The Ladies Event: Redux
There has been a lot of controversy about the Ladies Event at the WSOP this week and it has spurred a really healthy debate on the issue. Obviously, I have been speaking out on this issue for a long time. This year, with Shaun Deeb and other men having entered the Ladies Event, the controversy surrounding the event seems to be coming to a head with loud voices on both sides of the issue expressing there opinions. Shaun Deeb gave an incredibly thoughtful statement about why he played in the event and why he believes the event should not exist that is admirably pro-equality for all. You can watch it here:
Jennifer Newell also posted this lovely piece on the issue here This is a must read for a rational argument about why the Ladies Event should be removed from the schedule.
On the con side, Daniel Negreanu has certainly been the most vocal. You can view his statement on the event here and here
Before I get into why I think the event should be removed from the schedule, I want to say from the start that I have no disrespect whatsoever for anyone woman who plays in the event. I believe strongly in personal choice and if a fellow woman chooses to participate in the event then more power to her. I get why someone would love playing it. All I hope is that every woman who plays in it is making an informed decision. And If after thinking it through if a woman decides that the upside for her outweighs the downside then that is her personal choice and I totally respect that and will fight for her right to choose to play as long as the event exists.
So let me get into why I think the event should not exist and also answer some of the very common arguments that I hear for it.
Poker is a game played on the mental playing field. It measures cognitive capability, intellect, agility of thought. If you take a game like tennis, it measures physical capability, physical agility. Now we know that men, on average, are 20% bigger and stronger than women so it makes complete sense that on that kind of playing field women would have their own tour, their own events. The best women tennis player in the world would not beat the 500th best male player in the world because of the physical differences so women must have their own tour. But poker? Why is there a Ladies Event if poker is measuring mental acumen? Are we saying there is a difference between the intellect of men and women that means that somehow we need a separate championship event just for the women? What is that really saying about how we view women in comparison to men on the mental playing field?
To bring this point home, imagine if the WSOP came out with an African American only event. What would the reaction be? Obviously, people would be up in arms about it. Completely up in arms. Why? Because the gut reaction to it would be that the event would strongly imply that blacks are inferior thinkers to whites. Obviously, this is ridiculous and people would be rightly offended by the existence of such an event. So why are we so okay with the Ladies Event when it implies the exact same thing about women?
The point is that poker is one of the few places in competition where women are on a completely equal footing with men. So why are we basically tearing away that equality by having a Ladies Event? I, for one, believe women can compete equally with men and I think not only have I proven it but also Linda Johnson, Jennifer Harman, Vanessa Selbst, Kathy Liebert, Vanessa Rousso, Barbara Enright, Katja Thaler, Annette Obrestaad, Cindy Violette and Liv Boeree have all proven it (to name a few…apologies to anyone left out, the list is off the top of my head). I want to stand up for the intellect of all women. We are just as smart as the men and can beat them at this game just fine on our own, thank you very much 
Now, I have heard a lot of arguments in favor of the event and I want to answer them as best as I can. So first, let’s address the legality of the event and how it compares to the legality of, say, the Seniors Event. Now, caveat emptor, I am not a lawyer. So these are just my opinions of my understanding of both the federal law and the Nevada Gaming Commission rules.
The two things that matter here are The Fourteenth Amendment which provides for Equal Protection Under the Law and the Nevada Gaming Commission Rule which states that all games but be accessible to everyone.
From the standpoint of the Gaming Commission, the Ladies Event is not accessible to everyone. Obviously, men can’t play. There is a reason that Harrah’s had to allow men to register. They would have been in violation of this rule otherwise. Notice that this rule does not apply at all to the Seniors Event because eventually every single person in the world will be eligible to play that event. Therefore, Harrah’s can bar anyone under 50 from registering for the event because the game does have equal access for everyone since eventually those young kids will be able to play the event. So, men can enter the Ladies Event but young people can’t enter the seniors event because of the equal access rule.
As far as The Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, on a federal level one would have to show that there is a difference in whatever poker measures in order to bar men from entering because the only way you can segregate two groups is to show that the skill that is being measured is significantly different between the two groups. Obviously, in the case of poker you can’t show a difference between men and women from a cognitive standpoint so you can’t bar a man from entering because the segregation in the first place can be constitutionally challenged. Notice, again, that this is not the case for the Seniors Event. We can show, scientifically, a significant difference in the cognitive agility, if you will, between people over 50 and people under 50. Cognitive capability declines with age and, therefore, the Seniors Event cannot be constitutionally challenged. Thus, once again, Harrah’s had to let men enter the Ladies because the event has no standing yet they would not have to let a 22 yr old enter the Seniors event.
