First off let me start by saying I agree with the point Daniel is trying to make, I just think the arguments he uses are weak.
First of all, the point that the event is used as a learning experience isn't that strong. What is wrong with playing in a lower buyin tournament regularly run at any one of the casinos in Vegas. Sure it's a steep learning curve playing live for the first time but isn't it exactly the same for guys too? The WSOP is a prestigious series & I'm sure it's a daunting experience for anyone playing for the first time. But I don't think playing in the ladies event is going to be any less daunting given there are plenty of exellent players.
The next point is the sexual equality argument, I gues this is the one that really makes me laugh. I just find it horribly patronising. The comment "Men have had it pretty damn good. They could always work, vote, or pretty much do whatever they please, while women had to struggle and fight for their rights." is like saying, there has always been a white president why not let Obama have a play around for a bit. Or making a woman CEO of a company because women have had a bad time of historically, it only belittles the contribution she has to make which is probably better than any man could make anyway.
Sexual equality should mean just that, are we going to see an event for black, Jewish or disabled people?? No, so I don't think you can argue this point either.
Like I said at the top, I agree with Daniel. If it's a ladies event, then it should only be for ladies.
- Good luck at the tables.
Jay
No comments:
Post a Comment