discussion.

I would, however, STILL love to see you finish that analogy. "Radfem is to feminist as MRA is to *blank*".

We are talking about the existence of women's only tournaments in a society where inter-gender equality is a mandate, and citing them as proof that men's only tournaments must also be acceptable. You claimed as an absolute statement that there exists no reason to run a men's-only tournament except to "make an MRA point".

And whether or not you can see WHY people would have a problem with it, I guarantee you that some people would -- see above.

I treat others as equals. I judge others on merit. I'm going to be the change I want to see in the world. Many others, men and women, live in the same way, including a vast number of my friends and peers who respect the way I treat them and return that respect.

But when you combine feminism (i.e. "the road to equality is achieved solely by elevating the status of women") with affirmative action, you wind up with AA only ever being implemented to correct the sexist institutions that disadvantage women, while the sexist institutions that advantage women are "left alone for time to take care of", or in some cases, actually advocated to be extended by feminists.

Perfect example: there is a demonstrable gender bias in both incarceration length and jail sentences. Do feminists advocate for affirmative action to correct this historic inequity brought on by sexism? No, but you DO get the Women's Justice Taskforce recommending that UK never send a woman to prison for any crime, period.

Perfect example #2: Women in the US military make up 16% of our number, yet less than 2% of our war dead. Do feminists advocate for affirmative action to send more women to the front lines to correct this historic inequity brought on by sexism? No, but you DO get feminist writers firmly defending women not having to register for Selective Service.

Short version: I disagree with your methodology and your reasoning

Obviously we disagree on the relative impact. There are some prominent poker players and writers (females included) who feel as I do, and some who feel as you do. Probably not going to make any headway here.

And how did Selbst get her fame, by playing in open tournaments or by playing in Ladies tournaments?

Did you miss the part where I mentioned how two of the greatest female tennis players attributed such a villain to doing more for woman's tennis than anyone, man or woman? You don't need to "buy" the argument -- historical precedent backs my analysis.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. If having a male 3% of the field in a "women-only" event can 'ruin the experience' for the other 97%, then having a female 3% of the field in a "_de facto_ men's only" event would similarly ruin the implied "men-only" nature of the tournament.

Well we found something we agree on

There are plenty in A who feel intimidated playing against women. Old societal (sexist) standards and stigma that prevent them from playing their best. There are plenty in A who feel uncomfortable playing with women, because they feel they must artificially overcompensate to avoid offending them.

As for B, I don't hold female bullies to any different standard than male bullies. Compare this with women who don't want to play against men, who have this misguided notion that female bullies don't even exist.

A woman who isn't comfortable playing against any men because "all men" are intimidating or "all men" engage in questionable behavior.. yeah, that woman is a bigot. "Sorry, sir, you aren't welcome to play. I don't know you from Adam, but I just don't want you at my table because, given that some men intimidate me, all men intimidate me" is a prejudiced statement any way you slice it.

Thanks for sharing. Time to move on.

The problem isn't men playing in this tournament. The problem is the sexism that is in place having a tournament like this.

In many ways it's like the olympics. 100 years ago, women were deemed to be the weaker sex, and cannot compete with men. Ok, for certain sports I can see this logic. But why diving? Why figure skating singles? why gymnastics? trampoline? or any other skill events where physical strength doesn't give competitors a big advantage?

Women and men are smart. Some women have strengths that men don't have, some men have strengths that women don't have. It's belittling to women to have a tournament that separates players based on their sex. It's sexist actually.


Further, consider this logic: You are saying only women can play in this tournament. Define woman. What if someone is transgendered? What if someone feels they were born a woman, and gets a sex change operation? What if someone was born a woman, feels she is a man in a womans body, but still wants to play in this tournament with her mother? Should she be able to? I am dead serious with these questions. And I have one final thought.

What if the tournament was Whites only? Men only? Blacks only?
What if the tournament was No Blacks, No Whites, No Women?
I assure you it would make the news, because this would be seen as blatant sexism, racism, or some similar definition.

The fact that the general public simply thinks, "oh look it's a cute little tea party for women to play in, where the men aren't allowed to bother them" just shows how desensitized people have become to blatant sexism.

Yes there is the anecdotal story about some mom who won't come back because some guy yelled at her. The problem there is this: 1) The casino should have intervened, warned or punished the yelling player. or 2) The woman should show a little spine, and stand up for herself. Humans are at the top of the food chain. If a dog barked at her, or tried to bite her, I'd venture to guess that dog would catch a shoe to the face.