Shaun Deeb suggested a first timer event only for people who have never played a WSOP event. This event would have standing both from a gaming commission standpoint and a federal standpoint for the above reasons. And I actually think it would be a really cool event to have.
So back to why Harrah’s let the men enter in the first place: They had to. To resort then to the alleged harassment we have heard about in terms of searching the men who entered (but not the women), threatening to bar these people for life in public statements and calling them scumbags in written statements, well I find that completely reprehensible and inexcusable. These men have a right to enter and whether or not you agree with them is another matter entirely. The harassment was completely uncalled for. Obviously, while the casino has the right to refuse service to anyone, in this case the barring would be directly and easily linked to man’s entry into the event so I imagine it would be easy to challenge the ban with both the NGC and the federal government. I will be very surprised if those bans happen and very disappointed if they do. Calling these guys scumbags for exercising their rights and, certainly in the case of Deeb, standing up for a principle they believe in, is reprehensible. Allowing theoretical access but bullying and harassing to discourage that access doesn’t work for me. And this is regardless of whether you think the men should have played. That is aside from the point of trying to prevent someone from entering an event they have a legal right to enter through scare tactics and bullying and threats. Shame on you, Harrah’s. Shame on you.
Now, aside from whether men can legality enter the event, which I believe is not at all a question, I have heard a lot of arguments supporting the existence of the Ladies Event. I have many dear friends who play that event every year and really love it and, obviously, I respect them deeply. So I want to go through a few of the arguments I have heard to support the Ladies Event’s existence, that say that even though the Ladies Event can’t actually be segregated that we should leave well enough alone and all support and protect it.
1) The event is tradition. It is an historic part of the WSOP
Yes, the event is tradition. But this is no argument for its existence. In fact, tradition and history are never an argument for something existing as we, as a culture, are supposed to grow and learn from the past, build on the past and be willing to stand up against tradition when we see something is unfair or discriminatory. If tradition and history were a reason to keep anything around we would still have slavery in this country, women would not be able to vote nor would blacks, women would not be able to own property. In the past, human sacrifice has been traditional and historic in many cultures. Thankfully we got rid of that tradition in ours. I know the examples I am giving are inflammatory by nature here but the point is that just because something has existed in the past is no reason for it to exist now. Human beings have had lots of terrible traditions. It is our job to constantly be reevaluating these traditions to figure out which ones should continue and which should not. Obviously, I am not putting the Ladies Event on par in terms of importance to our society as the examples I have given. I am just trying to show that tradition itself is no argument.
On a more pointed note, I hope everyone realizes the actual history of this event. Back in the day, WSOP events had to be completed in one day which meant that they played well into the early hours of the morning. The Main Event always started the Monday day after Mother’s Day. This created a problem because it meant they could not hold an event the Sunday before the main event started as no one would be crazy enough to enter a one day event the day before the Main. People always took that Sunday off. So the powers that be at the WSOP created the Ladies Event to fill that hole. The wives and girlfriends of the “real” players would then have a fun event to play the day before their men got into the real poker of the Main Event. And, all the women who entered were given a rose at the start of play!
Initially, I didn’t play the event not because of any stance I had or because I had thought through the implications of the event but because I was playing the Main Event the next day. I wasn’t going to ruin my chances in the Main event by playing the Ladies event the day before. I, along with the rest of the supposed real players, took the day off and let the women play. Therein lies the problem with that history.
2) The Ladies Event brings more women in to the game and more women into the WSOP
Shaun Deeb made a great point about this in his video. A $1K event is not an introductory event for anyone. An event of that buy in level is not for introducing people to the game. Period. That is what the LIPs tour or the HHPT are for. They are of the buy-in level that we could actually argue that they are introducing women to tournament poker.
But even aside from that, I would strongly argue that the Ladies event is not bringing more women into the WSOP. If that were the case we would expect the % of women playing in open WSOP events to have grown over the years and that is just not the case. The % of women entering open WSOP events has remained pretty steady at 3 to 5% of the field (1% for the super high $10K events that are not the main event). When I first started playing in 1994 it was 3% of the field. Now it is still 3% of the field. Where is all this growth that the Ladies event is supposed to be creating? I don’t see the growth that everyone is talking about.
