Like I said before, women's and juniors tournaments and the like are a handicap. There is justification to have them when you look at it on a purely skill level manner. You are the one who keeps saying that I said "no group is allowed to have it's own divisions based on gender" I never said that. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
Then what are you saying? I hear you saying that the "women" can't have it both ways yet many other groups of pool players do have it both ways and you aren't saying that they should give up their segregated tours and events in return for being "allowed" to play in the US Open.
Actually, it is fairly likely that he would. Maybe not this year because switches do take some time, getting all the details sorted out takes time, but probably the next year as it is already on the table.
Details? All he has to do for women to play THIS YEAR is to simply say women can play. There are no details, no locker rooms have to reconfigured, congress doesn't need to pass a law.
Maybe if you are Jesse Jackson it is called empowerment, but that doesn't make it right. Reverse discrimination is still discrimination and is still wrong. Affirmative action is wrong. Making one wrong to right another is WRONG. One group gaining advantages over another group due to anything based on race, gender, and to a lesser extent age, is WRONG.
So you call a support group gaining an advantage? Blacks, Hispanics, AND Women still earn less than White Men in comparable jobs. Racism and Discrimination is still practiced every day in the USA. So according to you these people who have only had equal rights under the law for less than 100 years and who still don't receive equal treatment should not be allowed to support one another and form groups to continue the fight for equal treatment?
Affirmative action may be wrong but that's not what we are talking about here, at least not what I am talking about. I am talking about the fact that in 2010 women are treated like second class citizens by tournament promoters, and specifically by Barry Behrman. Hopefully he will correct it sometime in the future although he could start today.
The only way they will ever be treated as equals is if they treat themselves as equals first.
Yeah right. Check the stats on disparity in salaries between men and women who do the same job and get back to me.
I don't know what this great support structure for the male pros you are talking about is...Male pros basically have nothing to themselves but the open and a few small events.
It's obvious that you don't get it. The support structure is the WAY a man is treated in the pool room vs how a woman is treated. How a man is coached vs. how a woman is coached. The way a man receives encouragement and backing and a woman is still looked at with disdain if she dares to try and compete.
The women have MUCH more for only women. Considering their skill level, they are treated MUCH better than men.
They are 'treated' - who is doing the treating? The women formed their own tour on their own. They are down to two tournaments and the Classic tour has always been on shaky ground at that. Most of the women on the tour are in the red by participating on the tour. They either don't or barely make expenses when they go to events. The ONLY women only THING that they have is their tour.
How many short stops or low level pros have a realistic chance at all at a US Open title? There are probably 10 female shortstop to low level pros that have a realistic chance at their US Open title.
And the point here is what? The bulk of the entrants at the US Open have no realistic shot at the title. But, as a man the stock boy at the local Office Depot can at least try while Kelly Fisher cannot.
First of all she doesn't have that opportunity, this is only hypothetical. Second of all, to be treated as an equal you have to play with everyone else. If they want to stay in the WPBA, they don't want to be treated as equals and thus should not be treated as such.
All right, for the sake of moving this along - what about Sha Sha Liu, the 16 year old girl from China or Katjitani from Japan or Rubilen Amit? They aren't part of the WPBA - should they be barred from the US Open? Or why can't I go to the Office Depot and pick a woman and pay her entry into the US open just as I could for her male colleague.
I will give you the WPBA - so now what do you have to say to the other 3 billion women on Earth?
What segregated tours are you talking about? The only major one that I am aware of is the WPBA.
The Tri State Tour, The Taiwanese Pro Tour, All Junior Events, Handicapped Events,
Your argument makes no sense, but you are severely biased, so that is to be expected. What would one say about a man putting up money to play in the men's US Open? I am suggesting that the women give up their benefits that they recieve soley because they have no penis. The would men forfiet this priveldge when they are born, the women, if what I am suggesting is implemented, at least have a choice. In this situation women as individuals would have the choice to be either equal or unequal. Equal as in they compete and are rewarded exactly the same as men. Unequal as in . People such as yourself only hold minorities back from the ultimate goal of equality by trying to give one group benefits over another.
