do you also think it´s unfair that women get titled easier?
Sort:
No, because they just generally aren’t allowed to compete with men, they should have their own level. Also, women just don’t have the higher average elo when it comes to the pros
SerynasGambit wrote:
And if you are going to use my name I ask you please spell it correctly.
Sorry...😔
Apr 18, 2023
0
#143
Misogyny strong, in this thread is.
(...if not, then this thread would have died, covered in dust and cobwebs, after only a handful of responses, a long time ago.)
Baby
Apr 18, 2023
0
#145
It's natural (and sensible) to be cautious with cases of prima facie institutional discrimination (whether positive or not).
I'm glad that a number of my queries regarding this particular case of positive discrimination, female titles in chess, have been carefully responded to, and now I feel that I much better appreciate the reason these titles came into existence. Indeed, I find myself convinced that it was a sincerely well-meant reason that lay behind the creation of these female only titles. I enjoy getting sensible answers to my questions 
I also see why they may still have a place in the global chess community as there are many cultures where mixed sex chess games are prohibited or restricted, and there's still a sexist toxicity issue within chess culture even within less-prohibitive Western cultures. There's also, it seems, good reason behind them having had less strict requirements.
My only remaining points of query and confusion, are:
a) why they still require lesser criteria in the West? Couldn't players from nations where mixed sex play is acceptable be required to meet the same requirements as men, whilst also having access to these female only titles? And wouldn't this better avoid potential backlash and fair claims to a bigotry of low expectations and thus better combat sexism within chess culture?
b) why are there not similar group-specific titles for other marginalised groups for similar reasons (say, based on ethnicity, ability, wealth, and sexuality)?
Apr 18, 2023
0
#146
...and the beat goes on.
The drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain.
La-di-da-di-di
La-di-da-di-da.
AL0NSH0W wrote:
It's completely unfair and discriminatory. There are titles for women, but not for blacks, LGTBQIAXJK+ or any other minority. Until we have Black GMs, Gay GMs and Non-binary GMs there won't be real equality or justice.
Your a woman right? Cause like your totally a woman so you know how it feels for us in the chess industry.
Elubas wrote:
SerynasGambit wrote:
Elubas wrote:
llama36 wrote:
Gilbooooo wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
Society doesn't take women seriously in general, but it cuts both ways. It's easier for them to be mediocre, but harder for them to be great.
For example in chess it's easier for them to get some recognition, but it's harder for them to get respect.
it´s not harder for them to get respect. what do you think who is respected more?
Hou Yifan (2650) or Vladimir Malakov (2652)
Yifan isn't respect for her chess, she's "respected" because of her gender, which isn't respect at all.
Or she may get more respect by virtue of a halo effect. I think they have done studies like that, and it just seems plausible that if you put a man and a woman in front of people, have them perform some kind of task, and they are both equally good at it, the average stranger (whether male or female) is going to perceive the woman as better at it, because they are perceiving the skill plus the intrigue of their being female, as well as also trying to look out for them in some subconscious way, which will give them more positive associations with what the woman is doing compared to the man doing the same thing.
Heck, even if the woman were slightly worse at it than the man, most people probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and their attitudes towards women would be the deciding factor, and they would probably think she was more skilled and cheer her on as an inspiration for women or something.
This is because we are very sensitive to women showcasing their skills, in that we keenly take notice very quickly when they are performing something that requires skill. With men, their displays of skill have more of a tendency to blend into the background in our minds, and they perk us up less.
15% of grandmasters are women. Its unbelievable how much women have officially quit---and almost quit due to the negative response from men.
But your point is valid. Sometimes people tend to focus more on the female players due to the male players because of their past history.
"15% of grandmasters are women. Its unbelievable how much women have officially quit---and almost quit due to the negative response from men."
I'm sceptical of that. It's hard to imagine loving something, and then because some people give you negative responses, you decide not to play that game anymore. Imagine that you were in the middle of discovering an amazing opening novelty that would even make Kasparov proud, but, you just stop wanting to do it because you got some negative responses from people? You don't need to speak to them to discover that opening novelty, you know. Chess pieces don't talk.
It's one thing to say that you get negative experiences. It's another to say that you would give up something you love doing just to avoid those negative experiences. I suspect that there were many more factors at play than just the negative experiences, if you ask these women why they quit. Pay attention to those factors, too. Try to isolate the variables.
"But your point is valid. Sometimes people tend to focus more on the female players due to the male players because of their past history."
I don't think "past history" is the main reason. It's a more general psychological thing. Even something as banal and seemingly boring as the sight of a woman reading a book can often be intriguing to a man, for example. Evolutionarily, men have an outgroup preference regarding gender, and evolutionarily, women have an ingroup preference regarding gender, so both genders end up perceiving women more positively for the same thing.
Again, think of the Halo Effect, of which I assume you're aware. It's when, because of a general positive opinion of a person, they get perceived as having certain positive qualities that they don't have (or have to a lesser extent than is perceived), or vice versa. The Halo Effect is often what is at play when perceiving a woman doing the same thing that a man is doing: the general opinion they have of the woman is manifesting in specific characteristics of which they perceive, that they wouldn't attribute as readily, if at all, to a man doing the same thing.
Let's assume that we are talking about the average man versus the average woman to help isolate the variables at play. In those cases there is a significant Halo Effect that women have on people.
Negative responses as in, assault, or getting messages from people you don't want to intervene with. That is something I have had to go through.
Hello
Hi
women arent as smart or as good as men, so they get it easier.
calling me a misogynist?
who other than people like judit polgar and and a few others have gotten past 2550?
I need to chat
2
3
4
5
prove me wrong