Langsung ke konten utama

The problem, in a nutshell

Read from the bottom up here:




Those tweets were soon followed by this series of replies, all from one dude asshole:  






So a female poker player reports a session in which the sexual harassment was so thick that, in recounting it, she even forgot to mention the rape threat--and a male poker player is willing to go on the record publicly telling her that she has no right to play without being harassed, that she should "get over it," that she's being a "baby," that harassing "the new girl is not over the line," that she shouldn't "whine about it," that if she's being harassed she should "leave" and/or "man up," that "nobody cares" about her harassment, that her harassment is "Part of the game" and "standard," that she's being "2 sensitive," that surely what she perceived as harassment was said "in gest [sic]" (despite him not having been there), and that her complaints are "crap that doesn't matter." 

I think there are relatively few men who would lay on the sexual harassment at a poker game to the point that somebody like Cate Hall--who strikes me as quite evidently tough-minded and resilient--would take to Twitter to denounce it. But I think there are a very, very large number of male poker players who share one or more of Andrew's reactions to it: It's part of the game, it's not over the line, it doesn't matter, she should respond by leaving or enduring it without objection. 

IMHO, it is the latter group, rather than the former, who make this such a difficult problem to eradicate. If it were only handful of obnoxious jerks who were quickly, reliably, and sternly rebuked and shunned for their crass behavior by everybody else at the table (and, not incidentally, ejected from the game by the poker room staff), it would soon be extinguished. It's the fact that women end up having to deal with the ill-bred mouth-breathers all alone--with the silence of others constituting tacit approval--that makes their conduct so damaging. 

Thanks, Andrew, for encapsulating the problem so perfectly. 

(Please insert here all the standard caveats that as a male I can't know what it feels like, shouldn't be mansplaining, etc.) 


ADDENDUM: At first I couldn't figure out who "Andrew" was. But then it occurred to me to do a Google image search on the photo he uses on his Twitter account. The photo is of an Andrew Liporace; see here. Hendon Mob info is here. I assume, but do not know, that that's who we're dealing with here. 

Komentar

Postingan populer dari blog ini

Lee Jones responds

Lee Jones has an article at PokerNews responding to mine of earlier this week (see post immediately below). As would be expected from him, it's thoughtful, articulate, and comes down on the side of going out of your way to make the game friendly and fun, even at the cost of "a shekel or two less that ends up in your pocket." http://www.pokernews.com/strategy/using-poker-rules-for-a-tactical-advantage-a-rebuttal-25614.htm I have no quarrel with the position he takes. Moreover, it is perfectly consistent with the general attitude he has shown in a couple of other recent controversies about the intersection of rules, angle-shooting, and generosity to other players--see here and here . Though Lee addresses all three of my examples, most attention from others has focused on my first one, which has caused me to think about it more. Specifically, I've thought about how the situation is both similar to and different from the common one of a relative newcomer to poker putting ...

Deuce-Four always wins

Even when it doesn't make the best hand, it plays Jedi mind tricks on your opponents.

Going light

It's not often I hear of a poker term that is new to me, but it happened today. I was listening to today's new episode of the  "Top Pair" podcast  when they talked about "going light." (The discussion goes from about 37:15 to 40:45.) The subject was prompted by one of the hosts having read this recent PokerNews article by Ashley Adams , which mentions it. Here's the relevant part of Adams's article: Some games allow players to “go light,” meaning that they may call a bet even if they don’t have enough money on the table to do so, then can settle up at before [sic] the next hand. Other games actually allow players to reduce the size of their bet after they make it, to accommodate the smaller stack of an opponent, as in: “I bet $15. Oh, you only have $6? Okay, make it $6.” The second half of that is neither remarkable nor controversial, assuming there are only two players in the hand. It's just an informal shortcut to get to the same result as form...