In fact, I would argue that the Ladies event may be counterproductive to growing the % of women playing the open events. Your average WSOP player comes into the RIO to play really just one event. This year there are 6 $1K events to choose from, one of which is the Ladies event. So a woman who wants to take her one shot a year at the WSOP will now choose to play the Ladies Event rather than an open event. That actually, in some sense, discourages women from playing the open events rather than encourages it. I think that if we eliminated the Ladies Event you would see a lot of spill over of that audience playing in the open $1K events.
3) The women themselves really enjoy the event.
I actually find this to be the most compelling argument of all. Legal issues aside, discrimination aside, and the implied insult of the event aside, most women obviously want to play the event and really enjoy it. I get that. Some women say it is an great equity play and they just don’t care to stand up for the principle that the event is insulting to women (their words). Cool. I get it. Some women say they really enjoy the event as a great social experience, girl power and all. I get that, too. I don’t have an issue with the women themselves wanting and supporting the event. If it is there you can go play it if you want. However, you can’t make an argument that just because people want it is should exist which is an argument I have heard from a lot of people including the people at Harrah’s.
There are many examples in history that relate well here but the best, I think, has to do with a woman’s right to vote. Back in the day when women could not vote, the Suffragettes campaigned and marched and petitioned for that right to be given to us. And, guess what, for a while in there the majority of women, yes the majority, did not want the vote. They were against the Suffragettes. Seems crazy looking back on it but there was a very vocal group of women who thought the Suffragettes were rocking the boat and that they should leave well enough alone. Those women enjoyed the life they had and didn’t want things to change.
Look, I am not comparing the Suffragette movement to the movement brewing to eliminate the Ladies Event from the WSOP schedule. The magnitude of the issue is way off, obviously. The point is just that just because people enjoy something and want it doesn’t mean it should exist or that it is right to have it. To be facetious about it, people really enjoy heroin and crystal meth. But I am pretty sure those shouldn’t be legal.
4) Leave the event be because everyone knows it isn’t a real bracelet anyway.
believe or not I have heard this argument from actual WSOP officials before. I mean I have heard all the arguments I have talked about here but this one actually came out of one of their mouths, shockingly. This argument really kills me the most. If the bracelet is so disrepected that “everyone knows it isn’t a real bracelet anyway” then why have the bracelet event in the first place? I mean seriously, if everyone is already dismissing the event as just some ladies event where the bracelet doesn’t even count isn’t that the most disrespectful and disparaging thing to we women of all?
Now, on to whether the men, Shaun Deeb in particular, should have entered the event in the first place. I think so, strongly. I have worked behind the scenes, quietly and without controversy, to try to get the WSOP to eliminate the event to know avail. Shaun is very passionate on this issue and, frankly, if you can’t do it the quiet way behind the scenes, which I have been trying to do for years, then why not make some noise and get some real public debate going on the issue. Whatever you might think of Shaun’s actions, they definitely got us all talking publicly about the issue and that has to be a good thing and good for the game for sure. Also, whatever you might think about his actions, he had a right to enter and did not have to a right to be harassed in the way he was (or any of the other men for that matter except, maybe, the guy with the tampon card protector).
Now, was Shaun disrespecting the event or the women who played it? Well, he certainly wasn’t disrespecting the women who played in it in my opinion because he was standing up for sexual equality, for the fact that those women are just as good and as smart and as sharp as the poker playing men, which is giving the utmost respect to the women playing in the event.
Was he disrespecting the event itself? In some sense yes. But that is because he believes the event shouldn’t exist. That it is sending the wrong kind of message about women as poker players. And, in that sense, it doesn’t deserve his respect anyway.
I am truly glad that we are all finally talking so openly about this event. Hopefully we can all remain rational and continue to talk to one another about it without resorting to any more name calling or harassment going forward. Adult, rational discussion on the topic can only be for the good of the game.
I was totally agreeing with annie and the men who took part in the event, that is until i read daniel’s view I didn’t know it “the bracelet ” doesn’t count. That puts a whole new spin now my view has been changed. I think it should stay a women only event. The difference is men wouldn’t play in a men’s only tourney that “didn’t count” unless it was considered amateur championship or something like that. Women will play because its fun, they have a good time and they also want to beat all the other women.
1. The flaw in your (annie) argument is assuming women who would play in the woman’s event will just go play an open event. They just might LEAVE and NEVER play any event at all.
2. Over 1K women don’t feel the event insults them in any way. They wouldn’t play if they felt the idea insulted their intelligence.
KEEP MEN OUT OF THE LADIES EVENT!!!
