The lichess article at https://lichess.org/blog/X9i1gRUAAJzOKpd0/invisible-pieces-women-in-chess presents some counter arguments to that sort of "biological essentialism" taht you can read for yourself there.
Nah, I've seen FIDE data for male vs female graph... they almost perfectly overlap. The only difference is the 1% of 1% of 1% of males are super GMs. If we had 100 million little girls playing, some of them would become super GMs... Polgars are decent evidence for that I think.
How does having a female only title encourage more women to play within a sexist sub-culture?
And is it necessary that this title is easier to obtain than unisex titles?
It means that more of them are recognised and can serve as role models for what can be achieved. It's an achievement that more of them can aspire to, as opposed to only having Judit Polgar. It's a recognition that women need support from the leading organisation of the game.
What are your thoughts on the women's points about the power dynamics in chess? Or about their experience of abuse in chess related contexts? The YouTube video has timestamps where you can jump to the relevant sections, but I highly recommend listening to the whole conversation rather than jumping to stuff possibly out of context.
I dont know enough about the power dynamics to comment, but for the sake of this discussion I'm more than happy to agree that chess culture, even in the West, is sexist and toxic towards women and this prevents many women from playing.
Is the case for female only easier-to-get titles, then, that this toxic culture can only change with a greater number of women playing chess, and this can happen, in part, if there are more women with titles, and to get more women with titles we should make titles that are easier to get? Do I have that correct?
If so, why not have even more and even easier titles? And should the same rationale apply to other groups which face toxic chess culture?
Eh there isn't a single women in the current top 100 chess players
If that doesn't mean men are naturally better at chess then I don't know
It's easy to explain via rarity... if you want a 1-in-a-million talent, and there are 1 million people who join, you got about a 63% chance. (Roughly 1 - 1/e where e is Euler's number).
With much fewer female players, we expect there to be few to none super talents.
Removed a full page of spamming you need some time off after all that spamming in puzzles (MOD) don't ever do that again.
WHY WONT ANYONE LISTEN TO ME! IM SO HOT! JUST LOOK AT MY PROFILE PICK!
Bro, don't worry, I saw it and read your name. My grandma has a salt lamp like that, so I get it.
The thing is, it's not NEARLY as funny to anyone over the age of 12.
ill lick your salt lamp for a dollar
I'm gonna charge you more than a dollar.
ill lick your salt lamp for a dollar
I'm gonna charge you more than a dollar.
I only have a dollar
ill lick your salt lamp for a dollar
I'm gonna charge you more than a dollar.
I only have a dollar
Then no licks for you!
Yes i love women i get them all
Actually women only love men who lick salt lamps and are hot like me
Interesting how this thread kind of supports the idea of a toxic chess culture ...
Ok, just saw this.
What do you mean 10 year old girls aren't seeing the rating difference... have you even been to a tournament? Have you ever tried to improve? Rating and titles are a big deal to serious players. You don't think a girl would notice she gets a title sooner than all her male peers? You don't think absolutely everyone can see her name on the pairing chart with WCM by it while all everyone else in the section is untitled?
I wouldn't be disgusted by the W titles if I thought women were inferior... it's because I believe they're absolutely equal to males that I find it so offensive... "they're seeing a game that values them." Well I'm seeing a game that de-values them. What else could easier titles possibly mean?
You want to have female-only events because a 10 to 1 ratio and bad behavior makes females uncomfortable? Sure. They get their own prizes too. They get more famous on youtube, they get on magazine covers easier. All of that is fine. All of that can make a young player interested and tell them they're valued, but these fking velvet glove sexist titles are completely ridiculous, and I don't know why people defend them.
Wasssup yall im bored af so im here
Highly debatable.