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

I prefer to say,"Not even wrong" instead of "thats incorrect"; but I reserve it for statements of true stupidity. mr.Ruy,if someone doesn't provide reasons for a statement...it doesn't weaken their argument, because without reasons, it isn't an argument at all ,its just an opinion. Also ,I think you are putting the cart before the horse, when you say "prove me wrong" to someone who disagrees with you .The burden of proof always lies with the claimant, not the listener. There is nothing wrong with listening to a series of bloviations and simply refusing to accept any of them without stating one's objections. Its up to the person stating some idea to convince others that its correct, or at least worth consideration, if one is unconvinced then its perfectly fine to respond with a big NOPE! This is doubly so if the idea is clearly flawed, or it becomes obvious that the discussion isn't an honest one and an obvious agenda is involved.

However THIS thread is about as honest a discussion of women's participation in chess as a discussion of civil rights at a Klan meeting---alot of smoke , mirrors and hand-waving to give a veneer of respectability, but in reality the same old, tired, gender tropes that have been kicking around for generations. I half expect Nigel Short to be outed as a contributor.

Can I ask who you are replying to?

Delightful, my last post is directed at the large number of toxic posters, like mr.Ruy. There have been a few constructive posters , but they are very much a minority here . On the first page of this thread, Jalex13 posted " not this again.",and with good reason. I knew this thread was a trash-panda's dream dinner the moment I saw the title;even the thread title itself is begging the question, a dead give away that the thread's going to be a radioactive ,toxic stew. Every page after the first has multiple inflammatory gender statements. Judit Polgar is mention exactly four times in nine pages, without any real examination of her accomplishments, once it is clear that her inclusion in the thread means that the "arguments" have to be reframed, the goal posts get moved and she is dismissed. The reality is, she was the worlds youngest GM when she earned her open title, beating the record set by Fischer, and qualified for the World Zonal at 17. She was a member of the "Super GM Pool", and one of the greatest chess players of her generation.The question of gender and chess is an extremely complex,cross-disciplinary topic worthy of multiple dissertations; what we get in this thread is mostly incel tripe and the occassional wafer-thin,super-shallow examination.Here and there there are some solid observations,mainly as push back against the dumpster-fire that are most postings.As for you,Delightful,some of what you have posted I accept and I don't doubt you are earnest ,other posts are on thin ice.Most of this thread is just the same, generations-old, bigoted misogyny that have been rolled out by traditionalist everytime they feel the threat of encroaching social equity.

Normally I post far more memes than I do exposition.

Fair enough.

Maybe it's best to ignore troll posts entirely, and just engage with posters like myself in such threads. It's a subject worth discussing and even when there's disagreement it can be had in a polite intelligent manner.

What do you mean by incel tripe?

You are completly wrong in every way imagineable. You write in a demeaning and arrogant way and yet you are very wrong. Everything you said is completly irrelevant because it doesnt tackle the original arguments. No matter how correct or incorrect the things you say are, its irrelevant because you do not understand the original argument. If someone is talking about cats, no matter how knowledgeable you are about dogs, it doesnt matter. So now let me explain the argument. The argument is that the exclusively female titles are unfair. Why is it unfair? Because the requirements for female titles are lower then the general titles which are the only ones that men can have. Thats why it can be said that its easier to get a title as a woman. WE ARE NOT COMPARING THE TITLES. The problem is that you could theoretically get a title as 2000 rated woman but not 2000 rated man. So its easier to feel honored and appreciated through a title as a woman then it is as a man. Thats why female titles are mensogynistic. Once again we are all very much aware that the value of titles depending on if female titles exist or not doesnt change but the fact that your gender can determine if you are a titled player or not is the core of the argument that you have completly missed while acting all high and mighty, arrogant and disrespectful towards the other person.

I usually ignore any discussion that strikes me as intellectually dishonest,there are few hills worth making a last stand on.Disagreement is no barrier to a disscussion;there is,after all only three outcomes to a discussion: I know for sure,I'm unsure,I don't know--the reality is most explorations of a topic will fall into the last catagory--- we can't arrive at a conclusion because we don't have enough info,so we table the discussion until we have more.If during the year,you are not doubting various positions you have staked out,then something is amiss.

As for incel tripe---this is a catch-all term for misognynistic opinions masquerading as factual observations,such as:

its hard for them (women )to get respect

its easier for females to get titles (open titles?)

give them(women) an oven mitt and a mop

female titles promote mediocrity

men are naturally better at chess. ( repeated, in various forms, ad nauseum)

no one respects women's titles

various vague "biology is destiny" comments

and the best...It's so unfair to men ,pity party

You get the jist.

You can literally feel the injured self-righteousness of some of the posters.

o7

Fair enough. But if you think it best to ignore a discussion then it's only fair to not post memes etc to distract from those who do wish to try and engage in the discussion.

I understand the idea of statements being misogynistic, but that's not exactly equivalent to incel-ish. Not all incels are sexist. Probably better to just say misogynistic when that's what is meant.

Fair enough,I suspect that it will be very hard to find an incel who isnt sexist since it is a form of extermist gender-bias, and I might be mistaken but I think the academic definition will label it as inherently sexist,but there might be a very small subset that insn't.My memes are about the thread at that point in time that the meme was posted,as they say,it's worth a 1,000 words,so saving many keyboard strokes.

I've spoken to many incels who weren't sexist. I think it a group of people people is somewhat unfairly demonised with the worst members of that group being held up as representative of all of them. Many incels are just lonely men with no particular animus against women. Remember, it just means someone who wants to have a sexual relationship but can't get one. That's all.

But anyway, that's a side issue.

You are right in a sense that the most vocal and violent incels proples the popular image.but you are less describing an incel but rather someone who wishes to be in a relationship but has had no success.I don't think there has been much clinical work regarding incels until recently.What study has been done shows that they are much like the general population except in a few critical areas,which do not bode well: a sense of being ethically/morally superior,seeing themselves as victims/sense of oppression,and a very real lack of empathy when compared to the norm.Those traits are very close to traits that sociopaths exhibit,so its easy to see entitlement oozing out.Again this applies to the group as a whole not necessairily to individuals.I don't really know that much about them.

o7

But surely those studies only looked at certain groups.of incels. Not just at random people who were incels, but not part of any online group. It would obviously skew the research if that is so. There's a fair few people who choose the term incel or femcel for themselves, but don't have ideological framework.

For example, many men who comment under black pill YT videos don't have any odd views about women. They're just lonely, unattatractive, often traumatised men.

There is published material,but because of the newness of the field, there isn't alot. Articles can even be found in scientific periodicals for the lay-person.To be clear,what research has been done,and it's a new field,points to alot of misconceptions about incels,however,there is general agreement that ,as a group,they have psychological attributes that are problematic---sense of being oppressed and of victimhood,lack of empathy, oversized need for recognition, and for lack of a better label, a sense of superiority.In other respects,they generally reflect the cross section of the society they inhabit.This is like any other large scale study of a group,individuals differ but the group,as a whole is charactorized by certain things when compared to society as a whole.

But incels aren't really a group, if we take incel just to mean men who want a relationship but can't get one. That's the issue. The term is applies to both certain collectives of men online, and to also to men who want a relationship and can't get one. That's a huge number of men with little else in common. For example, of the hundreds of incels I've spoken to online, hardly any had ever been part of an incel group or website etc.

This seems a distraction from the main topic, though. If someone starts a thread on incels I might participate having had some experience with them.

idk

i still dont know

i want achievem

1

lol

lol