I totally agree with you Annie.The event was “cute” when it stared, however it is past its time. There is no place for this type of event now. The doors that women like Linda, Kathy, Cindy,and you have opened for the young women of poker today is amazing. As a man only reason I would have to keep you in your own turny is knowing it makes my chance of winning greater. Please continue your articulate passion crusade, it is just and right!!!
It is not discrimination or demeaning an any way to respect the ladies and give them the spotlight. Do you think that the seniors event or the casino workers event is discrimination. Its an honor to play in these events. If you do not agree with the event then do not play in it…….. its that simple. Should the girl scouts be allowed to join the boy scouts and share tents with them while camping? Can we not respect our women, elders, and casino employees? Its not about gender its about respect and every man that entered that tournament is an idiot.
Annie, you are so right. And I am going to be completely honest right now because this is what I have really experienced about ladies events in general. I have played in a couple of ladies events (not the wsop so maybe it’s different) and I have noticed that MANY women who play these events ONLY play ladies events and in my experience, are not really good enough to play another event anyway. It sounds terrible because I’m a woman, but the ladies events are usually cheap tournaments, such as at the borgata winter and summer open.. And maybe that’s why it brings such terrible poker players. So many women have been nasty and verbally abusive at the table, I’m not sure why anyone would want to play like that. When it got down to the last 3 players, we all had even stacks and it was getting late. I offered a chop and one ‘lady’ refused because she’s a ‘rated’ player. It was such BS and the only tournaments she plays in are ladies tournaments.. And the fact that she has even cashed in them makes me sick. Sorry to ramble, but needless to say I will not be playing in any more ladies events. And I think they should just cut out ladies events completely.. Maybe then a lady can win the main event !
You are in a better position to determine if the event should be part of the WSOP or not. I don’t want to make an argument one way or another.
The thing I have a problem with is the point could have been made without resorting to this type of stunt that diminished the WSOP experience for some of the women who had paid to compete in the Ladies Championship event.
My long-winded thoughts on the issue are posted on my blog at http://blog.microrollers.com/2010/06/shaun-deeb-toolbox-or-human-rights.html
Your making way to big of a deal out of this. It is one event. An event for women to come out and who are intimidated by playing in front of men and have that WSOP experience. The women really enjoy playing in it and you shouldn’t ban it because some high roller women don’t agree with it. Obviously the gender equality issue of the event isn’t really being talked about that widely among women because more than 1000 women play this event. I do, however, agree that the men should not have been harrased by security, and the issue should have been handled a different way. But really, gender inequality? Come on. Stop trying to bring attention to yourself and just let it be.
I respectfully disagree with you, Annie. I believe that Shaun Deeb and the other dozen or so men who played the event did not decide to crash the Ladies’ Event because they were passionate about championing equality. It was a selfish, classless move where the end result was only going to be more publicity for themselves. Deeb got it, just not in the way he hoped.
If indeed these dozen men decide to champion their cause in a more serious, respectful manner I will be the first to make a public mea culpa. But I seriously doubt I will have to.
Annie,
there have been many things written and said about this year’s Ladies Event, but until now there hadn’t been one with which I agreed completely. Wow, you’re speaking my mind.
I must say I did enter the event for pureky selfish reasons wanting to take advantage of the “softer” field (and it worked out as I cashed grin). But I don’t like the existence of the event.
And I 100% agree that if you actually want to increase participation in open events, you should get rid of this event. I was very sad that I could not take part of the game I play semipro online (6max LHE), since I was basically only playing one event this WSOP. As noted before, my reason for choosing the Ladies’ over WSOP #23 was for selfish reasons.
You’re not the only event to have this controversy and conversation. There are many women grandmasters who refuse to play in the Women’s World Chess Champs, and instead play in the ‘regular’ World Chess Champs.
It’s an interesting question. I disagree with the Womens World Chess Champ event, but don’t mind the Ladies Event for this reason: the former is a split on the other World Champs, however the latter is more of a self-segregated event for fun. The Ladies Event is no different than a latino taqueria or a queer bar; it’s a place to interact with those in one’s own cultural, ethnic, or class grouping. It should be open to all, but focused on their own specific cultural bonding.
@bellatrix – The field of the open $1,000 NLHE event that started this weekend was 6% female. That’s about a 300% increase in female participation from the usual 2% of the field.
Additionally, the $200 buy-in deep stack daily tournament in the Pavillion Room had a much stronger female presence last night and tonight than it has before.
