do you also think it´s unfair that women get titled easier?

so you think men are inherently better at chess? 

Yeah, Olympics are different because men obviously have more muscle mass.

In IQ tests, for example, the average for men is the same as women, so no need for separate chess titles.

 

They are not given, they are earned.

 

Jk on on that last post lol, just a joke

But seriously here's the thing: it's a different title. So the comparison still doesn't make sense. An IM title didn't become less prestigious when the WIM title was introduced. The titles are different, the requirements are different, the benefits are different. Not sure about the price tho. But a woman can still get the FM, IM and GM titles if she meets the requirements. 

Regarding the allegedly unfairness of it, it's an opinion and you're entitled to one, though I disagree. The world is not black and white, it's very complex. Fairness is subjective when you consider the context and trajectory of what is going on. There are pros and cons to everything, which means the world is not fair(y tale) and it's about time people understand that. Is it unfair to women if it gives them more opportunity to play and make money and get recognition? Is it unfair to men that they don't have a title with a W in it when you take into consideration the social expectations and opportunities, among other factors that, all else equal, make it easier for them to develop their chess when compared to women? I personally would not want to have a title that says woman because it makes no sense, and I understand the reason behind it. You or the OP might feel you deserve a WFM title, but in the real world practical decisions have to be made and you won't get one unless you change your gender. Which is why I say that it makes no sense comparing different titles. Simply because they are different.

If you have a pool of, say, 100 players, 97 being men and 3 women, the odds suggest that the top players are all men. And I'm not even going to get into all the prejudice part of it. Not to mention social expectations and gender-related opportunities because it has been over debated in many other topics and this post is already getting long enough.  As many people, including me, have mentioned it's just a means fide found to try and incentivize more women to play chess. 

I am going to recycle this example that was used in another one of this repetitive threads: WFM Julia Alboredo (2250+) who won the Women's Section of the Floripa Chess Open in Brazil that had some 150 players in a 10 round swiss. She drew 2 GMs, one them she blundered a winning position due to time. She only played men, scored 7/10 while the winner of open section scored 8.5. I think she finished in 25th or something tied with some GMs and IMs. Thanks to the tournament having a women's section she gets crowned a champion, and when a little girl sees the headline with her picture holding a trophy she doesn't care (probably doesn't even know) if it's a women's section or not. She sees herself represented and gets inspired and motivated.

Another argument I like that I remember seeing in one of the thousand times this topic was brought on is comparing it to baseball dividing it into major and minor leagues not because of differences in their genetics, but so that they have a breeding ground for talent.

 

Yes, for example by making "women" titles easier to get, it sends the messages that society expects less from females.

It sends the message “we’ve been screwing your over for ages, we’re trying to apologise and compensate to get it to wheee it should be” is what it says. It’s disingenuous to try and hide your misogyny under a claim of ‘fairness’

I'm sure that's the first thing 10 year old girls think "oh, this is correcting centuries of injustice" and not "women are 200 points weaker than men."

lol

Calling me a misogynist is not an argument.

If you want to make things better for women, then make it easy for guys (like the one in the article that was taking pictures of his female opponent) to be banned from tournaments and/or arrested... don't make up patronizing titles.

I’m just calling out your ‘arguments’ for the spirit in which they’re being made. 10 year old girls aren’t seeing the rating difference - they’re seeing a game that values them, and not the number that is attached to their results. They’re seeing a sport that isn’t assuming that they’ll be just fine because everything is supposed to be hunky dory for them now and that they should be thankful for the ‘advantages’ that they now supposedly have, although some think that unfair on the boys and it should be taken away from them. When there’s actual equality between men and women in the game, sure, do away with the gender specific titles then - but the game is nowhere even close to that point at the moment.

https://www.chess.com/article/view/hou-yifan-interview-chess

From the link given by @idilis

"Growing up, female players are told, "If you win the girls’ title, we’ll be really proud of you, and this is a great job!" It’s unlikely that any of them were told, "No, you should be fighting for the overall title!" Girls are told at an early age that there’s a kind of gender distinction, and they should just try their best in the girls' section and be happy with that. So without the motivation to chase higher goals, it’s harder for girls to improve as fast as boys as they grow up."

 

Female titles would make sense if women only played against other women, like in the olympics.
Then, a high rated woman would correlate to a player than is elite level in their player pool.
Since rating is relative to your competition, and women do compete against men, it's silly to have female specific titles. They are just easier titles that are handed out based on gender.
I see no reason to believe women are at a disadvantage in chess.

Also, from what you've said, I can tell you have no idea what the "spirit" of my arguments are.

Yeah.

If they want more women in the game, then it seems to make more sense to do things like:

1) Have more female-only tournaments and/or
2) Ban men who behave in fking gross ways.

Banning people for misbehavior requires proof to avoid hearsay and/or fabrication.  Unsure if people want casual play turned into a closely monitored event.  Also it takes different levels of different stimuli to trigger different people depending on their individual conditioning. So coming up with a common definition of misbehavior might also be a problem.

All I'm saying is this.  Just give me a title and I won't care who else has one.  Ok maybe not what I'm saying, but just what I'm thinking...

The nice thing about modern tech is we can have cameras everywhere. One of those articles talked about inappropriate touching and taking pictures. Guys caught doing that should be kicked out.

Consider it from the perspective of a chess organization (like FIDE or USCF). You need profits to survive and thrive.

And female participation perpetually lags behind that of males. A large percentage of women just don't care to play chess.

So what to do?

Solution: offer female-specific events and incentives. Promote the events. Advertise the incentives.

Outcome: an increase in female participation and enrollment.

A win for the organizations involved. And a win for the new female players who discover a love of chess.

     Women need to fulfill the exact same requirements as men to get FM, IM and GM titles. Due to a long historic bias against women in chess, and their exclusion from top competitions--a situation that has disappeared in much of the world in the last 25 years--FIDE long ago created separate titles for women. They continue to exist for two reasons: because there are still many places (Iran, Saudi Arabia, many more) where mixed-gender competition is strictly illegal; and to encourage more women to play chess, particularly in the great number of societies where women are treated as second-class citizens.

 

If that is what you absorbed from everything I wrote then you're a lost case. Maybe I was wrong and it wasn't dishonesty in your part, maybe it was just lack of competence to interpret basic english as you seem to ignore everything else I said that supports that statement you quoted and that goes directly against what you wrote.

 

Also, from what you've said, I can tell you have no idea what the "spirit" of my arguments are.