Women have attained equal status, (or a much more equal status) because they decided they'd taken enough BS, and it was time to make things right. The timid woman was perpetuating the stereotype when she did nothing.

It's not a dark alley. If she gave him the gears, it would have at least forced the casino to intervene on her (or both of their) behalfs. I am 100% in favor of equality, but I can't stand when someone doesn't assert themselves, or exercise free speech, and we're supposed to just feel pity for them.

I don't really post or read in this forum, but seeing this link just made me realize how illogically many people view sexism.

That is all.

I don't think you have a good understanding of gymnastics if you don't think that physical strength plays a huge role.

This says nothing about whether the tournament is a good idea or not. It's simply a logistical issue to sort out if you do decide to have this tournament. This issue came up with some female(?) runner recently, and the real answer is that we can't define sex/gender easily and it really needs to be a gray zone decided case by case.

Do you think we hit over 100 posts without this coming up? Read the thread.

Ok, nobody cares about gymnastics. Nobody. I was using it as a vague example. If you're trying to pick at threads, you're clearly not here to add substance to the debate.

Your argument about the female runner solidifies my point. She was determined to have triple the level of testosterone as other women, which gives her an advantage. However, she is still allowed to compete.

It's more than a logistical issue. It's nearly a disaster. You have a tournament where you're attempting to exclude certain people from being allowed to enter. I understand why the men in drag is ignorant. However, if someone chooses to live as a woman, how are you going to verify this? Invasive gender tests? Checking for a penis?

Seriously. Who is going to stand at the door and ensure that everyone who claims they're a woman actually is? Who gets to decide that having both a vagina and a penis makes that person male or female.

Are you going to have a separate line for all entrants who are "iffy" and need to be patted down?

Congrats on hitting 100 posts, ganstaman. Cool username too.

Wow, gymnastics is my 2nd favorite Olympic sport to watch, next to swimming... Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson were both phenomenal back in 2008. Didn't really like the US team in 2012 though.... And lolol if you think men's gymnastics (or even ladies of course, but do you see those male gymnasts' muscles?!) doesn't require one of the most amounts of physical strength... I'd like to see you hold yourself up on those rings/pommel horse/even bars.

Not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post seeing as it's all been brought up/addressed throughout the thread and clearly you only read thread titles.

OMG gymnastics is so amazing. If someone comes armed with facts and things to consider, I'll just come at him with my opinion on gymnastics instead of the actual logic of his points.

You must be EXCELLENT in debate! I bet teachers couldn't wait to get to your essays in school too.

LOL @ Not going to address the rest of my post. AKA 98% of it. Just the part you felt like nitpicking?

It's at this point where I'd be tempted to mention biologically women tend to argue with emotions and not facts. However, I think that would be lost here/

/out

Lol like I said, that was the only comment I replied to because that was the only part that hasn't already been addressed because no one else has been senseless enough to make a comment like that.

Nowhere in my post did I say that was my case for making an argument for/against the idea of ladies events. Just pointing out the senselessness in yours.

Pokerella is probably taking the right line here but I feel compelled to take a stab at this...

By your logic, winnercircle, you don't agree with affirmative action in any situation? Because that's part what a Ladies' Tournament is taking a stab at in the poker world. Only in this case it's not only out of basic fairness and equality, it's an effort by the poker community to expand the poker community - making $ for everyone involved.

If one has any understanding of the history of society, they can comprehend what this tournament is about. If not that, then this: if one has any understanding of the economics of a business model then they champion this kind of tournament.

Another choice being, of course, going back to the dorm room and checking out the fall schedule for Social Studies 101...

No, it is just logistics. Figuring out how to solve this problem is independent of the argument over the merits of this type of tournament. We can discuss the principle of having this tournament without having to get into the details -- it's the concept that we're really discussing here.

This thread has over 100 posts. Unless you really think you're that special, you should read the thread before posting to avoid the same argument that has come up already unless you think you can take it somewhere new.

Personally don't think anyone should be excluded from any events, isn't poker supposed to be "the great leveller" where anyone can sit down and take a shot and secondly disagree on the grounds that a mens only tournament would never be allowed so on basic equality how can a womans only be justified ?

1) Assuming unproven facts then using these assumption to supports your argumentg
2) Stating without supporting facts or argument that all knowledgeable people agree with you
3)Insulting anyone who disagrees with you

Very Weak,