I’d say the Ladies’ Event had everything to do with the increase in female participation in both these open events. And who knows how many other women played Venetian Deep Stack or Caesar’s Mega Stack or other daily tournaments on the Strip this weekend?
If that were the case I wouldn’t care…much like the LIPs tour is a self segregated event. But this is sanctioned by Harrah’s as bracelet event. Thus I view it as more like the chess analogy.
Annie, why does your website say that you are the “Best Female Poker Player in the World”?
I think that Shaun’s statement is a mix of sincere concern for an issue, a bit of disingenuousness (he didn’t think any women would be insulted by him mocking their tourney by showing up in drag, prop bet or no? please), and yes, taking a bit of advantage of a chance for some extra publicity. I’ve always wondered about pool, myself, and whether there’s any reason that pro-pool tourneys are gender-segregated? Is there a physical strength issue? I can’t see how there is, myself. But I’ll tell you one thing, if he and others manage to get that “rookie” event added to the WSOP, I’ll do my best to make it there. I love that idea.
Wanted to say I enjoy reading this, Really well written. I am not in favor of the ladies event but there needs to be a three year limit. (assuming it can not be ended) After three years, these women need to move on to open events. With women tours, Lips etc…, all they are really doing is enabling women to play exclusive tournaments. These women are not advancing to open events. Instead they are just staying in the safety zone
PS– I was really shocked at the actions of the women as the guys busted. This is another reason why exclusion is not a good idea. The character of the “in crowd” does not demonstrate diginity. The loud cheers as each man was sent to the rail was not a good reflection on poker.
good luck to you
So… do you view your participation in the WPT Ladie’s Night event in 2003?
So… do you view your participation in the WPT Ladie’s Night event in 2003 as a mistake?
That was a freeroll that was not a championship event. I think it is different as it was an invitational, which the ladies event at the wsop is not. That being said, I would not accept the invitation now. My views on the topic have definitely changed over the years.
Annie,
Thank you for writing this post! I am a woman poker player who does not believe that the WSOP should have a ladies event. I’ve written several posts about it in the past, but my most recent take on the matter can be found here: http://bwop.blogspot.com/2010/06/whats-message-here.html
My boyfriend considered playing in the ladies event this year in support of my position that there should not be a WSOP ladies event. In fact, he is the gentleman who is referred to in the Nicole Gordon PokerNews article article titled “Don’t Rain on My Parade”. Although he ultimately decided to not play out of respect for a mutual friend who was playing in the event and would have been hurt by his participation, I am proud of the fact that he considered taking such a public stance on the issue on my behalf. Based on the reaction to Shaun’s participation in the event, it seems that a man’s presence in the event has more of an impact than a woman’s absence.
Without having direct access to WSOP staff or a huge following of fans, my means of protest are limited to boycotting the ladies event, playing in open events and posting commentary on my personal blog.
It’s great to know that a public figure in the poker community has the same views.
@change100 I don’t know if it’s a good thing that the percentage of women participating in one of the “donkulus” events because the nature of the increase is arttificial.
My main field of work is in physics and beliieve me, there have been enough debates about the lack of women in these STEM fields. At some point you gotta let the debate rest and just accept that women are not going into number-heavy fields. Not due to lack of talent or intelligence, yes it’s cultural reasons, but they just aren’t that into it.
Why do we need artificial boosts in fields where there is a big gender gap? I do agree that we need to speak up against any sort of discrimimation (as you did in your excellent piece on Victory Poker’s ad), but there is a fine line at which some things are mocked. I’m sad to say that I don’t take the event as seriously as other open events I’ve played, but it’s the truth.
All other World championships are 10k, let’s make this one a 10k event, too and we’ll see how many fish enter. <- just a joke, obv, tongue incheek
How can call yourself the best female poker player and then rally against an all-women tournament? You’re a hack Annie.
The fact is not many women play poker and this is great for them. Flat out.
Men playing the ladies tournament is just a joke. An insult to all women playing the game. You should be ashamed Annie.
I wish you would play Jen Harman heads up and lose everything. It’s laughable for you to be considered the best female poker player. LOL.
Annie, I couldn’t disagree more. I’m a man, and let me tell you. Woman are not inferior, they are special. They are beautiful, they are charming, they are graceful. What’s wrong with such event charming WSOP as a one thing singled out of the rest of the series? This is a non issue, it has nothing to do with equality. A man will open a door for a woman to go through with simplicity, in the same way a woman should aknowlodge it it with simplicity. IMO, anyone who has problems with this, has unsolved issues regarding the opposite sex.