Please see the statement above where I give you the WPBA. What about the REST of the women in the world? Women don't have any "benefits" solely because they have no penis. Oh I see you are counting a B-league tour made of a minority group as a privilege because the top players aren't allowed to rob it? Bet you feel the same way about the c-player only tournaments at the local poolroom too.
Wait, what? What men's tour are you talking about? The US Open is the only major non-invitational event in the US as far as I know. If there was a tour, it would be wrong for a women to play in both when the men also can't play in both. What's so stupid about this argument? Is it stupid that I would rather strive for true equality than be a hypocrite in some areas like what you are suggesting?
In both? What do you mean in BOTH. There is no both, one is the WPBA US Open and the other is the US Open. Two different events. You're not striving for true equality. True equality is when BARRY says MY EVENT is truly OPEN. Whatever the women do is on them and their participation in the US Open shouldn't be contingent on what the WPBA does.
Where? Your argument that you are striving for equality, but women should be allowed into men's events while barring men from women's events is extremely hypocritical in itself.
Um, again we come back around to the fact that there are many segregated tournaments and tours in the world. And ALL of them in the USA are filled with players who are LESS SKILLED on average than the male professionals. So what you are saying is abolish all these groups and if you want to be really "equal" then you just need to be willing to go head to head with the best all the time.
There is no way to logically support a hypocritical argument.
And there is no way to get a person who is blind to the reality to understand why things can't work according to their utopian ideals.
The men also play under the condition that they can't play in the WPBA. The unfair thing for them is that they wouldn't have a choice, but that is inevitable.
Wow, you are just getting silly here. I highly doubt that they play under any such condition at all.
I've debunked this argument 3 or 4 times already, you can go reread my previous posts if you want a counter-argument.
Sorry can't follow all the quotes. You thinking you debunked something and actually doing it are two different things.
In that case, under your reasoning, they should change the name to "The WPBA Semi-Open If You Are Not a Man
Again with the silliness.
I used sometimes because they are allowed in under the condition that there is no women's equivalent. If you want you can name a open men's only event that doesn't have a women's equivalent, but I will only agree with you that it is wrong.
Yes, that's the WPBA rule but it's also flawed. The fact of the matter is that until there are equal numbers of women playing then women will always be weaker players ON AVERAGE - so for that reason they should be allowed to have their league but also be allowed to play with the BEST whenever there is an event.
Reasonably? When does being reasonable have to do with putting players on the Mosconi Cup? We want the best chances of winning, not a 30% chance or what ever chance the best American woman would have. Take last years team members, now tell me one woman that would win the MAJORITY of the time against any of them. That is the criteria for the Mosconi Cup we want the BEST team (provided they have good sportsmanship, of course).
You're hilarious. The Mosconi Cup is a made for TV event with short races and ALL the participants are there at the whim of the promoter. I am sure if Barry Hearn thought that it would make for better TV then he would add some women to the team. And he might do so. Why don't we flip this and you tell me any member of the Mosconi cup teams that will win a MAJORITY of their race to five matches against any other member?
Plus I don't even really get why you are bring this into the discussion of whether women should be allowed to play in the US Open or not?
What does the Mosconi Cup have to do with whether women are allowed to play in Barry's US Open???
Don't let a low odds occurance fool you, nobody on earth would bet a significant amount of money on Loree over Thorsten. If you want, I'll bet you $500 that Thorsten wins the next time they play.
Yeah, ok. You're right the women suck. So we have established that they are no threat to the men. So what's the reason again that they can't play in the US Open? Oh I remember it's because they have their own girls league and it's "unfair". Again what about all the women who don't participate in that league? Why can't they play again? Because they have boobies and not johnsons......I get it.
See previous argument. I have hit a flush on the river to beat out a straight many times. Is it something to count on? No, it isn't.
You're right. However the World Series of Poker is open to ANYONE with $10,000, even though they have women only tournaments as well.
Semantics are petty, whether you admit it or not. The US Open name is traditional, changing it because of semantics is petty
So if a person came to the US Open for the first time and said why is Allison Fisher not playing then it would have to be explained to them that the promoter doesn't allow women. However if the title were Men's US Open then it would be printed on the ticket and no explanation would be needed.
It's not semantics, it's clarity.
And it's still a travesty that in 2010 women are not "allowed" to play in the United States Open 9 Ball Championship just simply because they were born the wrong sex.
