It was very pleasing to see a bit of recognition for a few of my fellow poker bloggers today. Those guys deserve it.
I was flattered by Fred's query at the tail end of this post which asks where are the women, admonishing Mark Glaser for not including yours truly or Felicia.
I followed a link in Iggy's post and my ego was disappointed not to see my 'lil blog in the Top 10 listed there. Meh. My better sense assured me it didn't matter. But then I saw a
little bitty link
that said
I followed the link and saw that this blog was at number two. That was nice. But, I was miffed. And my miffage increased when sometime thereafter I found my way to this article.
And so, I now roll up my sleeves for a bit if a rant.
I am squarely in the camp that believes so-called "women's events" should be eliminated from the major poker tournament circuits. There is absolutely no reason why women should be segregated. Poker is a game where women have the same opportunity to excel in the game as do men. With them and among them at the same table.
Burkhead states in her article that the benefit of having women only events is that it gets more women playing, that the tournaments give "women a chance to compete with players of their own caliber." What does that mean? Burkhead's reasoning is faulty, at best. Parenthetically, the inference, I daresay, is that women are of less caliber than men?
She states, "'I've had women tell me that the first time they walked into a poker room to play poker was one of the scariest things they've ever done." I've had men tell me the same thing. Next.
I am mortified that in this day and age - the 21st century for pete's sake - that women would allow themselves to be intimidated by the notion of sitting at a poker table full of men. Or state that they are not 'comfortable' playing with men. That's as ridiculous as the men saying they aren't comfortable playing with women.
Yes, there are some who will not welcome you, but if you don't sit down and play, then you have missed an opportunity to eradicate a prejudice. If a minority willingly segregates itself, the majority will relentlessly exploit it - progress is stunted.
I love to sit at a table full of good ol' boys at the T-Bird. I've gotten some condescending looks and comments from time to time, for sure. But I've also stood up from some of those tables having not only increased my bankroll, but pocketed some respect, as well.
I've achieved that by refusing to see myself as something less than they are. And if we are to change attitudes across the board, women need to strap on some brass one's, get past their intimidation, and play with boys.
We would not stand for being excluded from a poker room, or tournament solely based on our gender, so why would we willingly exclude ourselves?? Because we're intimidated? Please. If that's what is holding you back, then take up bridge. Or scrap-booking.
So, while I understand Fred's lament as to the lack of the female viewpoint in Glaser's article, and I'm flattered by the bone about.com threw to the Women Poker Bloggers - I respectfully decline to be categorized thus.
I am a poker player. I'm a poker blogger. If I am ever lauded or reviled for either, I wish my gender to be irrelevant.