Again, I don’t want the world to be symmetric for man and woman, only to be just.
While I agree with some of what you think, it seems you forget that most women do not have the same aggression as you. I think the women that like and play this event enjoy playing against the less aggressive counterparts. Playing against aggressive opponents is tough for avgerage players. I myself have played against many aggressive lady players, but I have also seen a much larger field of ladies that don’t play that aggressive.
Let the ladies have there day in the spot light.
As for “The Newbie Event” I think that is a great idea……..maybe if they had an event like that, the ladies event would not be needed. Or better yet have both events and lower the entry to $500 and make more about amatures.
I hope you succeed at getting the women’s event removed, so we can concentrate on other equality for women, like having a blog about women need to leave the seat up after they use the restroom and women opening doors for men and women picking up the tab for dinner ( i am sure plenty of women do but we should not rest till it is equal)we also need an equal amount of men that are stay at home dads and husband, i believe there should be a womens event, seniors event and casino employees event, to be honest even if they african american event, i would be fine with that too, but men should be able to enter the womens event, as i believe to win at poker you need to play against softer competition and if a man enters a womens event because he thinks he has an edge then so be it, but if a man is entering to make a statement, than i believe that says something about what kind of person he is, so i say if your playing against certain players to try and win money than go ahead, but if your doing to make a statement, let it go, let the women have there day, one day in six weeks. my woman and I have guys day out and girls day out, let the ladies have there day out!!
Ms. Duke, while you are clearly an intelligent and successful person, I feel your energy and effort regarding this issue is a waste of your valuable time and God given talents. Why choose such a small, insignificant womens’ issue to champion? I think you have a self serving, hidden agenda with regard to this issue, although I’m not quite certain what it is. While it is well within your right to express your views on any issue, your attempts to help women by destroying something they obviously enjoy and find great value in seem counterproductive. If you don’t believe in the event, simply choose not to play it, as you have done, and leave it at that. There are many more important and substantive issues that would be better served by your intelligence and “Bully Pulpit”. I would love to read more of your opinions on the oppression of women in the Muslim world, sexual mutilation of females in some cultures, “Honor killings”, arranged marriages, etc, etc. It seems shallow and self serving to defend women who have neither asked for nor needed your “Help” in attempting to destroy an event that they obviously find great value in. You should really ponder changing your boast from “Worlds greatest Female Poker Player” to “The self appointed conscience of Poker”. Railing for equality, while at the same time stratifying yourself as the “Best Female Poker Player” seems hypocritical at best. Don’t you just hate the “Sheriff” at the Poker table? Put your badge down, and continue to play a GAME that you are obviously good at. Try not to take yourself so seriously, you’re not curing Cancer here.
In the spirit of full disclosure, my Wife played in the Ladies event last weekend as her first ever “Major” event, managed to cash, and found the experience to be a tremendous and rewarding accomplishment. As a busy and very successful professional, this was the only event that meshed with her busy schedule. Please don’t marginalize her accomplishment with the imposition of your personal agenda. She is very intelligent, well educated, and a fervent advocate of Women’s rights. She financed the buy in by beating a table full of Men in a $125.00 Satellite on Thursday, she has no “fear” of Men at the Poker table, or anywhere else. Please try and remember when you were first “working your way up the ladder” and all of the obstacles you had to navigate around to get to where you are now. Don’t be one of those obstacles that prevent others from realizing their dreams. Choose a more important issue/venue to define your beliefs. Women everywhere will be better served if you do.
Annie
I first want to give praise to you for the insightful and well thought arguments you’ve put forth regarding the existence of the Ladies Event. I do agree completely with all of your points. I hope to just add the perspective of The Female Poker Enthusiast that is not a professional. I have played about 12 open events at the WSOP and 1 Ladies event. I did enjoy playing more in the open events but can understand why a lot of women feel more comfortable in the all ladies event. The majority of these women do not play professionally (same goes for the men/women who flock to the Rio to play the 1k weekend tournaments) I have witnessed some pretty awful behaviour at the tables by a lot of men over the years mostly non professionals that have no ability to lose gracefully to a female opponent. The demeaning comments, personal insults etc. can get very brutal. Usually these assholes wouldn’t be as nasty to another male opponent perhaps because like a playground bully they know that retaliation is unlikely. For the female greats that have dealt with this, let it roll off their backs, stood their ground and have made a career I applaud and thank you. But in my opinion the majority of the women coming out to play in the Ladies Event, just want to be able to come out once a year and enjoy a game they love so much, to share with female commraderie without having to put up with any boorish antics from some egomaniacal idiot. Perhaps it would make everyone happy if they were to keep the Ladies event and drop the bracelet. (But as I write that I’m thinking of the irony of women sacrificing to keep the peace)
As for Shaun Deeb playing in the event and the repurcussions he could face, I think that would be a travesty. I’ve sat at the table with Shaun and can tell you that he always showed respect and a high level of professionalism. So what if he played in drag, still not sure why that would offend.
[...] Annie Duke, says get rid of it. She wrote a very thought out and thought provoking blog about (http://www.annieduke.com/2010/06/the-ladies-event-redux/). It’s actually funny that a man is saying to keep a Ladies Only Event and a woman is saying to [...]
Very thoughtful post. The debate over whether the Ladies Event should be held is entirely separate from the issue of whether men entering the tournament is an acceptable form of protest. On the former question, I really have no fighting interest. On the latter issue, let’s not lionize Shaun Deeb as the great gender equality warrior. According to reports (PokerNews, for one source), Deeb entered the Ladies Event because he lost a prop bet. That’s right, Deeb is so respectful of women poker players that he thought it was appropriate to make playing with women dressed as a woman the penalty for losing a bet. Sounds rather demeaning to me … Now, it’s nice that, once the criticism rolled in, Deeb discovered a passion for gender equality, but that doesn’t excuse his original actions and motivations.
Also, the mere fact that men entering the event generated more buzz and reaction for the anti-Ladies Event movement than quieter, behind the scenes efforts is no justification for ruining the enjoyment of those women who entered the event. Behind the scenes may be boring, but it’s also better than grandstanding.
Shaun was planning to enter with 5 of his friends. One of them was going to have to play in drag and he was the one who lost that bet. He then realized it was in poor taste. Also, in a field of 1000, 13 men entering should not have ruined any woman’s enjoyment. My understanding is that the men were not harassing anyone. They were jsut trying to play. The women were harassing them. If everyone had just accepted the circumstances no one’s enjoyment would have been ruined.
Annie:
Are you aware that one of these gentleman used a tampon as a card protector? Does that change your opinion of what they were doing?
I mentioned that in my original post. I think that is reprehensible and he deserved the nastiness he got for it for sure.
When you look at your history with the game, and the opportunities it has brought you, would you say that a good deal of this was possible because women are thought of differently in poker? It wasn’t all mental acumen that brought you to network TV and gave you the opportunity to ably support your charitable causes. R
No?
[...] picture New blog post up on the Ladies Event Controversy: http://www.annieduke.com/2010/06/the-ladies-event-redux/ Warning: super long!For a long time I felt a little alone on my stance on the Ladies event. So [...]
I am a female poker player and I own a small social club/card room. I gained a lot of respect for Annie Duke when I found out through Negreanu’s blog that she was against the ladies-only event at WSOP.
I have always boycotted women-only events because I also believe there is no gender gap or bias in poker and having events that keep men out strongly suggests that playing with men puts us at a disadvantage.
The ONLY perceivable benefit to a ladies event is social interaction with other women. And that is not necessary in the WSOP. WSOP is for competing and winning money.
Keep fighting the good fight and thanks for letting people know that there are sides to this issue and there are women like us who think women-only events are an insult to our intelligence.
It’s no secret DN has had a hard on for you for years, I think your P.O.V. is respectable and your refusal to defend what is essentially a marketing tool for your blog/career is the way to go. DN is just having a bad WSOP, the boy is fit to be tied. Truth be told DN is probably just upset because he sees himself as The Greatest female poker player in the world. Good luck at the WSOP this year in whatever events you play in.
Hi, I’ve read both sides of this issue and while both have their points, I have an interesting solution to it. Why not have both a ladies and mens tournament running at the same time then the final winners of each tournament square off in a heads up battle for a real WSOP bracelet with the recognition of who played better poker in the tournament…men or the ladies…what do you think of this Annie?
Annie,
Not attacking you here, but I have one quick question. If you are against the ladies event because it is for ladies only and because of the 14th amendment, then why do you call yourself the best female poker play. Why not just the best poker player? i don’t see Ivey calling himself the best African American poker player. Just think of the outrage if that happened.
Anne – If you are SO against the Ladies Event then why did you sponsor female UB pros in it?
You are such a poor excuse for a female…especially a female poker player!
