Men vs. Women in CHESS

Fixed

u r implying that if u arent american and dont speak the way americans speak it.... okay so for all those people who dont speak the way americans speak are retards with a learning disability? dude i speak english differently from you get over it child. go to sleep..its past your bedtime

Well if you're brain determines how smart you are, and you have a larger brain you will be smarter...

It's freaking science what is wrong with you? Do you think having a large brain makes you stupid? Are you stupid?

Bisexual

Just to show you how reliable studies are. Here is a finding (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/women-have-higher-iq-scores-than-men-james-flynn_n_1677963.html) that shows women now have higher IQs ON AVERAGE than men.

I am not defending women or men in this case. I am just pointing out that we must have an open mind. With advances in science and technology, we are now discovering new things that may contradict and challenge our existing assumptions.

Anyways, I was trying not to be too hard on women, but the fact that batgirl can't comprehend basic scientific facts is probably the real evidence of how stupid women are. I'm done talking to retards for tonight, peace.

Last thing, there's probably tons of studies written about how men have better iq's. Find one study about how women have larger brains.

What really bugs me is that women claim to be mentally equal to men, yet somehow think that they are entitled to special privileges, like women's-only tournaments, titles, and prizes, just because they are women. They need to accept one out of the following two possibilities and also accept the consequence that arises out of it:

1) Women are mentally as capable as men, in which case women are obliged to compete under the same conditions as men. No more women's-only stuff

2) Women are mentally inferior to men, in which case they can, to some extent, keep their women's-only stuff.

Women can't keep mixing and matching the good stuff from those two possibilities and throwing out the bad stuff. It's just not logically possible. There is a concession that comes with each possibility, and women MUST take their pick.

i quote from English Proffesor-

Even if it were true, there's no sense in trying to make someone feel inferior to another because of brain size, intelligence, or for that matter, chess ability.

It doesn't take a scientific study to know to treat our neighbors of any gender with the same courtesy we'd like to get from them if we were on the other side of the board, (or ocean, or gender, etc.) so to speak. 

The best measure is not how much native intelligence or potential for smarts we have locked inside our brains,

but what we are doing now and plan to do with whatever measure we've been dealt.

What could we accomplish if we didn't care so much about who got the credit?

What could we do for someone else today to help someone out who needs it?

For a group of problem solvers, there's far too many problems at large to waste time debating who's got the bigger brains of the bunch.

Besides, once they figure out you're that smart, they'll expect you to use it (aka more responsibility, accountability, the four letter word w*rk), won't they? 

Yes, I followed your link.  You repeated yourself about the findings but left out the part about limited data, so I repeated it for you :p

What?  Anyway, you can't generalize to the potential of the genders in general if only a few women pursue chess seriously.  I think this is a very fair statement.  If you don't think this so please let me know why.

This is interesting to me, and could very well support what you're saying.  But again the time frame and limited number of female players leaves me a bit unconvinced.  It's true the only females that have bothered to get a FIDE rating in the past have been very good, but we can't say that all the female players with potential to be good got a FIDE rating during that time.  Surely potentially strong as well as casual female players have passed up an interest in chess in the past.  And as more women are attracted to tournament play, certainly the influx of casual players will outnumber the influx of international-level player.  However I agree in so much that this will be something to watch in the future, as more females are represented.

I can't disagree with that :)  But to argue potential in general you need more participants.  If only 1,000 women are international players (I think it's less?) then that's not a sufficient sample out of the 3-4 billion women in the world.

Maybe you could look at countries which heavily promote chess where men and women seek international status more equally.  I don't know where or if this exists, but I think this would be better than looking at FIDE on the whole.

There is a high-schooler in my state who recently conducted an all-girls chess camp. She claimed she was "breaking gender barriers." However, I was inclined to think that she was one of those people who are ERECTING barriers, not breaking them. I mean, wasn't she creating a barrier when she allowed only girls to her camp? I know there are umpteen other reasons that will pop up as explanations to the all-girls thing, and I will address one of them now, but those, in reality, can't affect the answer to my question - Wasn't she creating a barrier when she allowed only girls to her camp?

I've heard at numerous places that these all-girls whatevers are done, in chess at least, so that more girls are brought into the game. This extra step is really unnecessary and is part of affirmative action, which is just a fancy moniker for sugarcoated partialty in the other direction. If playing conditions, entry fees, prizes, etc. are kept the same for males and females, there is no bias whatsoever and whoever, male or female, is able to and wants to come and join is welcome to do so. If far fewer women want to join, fine. It's their decision not to join and given the same parameters, it would seem that men like the game more in general, which is fine as well. Should men be discouraged with inferior standards because they like the game more than women in general? The additional perks for women make it seem that women need extra impetus to join, as though they are somehow privileged because of their gender, and that men must accept inferior standards. If women claim to be of equal mental capability as men, on the grounds of fairness and mental equality of both sexes, how is any extra impetus to women justified?

There is another gender stereotype that women seem to get away with. I've seen and heard that a popular comment among participants at all-girls chess tournaments is "It's relaxing without boys," or something to similar effect. These comments happen to be taken positive spirits. However, it would be somewhat criminal if a boy, at an all-boys tournament or a tournament where there happen to be no girls, said "It's relaxing without girls," or something to similar effect. For some reason, boys being against girls is deemed sexist, but girls being against boys is not. Illogical? Very.

If men and women were really equal in chess there wouldnt be women only events ...  nuff said . 

@Reb - correct

You clearly don't know the reason women's events came about in the first place do you?

Nuff said?  Reminds me of: Q.E.D. = quite easily done.  Logical rigour is a little more difficult than that my friend.

If they are equal then there shouldnt be women only events and  there shouldnt be different/easier requirements for them to get FIDE titles ... wouldnt you agree ?  Isnt this unfair to men IF they are equal ? 

Yes, women only titles and prize funds are unfair in my opinion, and I think it was dubious decision.

Women only events don't seem bad though, if women are more comfortable in that environment why not facilitate that gender's transition out of chess obscurity?  If they continue into the future I think it's very bad though... which is one reason I see it as dubious, how do you transition out of it.

To say they exist because women are inferior players doesn't make sense to me.  In rating sections for example you can't "play down" but some women players are better than some men players.  The only reason to exclude men as a gender, regardless of ratings, is to make the tournament more appealing to women.  More participation = successful tournament for the organizers / investors.

Yeah, (regarding the general concept of women playing in events against their own gender) I am not against women feeling comfortable . As long as they don't have way superior chances of winning decent money than men of equal strength. The fact that a 2400 female has a much easier chance at a professional chess life than a 2400 male (or something like this) is what I don't care for.

"There is another gender stereotype that women seem to get away with. I've seen and heard that a popular comment among participants at all-girls chess tournaments is "It's relaxing without boys," or something to similar effect. These comments happen to be taken positive spirits. However, it would be somewhat criminal if a boy, at an all-boys tournament or a tournament where there happen to be no girls, said "It's relaxing without girls," or something to similar effect. For some reason, boys being against girls is deemed sexist, but girls being against boys is not. Illogical? Very."

Well, regarding the relaxing boys comment, in general I do get the impression that people are somewhat more likely to overlook (or simply be indifferent to) making fun of boys as a whole than making fun of girls as a whole.

Obviously sexism against women is way more prominent and as such deserves more attention; but people often don't realize that sexism (even if at a more petty level) against men exists and so act as if it doesn't.