Boog -
The difference is that the GM and WGM titles are not equal. The WGM title has lower requirements than the GM title. If anything, the sexism makes it *easier* for women to get the highest title. The WGM title in itself can be seen as being sexist by pandering to women, setting the bar lower, and implying that the GM title is too hard for women to reach.
I agree, WGM should be abolished.
No, it should stay and be optional for men. Maybe I could become a WCM then. :)
I've always wanted to become a WGM... but these sexist pigs won't let me reach my dream. I'll have to call up my plastic surgeon...
As Yohan said, this post is based on a misunderstanding. The WGM title is not equivalent to the GM title. Its requirements are actually somewhat less difficult than the IM title. Any woman who meets the standards for the IM or GM title will receive it, just the same as a man would.
Thanks for the answers people.
Any woman who meets the standards for the IM or GM title will receive it, just the same as a man would.
I do think that if that is the case, then any man who meets the standards for the WFM, WCM, or WGM will receive it just the same as a woman would.
Maybe these 'W's could be replaced with a less sexist classifier: A Wannabe Grandmaster, for example. That would solve the problem of being inferior to a Grandmaster.
Yohan pretty much said it. I think we should do away with it, but it's sort of positive-sexism in that it makes it easier for women to reach a rank which identifies them as being a sort of Grandmaster.
I can only suppose the supposed need for this is that there aren't nearly as many women who qualify as a regular GM, but it's silly--it's just the same in my opinion as saying there aren't very many e.g. black or dark-skinned Grandmasters, so we should give them a BGM (Black Grandmaster) title--it's just that riduculous to me.
It's irrelevant and pointing out a meaningless quality of an individual which is unrelated to the game of chess.
I'm interested in the history of the creation of the WGM/WIM titles. Was it by committee, were there any women on it?
Why are women Grandmasters (WGM) not labelled simply as GMs like their male counterparts? What difference does it make whether a grandmaster is a woman or a man?
Female grandmasters are, in fact, labled GM.
Interesting point Boogalicious.
I also have the impression that the FIDE "management" is much like most politicians worldwide :
* old
* white
* men
I've never seen reports about a high profile FIDE female employee, but perhaps I missed something.
I've always thought a truly universal situation is one where no one finds the gender or race of a person as a significant difference. If we say "look, not only did this person score well, she was female!" it seems to imply that we look at men and women as somewhat separate entities. Men and women are different of course, but that kind of thing focuses on the differences rather than the similarities universally shared -- e.g., that they like to play chess.
There are counter arguments to the above, but I will say that if every human thought of things as I have prescribed (unrealistic unfortunately), I feel like no one would be uncomfortable about their gender or race, and would not feel alienated. Even if a person were, say, the only man in a room, he wouldn't feel singled out because he is similar to all the women in the ways that matter.
Not in a sexist way but it is a known scientific fact that men are mentally stronger than women hence why there are only 8 female GMs and about 500 male... obviously I'm not saying ALL men are smarter than ALL women because I know I wouldn't like to compete in a chess game vs somebody like GM Judit Polgar but a mans mental capabilities are higher than a woman's as is the same physically and due to that fact will be why they introduced the WGM title
Please, someone translate that post.
I genuinely don't know what's unclear about it. I don't mind clearing it up, but I would need to know what to clear up :)
a mans mental capabilities are higher than a woman's as is the same physically and due to that fact will be why they introduced the WGM title
Why do you make this stuff up?
Since most people in the world aren't white it follows that the vast majority of countries are governed by their own majority ethnic groups....except in a large country which I'm too frightened to mention.
Politicians are mostly puppets in the West.Leadership outside of politics from a visible point of view naturally comes from men and more subtley from women - this is the human dynamic that for tens of thousand years can be balanced by less than fifty years of political correctness...as the middle classes are eroded so will these liberal sensibilities, which will give way to the need to survive and the desire to procreate...
In so far as leaders aren't the puppets we see, it's quite natural that older people should have be in senior positions of authority - by virtue of experience...
Alas, the world does seem unjust to most of us alot of the time, and as a white male that is on the way to being old I get fed up with this old mantra about a group that I am from but don't necessarily identify with as much as lIberals identify with their own self righteousness.
I'm not making it up it's a known fact that men have a higher possible mental capabilities than women because saying that a top female chess player could beat a top male player is like saying the best female boxer ever could beat Muhammad Ali which we know couldn't happen due to natural physical limits
Just put it in basic English.
It's all about looking at people as the same. So if for example a woman became world champion, if we look at people as the same, her being world champion would feel similar to any other world champion in most ways. She would be another human who became world champion -- something we've seen before. And like I said, we could focus on her differences, that she's a woman, but my point is to focus more on her similarities. To focus on how men and women are the same, rather than distinct.
Still, I feel like that is pretty much what I said in my first post :)
but if you want a chess example if they did Magnus Carlsen vs Judit Polgar... Magnus would win every match Judit could win or draw a few but overall she wouldn't be able to beat Magnus due to the fact that men are naturally mentally superior which I don't mean in a sexist way at all it's just a well-known scientific fact
I'm not making it up it's a known fact that men have a higher possible mental capabilities than women because saying that a top female chess player could beat a top male player is like saying the best female boxer ever could beat Muhammad Ali which we know couldn't happen due to natural physical limits
First of all, that is not a known fact; it's one you just made up because you *think* it's correct. What you think and what are known facts are separated by a gulf of data apparently wider than what your imagination can dream up. Second, that's not even to what I was referring, but rather the reason for the creation of the WGM title.
batgirl, i'm not arguing either way but there is absolutely no way to "prove" that men have a higher possible mental capability then women, but it is also imposible to prove that wrong. Blade_scopezz96 i would be shocked if Judit Polgar could now or ever in the future beat Magnus Carlsen in a classical game. Let just say that the only games Magnus has lost in the past year is One to Fabiano Caruana. and one to Temiour Radjabov both in a row. Anyways i'm getting tired of all these threads about why are men better at chess them women. I should just leave......entirely my own fault for getting into them in the first place though.
Why are women Grandmasters (WGM) not labelled simply as GMs like their male counterparts? What difference does it make whether a grandmaster is a woman or a man?