Let it be, I love ladiespokertournment.its all about fun,I just enjoyed , You can see all the woman play poker together, pretty girls, granmas, its so cut, There are mix game everywhere.Its dosen’t matter win or lost, or woman can beat man .
We just want some fun. let it be.
[...] championship and afterward in other open tournaments, where those who’d washed out ended up. Controversy bubbles within the poker community about what it means to have a “women only”… – and I actually debated with Annie Duke about it last year at the WSOP Academy poker school. [...]
Just think of the uproar there would be if there was some “Men’s Only” event. I think that says it all.
[...] Ladies event, and she tactfully laid out her arguments again in a blog post of her own titled “The Ladies Event: Redux”. She mentions the common arguments that people have that are in favor of the event, and then [...]
Way, way late jumping into this debate, but felt the need to anyway…
You make some very good points, Annie – and they’re very well taken. But there are a couple of points I’d like to make.
FIRST: I’m not accusing you of doing this, but a lot of people talk about women being “put” in this event, as if it were mandatory for all women poker players to participate. It may seem like an obvious point, but women are not forced into this event, nor are they confined to it.
If anyone’s rights are being trampled here, it is those of the male poker population. However, I believe it’s always in poor taste for a dominant race/gender to cry foul in these situations. The fact is, every tournament except for the Ladies Event is a “men’s event.” I would estimate that as many as 80% of tables at the WSOP are men only.
There are a lot of analogies being throw around in this debate. I think a fairly good one is traditionally black colleges in America. These sorts of instituations exist for the benefit of underserved, underrepresented segments of our population. And while people from outside their target demographic have a constitutional right to be there, the value of the institution should ultimately be determined by the black community, and no one else. It is not up to, and I don’t think it would be acceptable for, white people to decide the “value” or the “message it sends”.
Similarly, it is not up to the dominant 90%+ of the poker population to say what is best for the oft objectified, oft mocked minority of women. The poker community is overwhelmingly (though not uniformly) sexist. Even when they try to be progressive, they fail (see: “Year of the Woman”).
SECOND: The mistake people often make when judging groups formed around race, gender, etc., is believing they’re somehow based on a sense of superiority or inferiority. (See: “Gender Gap” argument.) This is usually not the case. It’s about unity. It’s about sharing a common bond. It’s about having a safe environment. It’s about briefly escaping bias. In the male-dominated poker world — and most guys probably don’t get this — there is overwhelming pressure for women to act like men and/or accept the ubiquitous sexism.
I will absolutely concede that some people — women included — believe that the existence of a Ladies Event sends the message that women are inferior poker players. Hell – I’ll even concede that that was probably on the minds of WSOP officials when the event was created. But that is NOT what it means to its thousand participants today. And since when do we care what ignorant sexists think, anyway? Anyone who really thinks the Ladies Event is evidence that women are inferior poker players obviously has bigger problems, and a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics.
THIRD: There is one very good reason to cancel the Ladies Event: the value of the bracelet (note: this is NOT to say the Ladies Event bracelet isn’t “real”). I completely undersatnd this argument. If the WSOP wants to be a true poker championship, they should drastically reduce the number of events. There should be a single championship for each discipline. And all events should be open to whoever wants to enter.
HOWEVER – as long as the WSOP continues to roll out 58-event schedules, with a Seniors Event, a Casino Employees Event, full-ring PLOs, and ten $1,000-$1,500 NLHEs, (and definitely the proposed “Newcomers Event”,) I have a really hard time believing the value of the bracelet hinges on the Ladies Event, and, therefore, see no reason to do away with it.
You correctly noted that there would be an uproar if an African-Americans-only event was announced. Considering their lack of representation in the poker community — just like women’s — I would absoultely support this event, assuming the black poker community saw value in it. That goes for LGBT, Latino, little people, or any other underrepresented segment, too.
IN CONCLUSION: I think a lot of people who are opposed to this tournament fall into a couple of categories:
a) Males (often white) who feel sorry for themselves because, goddamnit, their ancestors have lived in this country for damn near 300 years and haven’t had the opportunity to be descriminated against once! What an outrage!
b) People are are too caught up on the message the already-sexist segment of the poker community is receiving when they see events like this on the schedule.
Personally, as long as women see value in the ladies event; as long as the WSOP chooses quantity over quality (which, for the record, I don’t blame them for); and as long as the poker community is dominated by males, I will absolutely support the Ladies Event 100%.
Let’s never lose sight of the fact that being equal does not mean we’re all the same.
…and I just saw there was already another post on this topic. My bad.