Well, it seems like perverse logic to me that people bemoan the fact that women in general fall far behind men in general in chess abilitiy, yet, at the same time, either belittle or complain about systems put into place to try to raise the level of women in general through encouraging and rewarding more girls to not only take up the game competitively, but to continue through adulthood. Competitive chess seems like an arduous thing and carried to the professional level, both arduous and financially tenuous for all but the very best. I tend to think that overall women would advance more rapidly if they played only in open events, but the reality throughout history seems to point to the idea that such a thing isn't likely to increase th pool of women players - which is the main thrust of Women's Chess and the real impetus for general improvement. If the women's cycle diverts funds from general chess, then I can see a couse for complaint - and this does seem to be the case in the US championship - but I think women's chess is financially good for chess in general, not the other way around.
Why is there a Women's World Championship?
I view women's chess (i.e. - women-only events, women's titles) sort of like bicycle training wheels. They're good for getting women into the game, they might even be necessary, but women who want to excel have to know when to leave it behind, or they're never going to become a good bicyclist/chessplayer (and by good, I mean world class ... obviously there are lots and lots of good lady players who don't leave the women's circuit).
I fear that too many aspiring women players have used women's chess as a both a springboard and a landing pad for their careers, when it should really only be used as the former. And regarding the WWC title specifically, I feel that by the time a woman has reached that plateau, she should have left the training wheels behind some time ago ...
Just my thoughts ... if my analagy makes any sense at all :)
So it's simultaneously training wheels and a springboard?
Sounds dangerous.
Haha. OK, maybe "Springboard" wasn't the best wording I could've used ... hopefully you understand my intent, however 
Shrug .
But the point remains that women who want can "graduate" to open events, those who want. can play in women-only events. What matters, or at least as what I see to matter, is that people, in this case femine people, play chess. Eventually those females who want to transcend the obvious limitations of women-only event, will.
Of course my juvenile chess analogy, like all analogies, is faulty. But I think it's just as faulty to say under-17's, or whatever the cut-off is, are automatically deficient in chess. Many players of that age group are better than 99% of adults. Women. of course, would do better to play in open events, but until there's a great rise in the number of female players sufficient in comparison to the number of male players, a women's chess circuit is possibly, maybe even probably, more beneficial to women than it is harmful.
I don't think your analogy with junior events works well batgirl.
Young children clearly are not at the level of adults in cognitive development so a kind of "positive ageism" is justified. Even this will be probably be curtailed in the future, considering Carlsen was World number one whilst still in his teens.
Women and men on the other hand are equal in mental capacities so a women's championship I feel patronises women more than anything else. You can't compare women to children.
You are right that in practice this does not result in a severe disadvantage to men but the message it sounds out is anachronistic and a significant number of men and women find it irritating.
Ageist.
Shrug .
But the point remains that women who want can "graduate" to open events, those who want. can play in women-only events. What matters, or at least as what I see to matter, is that people, in this case femine people, play chess. Eventually those females who want to transcend the obvious limitations of women-only event, will.
Of course my juvenile chess analogy, like all analogies, is faulty. But I think it's just as faulty to say under-17's, or whatever the cut-off is, are automatically deficient in chess. Many players of that age group are better than 99% of adults. Women. of course, would do better to play in open events, but until there's a great rise in the number of female players sufficient in comparison to the number of male players, a women's chess circuit is possibly, maybe even probably, more beneficial to women than it is harmful.
Financially more beneficial yes. There's little incentive for most women to strive for further improvement when they can earn a comfortable living by playing in their own pool.
I don't want to seem like I'm always picking on Pogonina but I was flabergasted to learn she has a regular second (and presumably earns enough from her chess activities to pay him). How many male 2450 players do you think bring seconds along to tournaments with them? It seems to me something is wrong with the system when Ms.Pogonina can earn €5170 for a 7.5/10 score in the European Womens Championship while someone like Gawain Jones has the help of no-one other than his modestly rated girlfriend and earnings like €829 for a 7/9 in the Reykjavik Open...yet he still manages to break the top 100 and is ever improving
Womens chess is quite simply over-funded and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some portion of that funding to still be available if chess was completely co-ed. If you're good enough, you're good enough, man or woman.
Edit: Interestingly, Hou Yifan also finished on 7/9 in Reykjavik. She won €829 like G.Jones and 6 others. But she also won the womans prize of €350. Are we to view that as compensation for a woman playing in the less lucrative Open event? 
until there's a great rise in the number of female players sufficient in comparison to the number of male players, a women's chess circuit is possibly, maybe even probably, more beneficial to women than it is harmful.
Yes, as it is the difference is just too big. Carlsen is in the 2800s while his strongest female compatriots are 600 points behind. There's no point in making statements about women being as intelligent as men and that they therefore are supposed to play chess on the same level when the latter just isn't the case. This is also the reason that you rarely or never find any of the women players complain about it being some kind of irritating anachronism to have events for women. Judit Polgar alone doesn't play in women's events, but she was good enough to finish 0.5 behind Anand in Munich 1991 already when she was 14 years old.
As long as there is a demand from sponsors and players for women's events I don't see them disappearing. Some of these events are a bit special though, the "Mediterranean Flower" tournaments are referred to as "chess beauty contests", and one gets the feeling that the rating of the invited players might be less important than their looks:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3007
Not to mention this type of articles, that are fairly common at Chessbase:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1660
Womens chess is quite simply over-funded and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some portion of that funding to still be available if chess was completely co-ed. If you're good enough, you're good enough, man or woman.
That same reasoning could be used to claim that the money for the Melody Amber blindfold and blitz invitational tournaments should have been better spent to fund classic tournaments or lower-income players. How sponsors want to spend their money I think is their business. If they don't want to fund women's events, then they can fund something else or nothing at all. But if what they want to fund is women events, then who are those not sponsoring to complain?
Ciljettu, I don't see this so much as a debate as of a difference in perspectives.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1660
says more about chessbase than about anything else.
because women play chess
Womens chess is quite simply over-funded and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some portion of that funding to still be available if chess was completely co-ed. If you're good enough, you're good enough, man or woman.
That same reasoning could be used to claim that the money for the Melody Amber blindfold and blitz invitational tournaments should have been better spent to fund classic tournaments or lower-income players. How sponsors want to spend their money I think is their business. If they don't want to fund women's events, then they can fund something else or nothing at all. But if what they want to fund is women events, then who are those not sponsoring to complain?
Ciljettu, I don't see this so much as a debate as of a difference in perspectives.
No, the Melody Amber never excluded players based on gender.
That's not how sponsorship works. Kirsan and co. aren't sitting in their offices all day taking calls and answering emails from companies pleading them to take their money to run chess events. More likely the way it happens is wealthy individuals are invited to fancy banquets with expensive food and lavish entertainment and told "for x$ I can bring your message to between y-z people a day" and the richfolk lap it up. Of course there are those rare individuals who are actually interested in the betterment of chess and not how fast they can use it to line their pockets.
"No, the Melody Amber never excluded players based on gender."
That doesn't at all mean the reasoning isn't similar.
I don't know how chess sponsorship originates any more than most people. Sponsors may be altuistic or expecting something in return, but the results are the same and however these choose to give or invest is their business.
"I don't think there is anything shameful about the chessbase article."
Shameful is a hard word... I would say lurid. I'm not sure why chessbase finds such a presentation of female chess players necessary.
A debate usually focuses on opposing views to a particular issue... i.e. which way is better. In this discussion the very elements of what the original point intended aren't even recognized by the different participants. People can't debate an issue when the issue isn't even percieved similarly by all sides.
I'll throw out a different question: Why do we need more women to play? I just want everyone to pursue the activities they like, and feel free to avoid the ones they don't. Sure, it would "be nice," to see more females playing in tournaments, and yet it's so unnecessary too. I'd like being offered a free mansion with a tennis court in the backyard, but I'm perfectly content with what I have.
Why do we need men to play?
I don't think there is anything shameful about the chessbase article. Essentially there was a tournament report and one photo by the beach with a few women GM's in a bikini. It's not like female players such Kosteniuk or Pogonina have been particularly coy about promoting their looks anyway, and it is entirely their choice if they wish to do so.
But it's also obvious that women chess players often get more attention for their looks than for the way they play. Pia Cramling has been a very strong chess player for decades. No woman from a western country was ever able to reach her level as one of the top women in the world for decades, and she even had a career plus against Korchnoi from the days when he was in the top 5.
But she wasn't considered particularly hot, and was never involved in Chess Kamasutra or posing in Chessbase articles or "selling", so there are much more articles about for example Skripchenko and Pogonina. Even though she turns 50 next year and has lost some of her playing strength Cramling is still rated above both, by the way. So while male players get the attention they deserve by their rating, it isn't like that with women. They have to work no less with PR than chess if they want to make a living.
Well obviously professional chess has a gigantic market and any attempts to increase its popularity are entirely unnecessary. Obviously.
Pogonina just cashed a check from the European womens championship, as did several other ladies who finished above her. I'd say that most of them are pretty happy that there is a womens circuit. Perhaps in the long run Pogonina would be better off if she were an accountant or a bus driver or an engineer, but it would be a loss for us and a loss for chess in general. Besides, she and many other women DO compete for overall (combined mens and womens) titles, so its not as if having a womens pro circuit is diminishing opportunities.