Lee Davy consumes the recent blog post outpourings from PokerStars Team Pros Liv Boeree, and Daniel Negreanu, and shares his own opinion on the topics of choice.
Whilst preparing for a trip to Thailand I popped into the mall and purchased three t-shirts for a tenner. I thought it was a bargain. The t-shirts looked pretty cool.
When I got home I showed my wife and got that disapproving look that makes you double check that you haven’t married your mother.
It seems there was a debate to be had. My t-shirt contained an image of a scantily clad female smoking a cigarette. I thought she looked cool. My wife wondered if I was setting the best example? Not only was I a walking advert for hyper sexuality, but I was also wearing a billboard that promoted smoking as cool.
The three t-shirts went into the bin.
It wasn’t a bargain after all.
The following Christmas my son bought me a few t-shirts. When I opened them I knew there was going to be a problem. They all contained images of overtly sexualized women. There wasn’t an areola in sight, but by this time I had made a decision to not wear clothes of this nature. I had also decided to quit watching pornography for the same reasons.
I explained my reasoning to my child. He didn’t fully understand, and I don’t think I did either.
Liv Boeree has recently updated her blog. In it she talks about the remarkable journey of the Rosetta mission. The spaceship that somehow managed to travel 4 billion miles, to land on a comet, and send transmissions back to earth.
The event was an amazing achievement for everyone involved. It had taken the spaceship 10-years to find a nice cozy place on the comet. During the ensuing media interviews, one of the lead scientists, Dr. Matt Taylor, wore a shirt that contained images of scantily clad women.
Social media went berserk.
Dr. Matt Taylor, a man who should have been celebrating his monumental achievement, was suddenly breaking down in tears, on national television, because a lot of people were calling him a sexist.
Speaking of his t-shirt, Boeree writes: “It’s loud. It’s garish. It’s distracting. Some might call it an eyesore. Is it morally offensive? Oh come on.”
When you watch the man break down and sob like a baby, in front of the whole world, you can pretty much bet your bottom dollar that he is not a sexist pig.
Boeree writes: “Sexist views and gender inequality are still undeniably present in our society. However, the strong reactions of a few about something so trivial as this only serves to create an understandable backlash towards the feminism cause, and possibly hinder further rational discussion on a topic that still very much requires it.”
I think this is where my own personal backlash towards the feminism cause comes from. I am not a sexist, although I am aware that I have, in the past, made sexist comments, or have written articles that have been called sexist.
What I am is confused?
I now understand that the only reason I stopped wearing the t-shirt that I bought was because I knew it upset my wife. I didn’t find a deeper meaning. Instead, I tried to adopt one and do the right thing. It’s little wonder that my son didn’t understand the point. I hadn’t bought into it myself.
There are so many trivial things that women find offensive in poker. Then there are some great big humdingers. When I see a female poker player complaining that a dealer says, “good luck gentlemen” (when there is a woman at the table) I don’t get it. I assume the dealer has said this phrase a million times before. There is no intent. It’s autopilot. It’s like saying ‘no’ when your wife asks if her bum looks big in the new dress she has just bought.
It’s the attention to the minutiae that means I cannot understand feminism, and doubt I ever will. I believe in gender equality. I have taken to the streets and marched with feminist groups. I have read numerous books on the subjects, and I am always willing to learn more. But I have to be honest. I just don’t get it. There are too many different views on feminism. Too many contradictions.
Perhaps, it’s because I am a man?
See, I don’t even know if that’s sexist?
Daniel Negreanu has no problem with casino games
Anyone who wastes their time reading the rubbish that people post on 2+2, will know that Daniel Negreanu is not everybody’s cup of tea at the moment.
The man who was so often lauded for his individuality and authentic tongue, is now being cast in the role of puppet. PokerStars have their hand up his ass, and this is making his fingers twitch to the corporate beat.
When Victoria Coren Mitchell resigned from PokerStars, because of her strong beliefs around the dangers that online casino games/sportsbooks present, the 2+2 community clicked the timer. How long would it be before corporate Negreanu responded with a statement that backed his employers to the hilt, whilst also somehow managing to pour praise on Vicky Coren Mitchell’s decision.
That timer has now stopped.
“I would personally feel like a hypocrite if I justified that it’s OK for me to take money from problem gamblers, but it’s not OK for the casino to do the same.” Wrote Negreanu.
I agree with everything that Negreanu says in the blog. Poker is a form of gambling, and a lot of recreational players have more chance of winning money on the table games than playing poker.
If you are profiting from poker it’s hard to see how you could have a problem with online casinos. You are the house. You work extremely hard to ensure you always have the edge. If I sat down and played heads-up poker, with Daniel Negreanu, for a prolonged period of time, who would win?
Negreanu would win. The house would win. I would lose.
The addition of table games, and a sports book, will bring more players to the poker tables. That’s a good thing. In a recent article I penned for a different media outlet I was called a ‘bell end’ for believing in this assertion.
Sexist, bell-end…when will it end?