Quote:
Originally Posted by AAmaz0n
How does everyone here feel about the double standard. It's still true in way too many respects that men are judged on talent and women on looks.
Only by men. (shoot, I wanted to actually respond to the topic and now I'm going off on another tangent... wait.... )
OK - first, when I saw the thread title, this is what I thought:
Quote:
Originally Posted by venice10
Winning the main event is almost more of a stamina contest than anything else. When a woman wins, she will most likely be in her twenties and have been playing on-line for years. She also probably be unknown to the general public before she makes her run. When Fossilman won, he was unknown to the general public, but a well respected poster on 2+2.
But, I don't think she will necessarily be in her twenties, as one of the things that is true about XX humans re: XY humans, is women have more stamina. That is: men are stronger in general, but women have the staying power. So, when we have more women in poker, I believe experience will out and she is as likely to be in her 30s or 40s as 20s.
As to the numbers. I believe we can make a reasonable argument that the average ability of the women in any mixed field in a high $ buy-in event is significantly greater than the average ability of the males. However, I think we can also make the argument that ability vs the field is less important in making the FT and winning the ME than luck.
No one gets to a final table these days without having an incredible run. This is what makes Enright's FT appearance very impressive in terms of field size, not less impressive. That was still a fairly elite field of the best of the best players.
Re: Tiffany Williamson. I hate to see us get down on women players' mistakes, I cannot imagine the incredible pressure of going deep in the ME and then, THE LAST WOMAN THE HOPES OF ALL WOMEN POKER PLAYERS WORLDWIDE REST ON YOU, BABY!!!! Holy crap! Who wouldn't freeze, blow, or throw up?
There are so many players we've seen go deep and donk out of the event, most male just because most are male. I really don't think she was any worse, just had more light on her.
Okay, back to judging on looks vs ability:
The purpose of biological life is production and reproduction. (Production means basic life support: food, area, for some species shelter.) Production takes precedence, then reproduction. Reproductive/genetic health is judged by looks first: physical symmetry often reflects genetic health. So, men judge women physically first. Women do the same, but we have higher expectations, because our reproductive success used to depend on having a strong family network (lotsa other women to have a strong protective supportive group) and men to keep out the predators and provide nice healthy sperm.) In modern society that means: money, power, success: Alpha male. Now, we surely don't want no butt-ugly guys, but Doyle on the Big Game was right quoting an old bald poker buddy who'd hold a wad of cash up against his shiny pate and say: "There, now I'm as good-lookin' as anybody."
Of course, it'd be nice if we, as beings of spirit and soul, would rise a bit above the basic elements of survival, but we can at least make sense of the way things work.