An article that I'm sure most are aware of was written a short while back that seems to have stirred quite a few reactions. http://www.chess.com/article/view/women-vs-men

Authored by Natalia Pogonina, its basic premise was that women should get paid more for the emotional trauma they suffer due to segregation and prejudice from the chess world. It opened with a rather curious quotation from Charles Dudley Warner, "There is nothing that disgusts a man more than getting beaten at chess by a woman". (Not that I don't enjoy literature or humor, but in relation to the article, the quote seems rather misplaced.)

She proceeds to admit that the aforementioned "segregation" comes in the form of tournament oppourtunities exclusive to women, which she also admits, "As a result, most strong female players prefer to participate in tournaments that can offer them a chance to gain a title and win a prize." are essentially easier to win. This throws her earlier assertation that "The problem is that most organizers don’t support female players by introducing special prizes for women." into serious question as women ALREADY seem to have just that.

Natalia proceeded to clarify her viewpoints in response to a few comments by other players, using a rather emotional tone of speech 'The so-called "fighters for equality" are just cruel people with animal instincts, "whoever is stronger wins"-type.'

In reality, equality is simply just that. Whoever plays better chess will win. I fail to see or understand the reasoning (if any) behind such an argument. She has also asserted people sharing the opposing viewpoint as "immoral" and "of low cultural and intellectual standards, nothing more." DRASTICALLY changing the mood of the article from an already controversial opinion piece to something clearly offensive as there's no need for such insults in what's supposed to be intellectual, or simply honest, discussion.

I write this because this issue has gone unaddressed to this point and I'm personally offended by such an assertation since I share many of these deemed "immoral" viewpoints of equality. I'm also against (as others have pointed out) attempting to solve psychological issues by simply handing out more money. I'm also personally against the idea that women should get a THIRD prize oppourtunity presented to them for any reason.

What seems to be the core of the argument, as confessed by Natalia in a comment, is the emotional issue of "There are about as many women as men, and that girl would be like top-100 in the world among women. Why is she supposed to live in worse conditions than a top-100 male player? Shouldn't she be equally appreciated?" However, this type of question deviates from her struggle for equality as the top 100 women in such a scenario wouldn't be appreciated for their talent, but rather their gender. A clearly sexist notion. Also, there are female GMs that reside within the top 100 players, so the suggestion that the top 100 male players are currently celebrated is simply inaccurate. As pointed out by fellow chess.com members, equality is currently instated by celebrating the top 100 PLAYERS irrespective of gender.

All female tournaments, admittedly by Natalia's own word, are of a lower skill level than their open counterparts (which aren't segregated in the least). Yet she would continue to make accusations along these lines "Also, the prizes at women's event are meager. The World Champions wins like $40-60k, while Anand and Topalov are playing for 2 million euros." On top of hipocrisy, this is simply offensive to those who struggle to earn a decent living, to see numbers like 50,000 thrown around as "meager". I hope I'm not disagreed with when I say that Natalia is clearly out of her league with these types of assertations and insults and some type of apology would be deeply appreciated.

Sounds like WGM Pogonina should either play in "Open" events or play in "Ladies" events, as she wishes. Either way, she shouldn't bemoan her own decisions.

I read the article and the comments after you mentioned it. She compares the chess with sports that requires physical strength in her comments. She mentions soccer, basketball etc. Of course a male's body has a potential to gain more strength and stamina than a female's body. That is already proven and well known. That's why female athletes don't usually compete with male's in the sport events. 

Can we say same thing for the chess? Let's stop trying to be politically correct for a moment and give an honest answer to the question. Is it a fact that a female brain has a physiological disadvantage when it comes to chess? We know that two genders brains are not wired exactly the same way. But I do not know if there is a physiological handicap for women.

If there is, then just like the athletic sports, we can justify the decision of separating the titles and prizes. On the other hand, if women has a potential to play chess as good as their male counterparts, there is no need to divide it into genders. 

Are we sure that on the face of the earth, no women will ever be able to become the best player of her era? 

I am leaving the discussion to the scientists and experts.

ok men and women should just play in the same league.  and all sports too. boxing, football, soccer.

everything should be equal. no double standards.

the problem is that politics in chess right now suck, and this isnt something on the schedule

as for the chess itself, we dont need to look at genders to infer someones strength, we look at ratings.

if there is a difference between potential aptitude in chess between men and women it would have something to do with aptitude for spatial/visualization. I don't think there is. but it may be possible that super high spatial visualization intelligence is just more rare in females than in males, not that it doesn't happen. the answers to these question will be obvious as more and more women play chess into the future, which seems like it will likely happen, it's just been slow to catch on with women for a bunch of reasons. the only woman in the top 100 is judit polgar. pretty sure she is the only woman to have ever had a place in the top 100. her and her sisters existences alone pretty much assures those interested that if more women played chess, made it their profession and worked extremely hard, as they did, then there will be more polgar sisters around, many in the top 100. the youngest polgar sister didn't really make chess her profession, she stopped playing professionally and working at it before she reached her peak in my opinion. judit can beat anyone on a good day, she's proven this. and susan is just as strong as most gms and also has a good chance of being able to beat most anyone on her good days.

good post mikex22. completely agree with you.

men and women should just play together, no seperate womens tournaments etc, and let your rating do the talking. if you're good when everything is equal, you'll get paid.

reminds me of tennis, women players demanding "fair" prize money on equal footing with the men, yet without playing the same amount of sets..

its a shame especially in these hard times when "equality" is an excuse to get more for less when its not earned or deserved.

I can't speak for Natalia, or for strong chess players in general (obviously!), but it seems to me that we'd all -- men and women -- be better off if men stopped trying to police every opinion that a woman has on matters to do with equality or fairness.  If we compete on an equal playing field we get sneered at and patronized; if we ask for and get our own arrangements we get sneered at and patronized -- sometimes even by the same people.

Why should we care what you think is best for us?  That's our problem.

Getting "personally offended" is too much damned work.

Even more curious, I just don't understand how someone can get personally offended by a generalization.  Aren't generalizations impersonal by their very nature?

That's the type of thing Canadians always say, though.

Why don't you like me?

Which makes them all the more to be prized when they do (inevitably, it would seem) arise!