Why is there a Women's World Championship?

Hm, trysts is beginning to seem obsessed with Easter.

Prove to me that men in fact do suffer horrendously due to women-only tournaments.  The fact that some women may make more money than some higher rated men due to their participation in a women's circuit doesn't translate that the existence of these tournaments take anything away from the male players or even if they do divert some money, that that money is so critical.  That's simply a leap of logic I can't accept.  Off-hand, it seems more of a male crutch to explain their own inability to eke a living out of chess.

Well, the last paragraph is simply complaining about prejudices. Don't you think that chess life article example is appropriate for that?

For the earlier parts of the post... probably not very well-written by me. It was emotional rambling. Even so, I don't see why you have to be so critical. I concede that the post is on the cynical side, but cynical doesn't really try to hurt anybody.

Taciturn. succinct, terse = '' Noble ''.  :)

Uh-oh, looks like Elubas is getting a little thin-skinned again... 

That debate between GM Hammer and WGM Pogonina demonstrates what I mean, I would think. If Hammer is accurate in what he says, that there are many similar situations to the one in that article, then indeed, a man has to work harder to get the same amount of money. That's discrimination. That in itself is a pretty bad thing, would you agree? The question is, of whether the possible benefit we get elsewhere is worth this bad thing. But you do agree that the discrimination against men would be one drawback (even if there are possible benefits too of female tournaments), right?

That's all I want you to recognize: That discrimination is in effect with both sexes. Then we can agree to disagree

It's like a tap on my back. It doesn't feel painful, but you still want to let the guy know that what he is doing is disrespectful, just so that he could hear it from somebody. So I disagree

Not quite sure how disagreeing with you is disrespectful, Elubas...

I read that debate and it didn't prove anything concerning whether the existence of women's tournaments have such a great negative impact on a man's abilitiy to earn a chess living.  All it amounted to was complaining because a lower-rated woman could earn more.

Disagreeing with me is fine. I was referring to netzach implying that I didn't write what I said very well, when he quoted my post.

Well, yeah. Don't you think that's unfair?

Did you read over one day or two ?

I'm really not sure, Elubas.  If a women were to be given a handicap of some sort in the same tournament vying for the same prizes, then I would say that was both discriminatory and unfair.  If the prizes in the open tournament were reduced in order to create prizes for the women's tournament, that might be unfair (and it may, in fact be the case - I don't know - but I doubt it since it seems that women's tournaments seem capable of procurring their own sponsors). But just the simple fact that women have an opportunity to make money than men don't have doesn't seem to fit that same reasoning.

"But just the simple fact that women have an opportunity to make money that men don't have doesn't seem to fit that same reasoning."

The above situations mentioned are not exactly the same, but I don't see why they have to be. The situation quoted gives women an extra priviliege, not by working harder, but by being a woman; being your gender doesn't take any work. I think that's an unfortunate reason to be privileged, don't you?

Following this argument would you like to be entitled to enter & compete in women's chess competitions for financial-gain. Is this what your campaign is all about ?

All your points are nonsense. If women make a success (financial or otherwise) of promoting chess that is simply cleverness & not privilege.

Men are free to do the same & already things change & we see this. Look at for example how Magnus Carlsen promotes chess & himself & I don't hear many women whinging about that the way you are doing here...

I think it's stretching the argument awfully thin.

You'll be stepping into some illustrious pumps...er, shoes: